Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 By definition, non-duality means that all philosophies are of the same stuff. To imply that one philosophy works and another doesn't is duality. Peace in The Oneness, Yoshe >"Durga" <durgaji108 > >advaitin >advaitin > Re: Weekly Definition - jIva >Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:18:35 -0000 > >advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote: > > > Maybe one word of thought. Advaita seems to enjoy a safety cushion, in > > holding to the paramaarthika standpoint as Reality and the > > vyavahaarika as ultimately ignorance, superimposition, etc. This means > > that the Advaitin can bypass certain unknowns at the mind/objective > > level, as the particular details there do not affect his/her ultimate > > assessment of Truth. There may be an acceptance of certain scripture > > or reason, but the particular vyavahaarika version ultimately does not > > matter. > > > > For practical purpose, this is ideal. This also helps to unify a > > variety of subthoughts under one banner. But I sometimes do wonder: am > > I avoiding serious questions just to stick to this philosophy? What if > > the other person's version of vyavahaarika was true? Would I still > > approach this in the same manner? > > > > thollmelukaalkizhu > >Namaste, > >I have sometimes wondered about this question, that is, >if other systems of philosophy are also true. > >The conclusion I have come to after being >exposed to many different systems which >purport to explain the true nature of the universe >is that Vedanta, in my experience, is the only >view which has made sense to me so far. > >Because of that I have resolved to pursue >this study to the end, to explore what >Vedanta has to offer totally. If at some >point, I then feel inclined to look at >other systems, I will. But I would >prefer to understand this one first >as completely as possible (which is probably >at least one lifetime's undertaking) rather than risk >what I feel would be almost certain confusion >by trying to reconcile what Vedanta has to say >with what other systems offer. > >I am not sure if I understand what you are >saying about bypassing certain unknowns at the >mind/objective level, due to holding the >paramaarthika standpoint as Reality and the >vyavahaarika as ultimately ignorance, but >if I do understand what you are saying, >I think that you have a valid point here, >and it is something which I feel I have >occasionally witnessed. > >Many who study the teachings of nonduality (especially >westerners IMO) seem to want to `go directly to the >head of the class,' as it were, dismissing the creation >as `unreal' and therefore perhaps using that >dismissal as a convenient excuse not to investigate >various aspects of themselves which might be helpful >for their own sadhana, and for gaining antahkarana >suddhi, and subsequent jnana nishta. > >However, IMO, if one has a good teacher who >understands the importance of Ishwara and >can show the student that understanding >the orders which apply to vyavaharika is very important, >in order that Knowledge be fully integrated, that as Swami >Dayananda says, 'a light has to shine on it all,' >(meaning a light needs to shine on all of >those parts of the mind which hold incorrect >conclusions against the Vastu in order that >true understanding is fully integrated), >then I do not think there is such a >danger of what might be called 'spiritual >bypassing,' that is bypassing that which >is occurring at the level of vyvahaarika >and needs to be addressed before total >integration of Knowledge can occur. > >IMO if one finds such a teacher, who can guide >one not only to recognize Reality and to see >the mithytvam of vyavaharika, but also to >resolve (as in to see) that all parts of the individual >body/mind and psyche are part of Ishwara's >divine order then one is extremely lucky. > >And that IMO is the true 'safety cushion' which Vedanta >offers. It supports total understanding of all levels >reality fully. It provides as it were a 'container' >for all aspects of the individual within which >self-knowledge can blossom and grow. And from what >I have been privileged to observe it produces 'mature' >jnanis. > >Pranams, >Durga > > _______________ Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into something more. http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_gratitude&FORM=WLMTAG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 advaitin, "doug revelle" <mdrdsr41 wrote: > > By definition, non-duality means that all philosophies are of the same > stuff. To imply that one philosophy works and another doesn't is duality. > Peace in The Oneness, > Yoshe > By definition, your email is trying to "teach" non-duality so the earlier email is being negated or criticized. It is against Oneness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Namaste: Let me take this opportunity to share my thoughts. When thought arises in our mind on what others' think, it confirms that we are in vyavahaarika. When any of us know how everyone thinks and acts in this universe then that confirms that the person is in paramaarthika. Or alternately if any of our thoughts focus only on the parabrahman (total surrender of all thoughts) that also confirms the movement from the vyavahaarika to the paramaarthika level of reality. Everyone's version of vyavahaarika is true within the limitation of his/her vision, environment and understanding. Our own vision of events that happened yesterday and today are also true within the point of reference. Everything that happens during the dream is also true while dreaming but that becomes an illusion when we wake up! The Vedantic philosophy has been synthesized by raising questions and trying to find the answer that is most consistent. Only the contemplating mind on a "Single Thought (desire)" can get liberated from all thoughts (desires)! I have the following questions to Sri Yoshe contemplation: (1) What is nonduality? (2)Does the single word 'nonduality' imply nonduality? With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote: > > > For practical purpose, this is ideal. This also helps to unify a > variety of subthoughts under one banner. But I sometimes do wonder: am > I avoiding serious questions just to stick to this philosophy? What if > the other person's version of vyavahaarika was true? Would I still > approach this in the same manner? advaitin, "doug revelle" <mdrdsr41 wrote: > > By definition, non-duality means that all philosophies are of the same > stuff. To imply that one philosophy works and another doesn't is duality. > Peace in The Oneness, > Yoshe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Namaste, > > advaitin, "doug revelle" <mdrdsr41@> wrote: > > > > By definition, non-duality means that all philosophies are of the same > > stuff. To imply that one philosophy works and another doesn't is > duality. > > Peace in The Oneness, > > Yoshe > > > advaitin, "mahadevadvaita" <mahadevadvaita wrote: > > > By definition, your email is trying to "teach" non-duality so the > earlier email is being negated or criticized. It is against Oneness > Advaita does not mean all philosophies are true. It is actually the END of all philosopies ) Namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.