Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 advaitin , " fewtch " <core101 wrote: > > advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada@> wrote: > > > > Mr Fewtch - PraNAms. > > > > Sir - I suggest that you first study Vedanta before > > making wild statements about Vedanta. Who said Brahman > > is a concept. > > Sri Sadananda, all words are concepts. > > > Brahman means infiniteness. > > Words that have meaning are concepts. Is this not clear? By the way, sir, I'm not disrespecting Advaita Vedanta - As an set of nondual teachings, I'm very fond of it actually, and I only used the term " weakness " to grab attention. But the truth is that language/concept is inherently dualistic. Even words uttered by Sri Raman Maharshi became dualistic as they exited his mouth. The best that can be done is loose conceptual pointers to the Reality. That's why I " thought twice " before joining here -- my interest isn't book-learning, but living the truth. If true, Vedanta is operating with or without a pile of clutter in the mind. But spiritual book learning is OK, of course -- just nothing different than learning about aircraft, or quantum theory, or whatever. Peace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 advaitin , " fewtch " <core101 wrote: > > > But the truth is that language/concept is inherently dualistic. Even > words uttered by Sri Raman Maharshi became dualistic as they exited > his mouth. The best that can be done is loose conceptual pointers to > the Reality. > > That's why I " thought twice " before joining here -- my interest isn't > book-learning, but living the truth. If true, Vedanta is operating > with or without a pile of clutter in the mind. > > But spiritual book learning is OK, of course -- just nothing > different than learning about aircraft, or quantum theory, or > whatever. > > Peace... Dear Fewtch, You are correct that the meaning of all words is dualistic by nature, uttered as they are within duality. However, there is something which you may not be aware of if you have never studied Vedanta with a living teacher of same, which is the way that Vedanta works as a means of self-knowledge. Vedanta works as a 'pramana.' What is that? What is a pramana? A pramana is a means of knowledge. In the realm of the senses, we can say, eyes are a pramana (a means of knowledge) for sight, ears for hearing, tongue for tasting, etc. The words of Vedanta have to be very carefully handled by a teacher in order that they act as a direct means of knowledge for the self. Thus whatever dualistic meaning the mind initially attaches to the words which Vedanta uses, have to first be 'knocked off,' as it were, from the word. This is most particularly true when the word is used to point to the nature of myself, a word such as 'brahman,' a word such as 'atman,' even words such as 'limitless,' 'eternal,' etc., have to have their initial and dualistic meaning knocked off before they can be used as a successful pointer to that which I am, i.e. the self. This is why the practice of neti, neti is first of all useful, to strip away from the words used to describe myself, all of the things which the mind may incorrectly have attached to those words. Once this has been successfully done, the word can then be used as a direct pointer to my self, because I (the self) am here to be pointed out, not as an object, not as a concept, but as the bottom line constant reality of every experience. Sri Saiji earlier posed the question, " Is a teacher really necessary in order to get what Vedanta has to offer? " And I would say emphatically, 'Yes,' because Vedanta is a direct means of knowledge for self-knowledge, which uses words, (a shabda pramana) to directly point to the nature of the self, which words when correctly handled by the teacher do allow for the direct recognition of That which I am. Therefore, you are entirely correct IMO when you say that a word such as 'brahman' will have only a conceptual meaning, but I would expand that statement to say that a word such as 'brahman' *initially* will carry a conceptual meaning, but the job of the teacher is to use words, in order to knock off from those words which do describe myself, any dualistic and conceptual meaning. And then a word such as 'brahman, (or it could be another word such as 'me'), all of a sudden works as a direct pointer in order that the mind clearly recognizes " Oh, indeed I am that brahman of which the Upanishads speak, and all of the words such as limitless, and fullness, and timeless, and changeless do in fact describe me. " So the use of words as a means of knowledge is fundamental to the teachings of Vedanta. But IMO it is necessary to have studied the teachings with a teacher who knows how to use the words in this way, and to have experienced the efficacy of the methodology, in order to understand why and how Vedanta works as a 'shabda pramana' a means of self-knowledge which uses words. Pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 advaitin , " fewtch " <core101 wrote: > > That's why I " thought twice " before joining here -- my interest isn't > book-learning, but living the truth. If true, Vedanta is operating > with or without a pile of clutter in the mind. > > But spiritual book learning is OK, of course -- just nothing > different than learning about aircraft, or quantum theory, or > whatever. > > Peace... Namaste F, Brahman the word and the idea are a concept. God is a concept. Brahman the concept is divided into two concepts Saguna and Nirguna. The ultimate truth according to Ramana Maharshi is Ajativada or non creation, everything is an illusion. Even the appearance is an illusion for appearance infers mind and that is another illusion. In fact nothing ever happened at all.......the negative Nir Guna...Hu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Hi Fewtch, Could you explain what you mean by 'living the truth'? ( " That's why I " thought twice " before joining here -- my interest isn't book-learning, but living the truth.) If you believe that the truth is non-dual, is this not a contradiction in terms? Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of fewtch 24 January 2008 18:41 advaitin Re: Weakness...? (final spouting today) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Hi Fewtch, > > > > Could you explain what you mean by 'living the truth'? On the *absolute* basis that no claim to " Realization " is made or wanted, and noting this is cursory: I got involved in 'Nondualism' (mailing list participation with range of practitioners from beginning to highly advanced, self guided meditation, reading a broad/indepth range of works from Vedanta to Buddhism to Ramana to Nisargadatta to U.G. Krishnamurti, etc) around 1999 - having been out of work since '92 (long story), I had almost 24/7 to devote to it. The active participation continued until '03, when I decided if Advaita was " real " it would operate in my life - so I dropped the whole ball of wax. Poof. To my disappointment it did not operate, it just went away. But quite puzzlingly, so did other seekings. I fought this a bit, as it was more than puzzling -- was it depression? My horizons kept narrowing and my life got stunningly simple. Food, clothing, shelter and a little cursory entertainment. Chop wood, carry water. Lately Advaita got interesting again, as if I can't help but talk from a sense of deep clarity. The parroted nonsense from 2000 years ago is gone, I speak from the heart Here/Now. Peace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 advaitin , " hupa_ramdas " <hupa_ram> wrote: > >> Brahman the word and the idea are a concept. God is a concept. > Brahman the concept is divided into two concepts Saguna and Nirguna. > The ultimate truth according to Ramana Maharshi is Ajativada or non > creation, everything is an illusion. Even the appearance is an > illusion for appearance infers mind and that is another illusion. In > fact nothing ever happened at all.......the negative Nir Guna...Hu Most Vedantic teachers do not negate the world - rather, it is called appearance rather than existence. It " exists " as if a movie on-screen, at least until the film strip is empty. Pick whatever word you like, illusion, appearance, dream, whatever. Peace... 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.