HOW FAR DOES VEDANTASPEAK TAKE US? - A DEBATE.

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all respected members,

Sri Ramesemji has concluded

<<<<Compare it with the developments in science and what it can do in the

coming five millennia. The possibilities are truly mind-boggling. >>>>>

I remember, Swami Chinmayanandaji stating that human beings were uncomfortably

uncomfortable before all scientific developments and invention of gadgets to

make life easier and comfortable, and now with all these available man is

comfortably uncomfortable. What is the reason? The fundamental problems of human

beings continue and these problems can never be solved with any kind of

scientific discoveries, as these fundamental problems will continue to be there

so long as self ignorance continues.

Vedanta addresses the one who after experiencing the world in every manner

possible, is not satisfied or content and who has not been able to realise what

he has really been seeking.

While scientific developments help in improving the standard of living, vedanta

help in improving the standard of one's life.

Warm regards

Mani

 

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

>

>

> Namaste, all respected members,

> Sri Ramesemji has concluded

> <<<<Compare it with the developments in science and what it can

do in the

> coming five millennia. The possibilities are truly mind-boggling.

>>>>>

> I remember, Swami Chinmayanandaji stating that human beings were

uncomfortably uncomfortable before all scientific developments and

invention of gadgets to make life easier and comfortable, and now

with all these available man is comfortably uncomfortable. What is

the reason? The fundamental problems of human beings continue and

these problems can never be solved with any kind of scientific

discoveries, as these fundamental problems will continue to be there

so long as self ignorance continues.

 

hariH OM! mani-ji,

 

quite true. i think it should be obvious among vedantins.

 

i lived [90% of the time solitary] for 7 years on a virgin wooded

island in the ottawa river in quebec, canada, accessible only by boat

(except for winters where the river was impossible to reliably

cross). and i had only the barest essentials. for 5 yrs all i had

was a radio and portable cassette player, and the last 3 a tv, which

i'd watch for maybe an hour a day. but that was it. i was never so

content and yet remarkably challenged in the lower mind, which indeed

was conditioned by societal living. more. i was swept by and into

the full-throttle magic of Natura, where i wrote hundreds of poems

and songs...where only a few remotely approached describing the

incomprehensible unapprehendable ineffable, etc etc wonder of what it

is, and through *there*, what it means to be alive on earth the way

it was meant for us to be, or at least for me to be. that's from my

point of view strictly. i have no problem with people having and

enjoying high tech stuff, as long as they dont allow their [let's

call it] frontal awareness of reality (the Self) to become trapped by

it, which unfortunately is rarely not the case..

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

RAMESAM'S RESPONSE (# 1):

 

Respected Sirs,

 

First a big bow to Dr. D. Waite. He was the raison d'être behind

this post.

 

I am indebted to all the discussants for their interesting and

valuable comments and observations.

 

In my posting,

A Musician found a melody to praise.

A Physician found a malady to cure.

Other kind-hearted friends offered benevolent advice,

Or pointed out what potentially could be a bigger vice.

 

My short and quick responses to the individual posts:

 

1. Question on progress, war and destruction:

 

As long as the second law of thermodynamics is operative (has been

for at least 13.7 billion years!), one cannot regress. If you recall

history, war, however mighty it might have looked at that time, did

not end the world. When tensions are alleviated thro' say, oxytocin

sprays (as suggested in the main post), there will be little scope

for wars.

 

But more importantly, what is lurking behind this question, unspelt

and unexpressed? It is *fear* and fear of death. So one should

really look into what is fear, what is death and who or what actually

ends in death.

 

2. World as `maya' and mahavakya etc.:

 

Illusion: The oft-quoted metaphors in Vedanta to compare the reality

of phenomenal world are water in a mirage, silver in nacre and snake

in a rope. (Some interpret this as the perspective viewed from

Brahman stand-point and the world looks real from the worldly

perspective. These are all convenient interpretations. Every one

knows about the intricacies involved and hence one need not go in to

all that here.

We may only say here that if there is only ONE, it is artificial to

talk of two views).

 

Mahavakya: The Upanishads themselves never upfront stated anything in

them to be a mahavakya, like preambles to a law or statement which

will follow later. The said sentences occur as part of some

conversation or explanation. Who made them `maha' are the later

interpreters and analysts. Secondly, the specific vakya quoted does

not certify that the apparent world to be real. It points to the

substratum Brahman and not to the visible world. So there is no

violation of the vakya.

 

Ramana's Quote: I withhold my comment on the Ramana quote for the

present.

 

Theosophists: May I know if the reference to theosophists alludes to

the views of Bishop Leadbeater or is it any officially declared

statement or principle of their Society? The last para speaking of

dark forces, a psychic plane etc also sounds like theosophy. These

views are unfalsifiable and I am not sure if we need to discuss these.

 

Living like H.D. Thoreau: Living simple life does leave a lot of

opportunity to ponder over many issues, being free from deadline

driven externally imposed conditioned life. Further, a changed

routine, environment and atmosphere inspire and open up new avenues

of perception. We may not apportion any blame to an existing life-

style.

 

 

3. Academic pursuit:

 

If the various in-depth discussions are an intellectual pursuit

with an academic interest, they have their own value. I do not have

any competency or qualification to contribute to them. If, however,

the propelling reason is a burning desire to find out Truth, it is a

different ball game altogether.

 

Other preachers: Some have a gift of gab and make a living out of

it.

As far as educating the young is concerned, every expert from

sex education to astrobiology to biotechnology to economics to yoga

want " to catch them young " and teach their own subject to the kids.

The little ones end up carrying quintals of visible load on their

tender backs. Adding invisible load to the brain is no more

advisable, if you do not mind my saying so.

 

4. Individual suffering, empathy, cause of misery, grace etc:

 

Explaining away the suffering of `other' person and empathy (mirror

neurons acting?), supplying reasons for suffering, searching for

grace and several concepts connected with such issues are, yes,

nothing but concepts. They are assumptions and hence cannot be more

than borrowed wisdom. Assumptions are the worst type of 'memes'

whcih we unknowingly calim owenership. They will undoubtedly provide

a `comfort-zone'. I would like to submit for your kind consideration

and examination if all such second-hand knowledge has not got a

veiling power obscuring the truth.

 

5. Science and gadgets:

 

A number of us are still carried away by the Cartesian dichotomy that

science deals with the physical and the scientific contribution is

only towards the materialistic world. This is not any more true.

Science does not now consider mind-matter as two separate entities.

It is a oneness, a continuity, as per majority of scientists are

viewing now. Perhaps, if a watershed decade can be pointed out to

indicate the ability of science to dwell onto the issues of mind, one

can say that it started with " The Decade of the Brain " studies in the

nineties promoted by the US congress. As one of our valued

colleagues remarked that vedic knowledge helps in understanding mind,

neuroscience is precisely concerned with that subject with the

additional advantage that the scientific findings will be available

to all.

 

Secondly, and very importantly, one should also state that when it

comes to very fundamental " Why " questions, neither Vedas (ever) nor

science (at present) have been able to provide an answer.

 

 

In general, let me please state that the illustration of suffering as

a Problem in the post was only incidental. The main point being made

was that no Vedanta could take away the suffering (experiencing

world). Even the so-called " Liberated person " did and do suffer

(experience the world)! We may come up with some circumlocutory

explanation (making more assumptions) to explain the suffering of

the " Liberated. " There is no way of knowing the validity of such

explanations.

 

The second point I was trying to make was that the `dream analogy'

for the visible world and its disappearance during deep sleep were

based on incomplete understanding of the natural brain processes at

the time the Vedantic concepts were developed.

 

 

Before closing, I will like to once again express my gratitude to the

discussants. I have the highest respect to all. My response here is

cryptic on purpose in order to save space on the web page. I might

sound a bit impudent, but disrespect is not my intention. We want to

discover first hand unbiased Truth. This can be done only by

questioning. The question can be irreverent though not impertient to

authority.

 

With best of regards,

ramesam

 

(P.S.: I propose to follow this structure of responding to the

reactions in batches. Please let me know if this format is

acceptable and convenient. Thanks and regrds.)

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

> RAMESAM'S RESPONSE (# 1):

>

>> 4. Individual suffering, empathy, cause of misery, grace etc:

>

> Explaining away the suffering of `other' person and empathy

(mirror

> neurons acting?), supplying reasons for suffering, searching for

> grace and several concepts connected with such issues are, yes,

> nothing but concepts. They are assumptions and hence cannot be

more

> than borrowed wisdom. Assumptions are the worst type of 'memes'

> whcih we unknowingly calim owenership. They will undoubtedly

provide

> a `comfort-zone'. I would like to submit for your kind

consideration

> and examination if all such second-hand knowledge has not got a

> veiling power obscuring the truth.

 

hsin: First, I would like to thank you for replying.

Sir, I have a question for you, that if you do not mind.

From your life experiences as a human and from your readings, do you

come to believe and accept that there is a Truth, a God,a Wisdom, a

final and ultimate answer to all problems, questioning and doubts?

Waiting for your answer before goining any further

in your debate.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

> 3. Academic pursuit:

>

> If the various in-depth discussions are an intellectual pursuit

> with an academic interest, they have their own value. I do not have

> any competency or qualification to contribute to them. If, however,

> the propelling reason is a burning desire to find out Truth, it is a

> different ball game altogether.

 

Sri Ramesamji,

 

What is that value of such academic interest, supposing it is not the

burning desire to find out Truth? Is it " truth " and not " Truth " that

makes you humble enough to recognize your incompetency in their regard?

 

As for this forum, you are dealing with a group of astikas: those who

**believe** in the validity of the Vedas and the goals that the Vedas

propose for the individual. They believe that their sages were

competent scientists in the realm of the mind and beyond the mind, in

spirit. And they believe that through the processes of yoga, etc.,

these sage-scientists did find out " Truth " . To be a competent judge of

this science of the spirit, they also believe that one must follow the

rules laid out by the sage-scientists, and not till then is one

competent to judge or understand its merits. That is why inspite of

being topclass experts in VedantaSpeak, they bow at the feet of those

who VedantaDo and aspire to become such themselves.

 

You may search for those who actively pursue this spiritual-science,

the PhD's of this ball-game who spend 10+ hours of their day, for

years together, working for this science, and come out saying " It is

futile. I wasted my life. " etc. As of now, all evidence from such real

pursuers of this science show a great degree of fulfillment, as also

the confirmation of the central assertions of the Vedas. It is a

science of the individual, you to find out about yourSelf; so ask such

people regarding their physical suffering rather than passing on your

belittling judgements.

 

So yes, we are Astikas to begin with and not arbitrarily neutral or

objective to accomodate this debate against VedantaSpeak, unless you

show competency in the science of VedantaDo.

 

-

 

And No, we are not carried away in Cartesian dichotomies but are not

interested in people incompetent in VedantaDo preaching about how to

merge the boundaries. Whether Vedic India was really that incompetent

in science or condemned science in a cartesian sense is an independent

question for you to research. But in modern societies where the

spiritual infrastructure is crippled, the merging has to be done at

the individual level by those who pursue VedantaDo in a ScienceSpeak

world.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

> 5. Science and gadgets:

>

> A number of us are still carried away by the Cartesian dichotomy that

> science deals with the physical and the scientific contribution is

> only towards the materialistic world.

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! ramesaam-ji,

 

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

> RAMESAM'S RESPONSE (# 1):

>

>

> 2. World as `maya' and mahavakya etc.:

>

> Illusion: The oft-quoted metaphors in Vedanta to compare the

reality

> of phenomenal world are water in a mirage, silver in nacre and

snake

> in a rope. (Some interpret this as the perspective viewed from

> Brahman stand-point and the world looks real from the worldly

> perspective. These are all convenient interpretations. Every one

> knows about the intricacies involved and hence one need not go in

to

> all that here.

> We may only say here that if there is only ONE, it is artificial to

> talk of two views).

>

> Mahavakya: The Upanishads themselves never upfront stated anything

in

> them to be a mahavakya, like preambles to a law or statement which

> will follow later. The said sentences occur as part of some

> conversation or explanation. Who made them `maha' are the later

> interpreters and analysts. Secondly, the specific vakya quoted

does

> not certify that the apparent world to be real. It points to the

> substratum Brahman and not to the visible world. So there is no

> violation of the vakya.

>

> Ramana's Quote: I withhold my comment on the Ramana quote for the

> present.

>

 

considering mahavakyas such as TAT TVAM ASI and OM TAT SAT.

 

the TAT or " that " refers to the substratum brahman. whereas " this, "

as found in " all this is brahman, " can only be interpreted as what is

immediate and apprehended by the senses. (you will see below that

ramana defines " this " the same way.)

 

the following is ramana's exact quote i was refering to. (i can

understand why you refrain from commenting; virtually no-one has

*ever* commented on this quote in the forum. i included 2 other

quotes to buttress the point (and there are many more!), but failed

to find the one which has a more elaborately detailed explanation.

someone posted it in our forum about a year ago. i'll see if i can

find it, because it should clear all doubts about his stance on the

subject.)

 

TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI - p269

 

Talk 159.

 

Visitor: Sri Aurobindo says the world is real and you and

the Vedantins say it is unreal. How can the world be unreal?

 

Bhagavan: The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal.

That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the

meaning of the Vedantic text: " All this is Brahman " ? They

only mean that the world is unreal as world, but it is real as

Self. If you regard the world as not-Self it is not real.

Everything, whether you call it world or maya or lila or sakti,

must be within the Self and not apart from it. There can be

no sakti apart from the sakta.

 

________________________

 

TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI - p41

 

Talk 33.

 

A visitor: " The Supreme Spirit (Brahman) is Real. The world (jagat)

is illusion, " is the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others

say, " The world is reality " . Which is true?

 

M.: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of

development and are spoken from different points of view. The

aspirant (abhyasi) starts with the definition, that which is real

exists always; then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is

changing. It cannot be real: `not this, not this!' The seeker

ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing

note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is

found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the Reality, the

world also is Real.

 

(fm note: the above, as i've been saying all along, establishes true

non-duality; otherwise an unreal world--with the puritanic definition

that [such] amounts to abject illusion on all conceivable levels--

earns a mutually exclusive parameter fixing mithya in

contradistinction to its substratum, brahman, creating an obvious

duality. i learned of this progression on the path through zen,

especially as illustrated in the 10 oxherding pictures. the singer

donovan must have studied zen also, based on lyrics in one of the

songs he wrote: " first there is a mountain, then there is no

mountain, then there is.. " )

 

_________________________

 

TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI - p516

 

Talk 516.

 

A question arose if the world is real or unreal, since it is claimed

to be both by the advaitins themselves. Sri Bhagavan said that it is

unreal if viewed as apart from the Self and real if viewed as the

Self.

 

_________________________

 

> Theosophists: May I know if the reference to theosophists alludes

to

> the views of Bishop Leadbeater or is it any officially declared

> statement or principle of their Society? The last para speaking of

> dark forces, a psychic plane etc also sounds like theosophy. These

> views are unfalsifiable and I am not sure if we need to discuss

these.

 

the theosophists i'm refering to, in order of psychic reliability

(analyzed according to my own psychic faculty), were alice bailey,

helena blavatsky, helena roerich, and rudolf steiner. i recognized

the suspect intentions and self-serving agenda of leadbeater after

reading 10 or 15 pages of one of his books on chakras.

 

the main thrust and benefit of theosophy is the study of esoteric

psychology applied to matters of cosmogony and anthropology,

including their origins and development, as well as how cultures

independently access what aldous huxley termed " the perennial

philosophy, " whereas theosophists call it " the ageless wisdom

teachings. " one of hp blavatsky's foremost axioms is: " there is no

religion higher than truth. " while, as we know truth can only ever

pertain to the relative world; nevertheless within its manifest

domain, the statement is an important one.

 

i rely on my own psychic faculty to asssess whether something is

right or wrong...it's not infallible, but i have a track record of

better than an overall 90%, especially when it comes to seeing into

the souls of people. this ability is also in tact within the medium

of the internet. see below for some of the things i foresaw.

 

re the psychic plane, even ramana spoke of how jnanis who did nothing

but dwelled in caves in silence, impressed the psychic plane of

humanity. i couldnt find the exact quote i remembered reading, but

the quote below conveys the basic principle.

 

 

DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN - p169

 

[...] If one jnani exists in the world, his influence will be felt by

or benefit all people in the world and not simply his immediate

disciples. All the people in the world are divided into his

disciples, bhaktas, those who are indifferent to him and those who

are even hostile to him... "

 

_____________________

 

some sample highlights of my psychic experiences

 

the following is an excerpt from an article i wrote about a year

ago...it was copy and pasted without revisions..

 

here are some examples, and i will include the approximate percentage

of how sure i felt that each would come true. i foresaw both shuttle

accidents (interestingly, after the second went into orbit, i found

it hard to believe it did so successfully, whereas of course upon its

attempted return, it disintegrated...in both instances i was 90%

confident; 2. i had a distinct prevision [in the form of a mental

image] of my late sister's then future 2nd husband approx 2 months

before she met him...i was 85% confident; 3. i foresaw the second

iraq war approx 6 months prior to the US forces invading...95%

confident; 4. the reason why the following event happened is too

lengthy to explain, but it's worth mentioning because of how detailed

and involved it was: i foresaw virtually EVERY play of the last

inning and a half (which included 10 or 11 batters) of the last game

of the world series between the yankees and the arizona

diamondbacks..i was 90% confident in the course of watching it

happen; 5. approx 15 seconds before it happened, i foresaw a car

plowing into the back of my fiero while i was stopped behind a car

ahead of me that was making a turn...this vision was so real i

actually analyzed how i could have gotten out of the space, thinking

i could back up quickly and then turn off the roadway...however, by

the time i decided to do that, i saw the car approaching in my rear

view mirror, so fast, that the only thing i could think of was to

rest against the seat and relax as much as i could..which of course i

failed miserably in accomplishing!...i was 99% sure it was going to

happen!

 

 

OM namo bhagavate sri sadasiva dakshinamoorthi!

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Ramesemji,

Quite frankly, I must admit, I could not really understand your post fully,

maybe I am quite weak in English language.

However, on one point, where you said <<<The main point being made was that no

Vedanta could take away the suffering (experiencing world). Even the so-called

" Liberated person " did and do suffer (experience the world)! We may come up with

some rcumlocutory explanation (making more assumptions) to explain the suffering

of the " Liberated. " There is no way of knowing the validity of such

explanations.>>> , I would like to share my understanding. Maybe I need to be

corrected.

The attempt of Vedanta is not to take away the suffering (experiencing world),

but to unfold the Truth of one's real Swaroopa or Nature, thereby making him to

face the suffering without much reaction on his part. The suffering itself is a

problem, but more than that how one faces such suffering makes all the

difference for him, because he knows for certain, that " it will also pass " . The

difference is in " Attitude " .

I do not think one can question Vedanta whether it has been able to do this job,

as it is not its work. It is for one, who approaches Vedanta, to answer this

question.

With kind regards,

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Frankji,

Your solitary life for quite a long period must have helped you for great

introspection. Being able to be with nature with total acceptance, is really a

blessing.

Thank you very much for your response.

With warm regards and hari om

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

RAMESAM'S RESPONSE (# 2):

 

 

Respected Sirs,

 

At the outset, many many thanks to each of you individually for the

time you have given to this discussion. I am grateful for the very

thoughtful inputs.

 

1. It looks to me that the main burden of the debate has been

put wonderfully back on track by Respected Shri Mani when he

said, " The attempt of Vedanta is not to take away the suffering

(experiencing world). "

 

Further, he added, " but to unfold the Truth of one's real Swaroopa or

Nature, thereby making him to face the suffering without much

reaction on his part. The suffering itself is a problem, but more

than that how one faces such suffering makes all the difference for

him. "

 

Would it be wrong then to describe it as a " coping mechanism " ?

 

Respected Sdhri Mani also clarified saying, " I do not think one can

question Vedanta whether it has been able to do this job, as it is

not its work. It is for one, who approaches Vedanta, to answer this

question. "

 

This statement is absolutely true and will hold good re: the efficacy

of any other mechanism too. I do not know if a practitioner-

invariant mechanism will eventually naturally evolve in future,

though we may not rule it out based on merely the present

state of knowledge-base.

 

3. A number of connected issues have come up in the

discussions. It also looks that some clarification on some of my

statements / stand are required. Responding through a common

communication does not appear to be suitable for various reasons. So

I have also posted on the thread separately addressed mails re: other

points.

 

4. If the discussions are going to be between only a handful of

us and dialog mode is the best-suited format for exchanging ideas,

may I suggest that we may adopt individual private email for future

communications between us depending on interest?

 

With best of regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

 

> Quite frankly, I must admit, I could not really understand your

post fully, maybe I am quite weak in English language.

 

> The attempt of Vedanta is not to take away the suffering

(experiencing world), but to unfold the Truth of one's real Swaroopa

or Nature,

> R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Respected Shri Mani,

 

Thanks a lot for a very meaningful reaction.

 

After all language is merely a medium. Some may have a felicity with

words or a flair for writing. Words are only symbols. The thrust

of the message lies beyond any symbols. I felt you really captured

the heart of the issue in your beautiful and simple expression going

far beyond the images.

 

Once again thanking you very much.

 

With warm regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " hsin_shang " <hsin_shang wrote:

>

>> hsin: First, I would like to thank you for replying.

>I have a question for you, that if you do not mind.

> From your life experiences as a human and from your readings, do

you

> come to believe and accept that there is a Truth, a God,a Wisdom, a

> final and ultimate answer to all problems, questioning and doubts?

 

 

Respected Hsin Sir,

 

Many thanks for a thought-provoking question.

 

Your simple looking question really stumped me. I tried to digest

the significance of each word. I read again and again a number of

times. The more times I read, the more difficult it looked to me to

answer.

 

Quite honestly, please believe me you when I say " honestly " , I do not

know what to answer.

 

I am putting down below some rambling random thoughts in a

disorganized way:

 

Belief systems: Some call themselves as theists. Atheists are

posited as opposite to theists. And then there are agnostics. What

do these words mean?

 

Theists = who believe in the existence of God;

Atheists = who believe that God doesn't exist;

Agnostics = who believe that one cannot know whether or not God

exists.

 

To me all of them are *believers* in something or the other!

 

Am I a non-believer? No. For, I cannot be pigeonholed into

believing a system of non-belief.

 

Each of the choices you gave me viz. Truth, God, Wisdom, Ultimate

answer to all Questioning are heavily loaded words. Every person has

perhaps his/her own understanding of what they connote.

 

When we see a man, we do not go about identifying the nose, the eye,

ear, mouth, body, hand etc. separately. We do not measure the

relative distance between the eyes, or the length of the nose or the

position of the hand. We see and understand what is seen to be one

whole man, not a cat or cow.

Now suppose you see the whole world, the buildings, the roads, the

hills, the valleys, the trees, the people, the ups and downs of life,

the moon, the sky etc etc as one whole. No separate cognition,

identification of names, operation of memory processes and thinking

of words. What does one say?

 

 

Sorry, Sir, I am unable to reply to your question in one or two

words. I shall keep, however, churning it in my mind. May be I can

come back to you again later.

 

With best of regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

In advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

 

 

> Respected Hsin Sir,

>

> Sorry, Sir, I am unable to reply to your question in one or two

> words. I shall keep, however, churning it in my mind. May be I can

> come back to you again later.

>

> With best of regards,

> ramesam

 

=====================

Honoured Ramesam Sir

 

Thank you for your honesty and sincerity.

The whole of existence will be waiting for you when you come back

later with the final result of your contemplations.

 

hsin

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

......

> What is that value of such academic interest, supposing it is not

the

> burning desire to find out Truth? Is it " truth " and not " Truth " that

> makes you humble enough to recognize your incompetency in their

regard?

> ........

> As for this forum, you are dealing with a group of astikas: so ask

people regarding their physical suffering rather than passing on your

> belittling judgements.

>

> So yes, we are Astikas to begin with and not arbitrarily neutral or

> objective to accomodate this debate against VedantaSpeak, unless you

> show competency in the science of VedantaDo.

>

> -

>

> And No, we are not carried away in Cartesian dichotomies but are not

> interested in people incompetent in VedantaDo preaching about how to

> merge the boundaries.

 

> thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

Respected Shri Thollmelukaalkizhu,

 

I thank you for your reaction patiently touching on several issues

that need a closer look.

 

First and foremost many thanks for the clarification that is provided

by you re: the background of the members. Frankly I was not aware of

the fact that it was a group of only astikas, perhaps a mandatory

requirement. I wonder if there can be a way to bring this fact right

in the beginning before one even joins the group.

 

Sir, you appear to have concluded that I passed some " belittling

judgments. " It is unfortunate that a positional statement framed to

convey a debate issue is described as being judgmental, especially

even after I took care to repeatedly assure that no disrespect, even

remotely, was intended.

 

In your message # 39457 , you found my post " interesting " and you

yourself compared the discussion at the group to the pursuits

of " philosophy departments, where people discuss all sorts of " dry "

stuff, like in the Physics departments where people are

talking about what happened to which star how many light-years away,

and in the Mathematics departments where they discuss for centuries

whether some gadget is curved up or down,.... "

 

I felt that was good humor.

 

You added to the above, " so also we have forums like this catering to

the VedantaSpeak. "

 

 

Was it then incorrect to call that pursuit `academic'?

 

Now you posed a question about the value of academic pursuit and the

distinction I was trying to draw. Well, academic research could be

threefold as done at any institute of higher learning, as you are

aware: (i) to work for a degree and (ii) pure research interest of

investigating a problem without expecting to reach any pre-decided

result and (iii) to develop a network of peers in the specialization

for constructive discussions and exchange of thoughts. Many more

aims could also exist.

 

Without having to elaborate much, I would once again like to repeat

that I do lack necessary qualification for an academic pursuit in

Vedanta. This is not out of any false sense of modesty. It is a

statement of fact. I do not possess a basic degree in the pre-

requisite courses of philosophy and my reading of Upanishads,

scriptures is irregular, unstructured and voluntary and never under

any Guru.

 

For understanding Self for which the only qualification required

is `mumukshatva' as far as I can gather.

 

You have been kind to refer to VedantaDo. I am not sure what is

exactly done by a Vedantadoer. Does it imply `shravana, manana and

nidhdhyasa' or karmakanda or only a particular set of belief-

systems? Or certain character and frame of mind? Or just " Non-

doership " ? May be other members are aware.

 

When I referred to the Cartesian Dichotomy, it was with reference to

a quote cited by one of our respected discussants conveying the

observation of Shri Chinmaya. The quote (Msg # 39479) was, " stating

that human beings were uncomfortably uncomfortable before all

scientific developments and invention of gadgets to make life easier

and comfortable, and now with all these available man is

comfortably uncomfortable. " Had been alive today, I assume, he

would definitely have framed the sentence in a different way.

 

Further, you made certain observations with regard to science and

Vedanta in ancient and modern times expressing your ideas. I respect

your opinion. Certain other opinions were expressed in first person

plural. I shall take them as the opinion of the group itslef?

 

With best regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ramesam:

 

First let me congratulate you for your `bold' approach in raising

numerous questions and with your quick assertions. Honestly

speaking, there is nothing to debate with respect to your question –

" HOW FAR DOES VEDANTASPEAK TAKE US? " The answer is quite simple,

it can take us as far as we want to go! Those who have faith and

conviction, they believe that Vedanta can help them with the wisdom

to reach the Ultimate Reality. With conviction, it does not really

matter whether we know what that " Ultimate Reality " really means! The

NONBELIEVERS will be DEBATING and more likely trapped within an

endless DOLOOP not knowing how avoid the `pitfalls` of intllectual

debates. Such debaters mostly rely only on their own INTELLECTUAL

ABILITY in resolving issues without entertaining an iota of

conviction. This list has entertained many such debates in the past

and such debates failed to reach any meaningful resolutions with

respect perceived doubts.

 

In your posts, you have made several `sweeping remarks' without

providing evidence(s) in support of your assertions. You have

articulate your position and I do admire your knowledge and

scholarship. I am of the opinion that you want to find simple answers

to a complex questions of Vedanta and Science. I do find that the

tone of your posts give the impression (though you may not really

mean) that only you possess the full wisdom and others (including

Vedantic scholars of past and present) lack in their understanding

of – Vedas, Maya, Mahavakyas, etc., etc.. Instead of enquiring to

find the truth, you seem (once again you may not really mean) to be

challenging Vedantic approach. Your discussions also give the

impression that you don't want to accept " assumptions " and if it is

so, then I want to say that Jeddu Krishnamurthy has well articulated

a similar position in his famous treatise - " Truth is a Pathless

Land. "

 

Before closing, I do believe that we all have to recognize our

limitation in the understanding of Vedanta, Vedic scriptures, works

of Vedantic scholars and the scientific theories. Those who recognize

will be able to recognize that limitation in our understanding is the

most significant barrier for finding the Truth and consequently will

be more sympathetic to other view points. This will enable them to

take more time to study the different view points, contemplate on

them before making assertions. I further suggest you go over

the `list archives' and read the postings and discussions on the

subject matter before you begin your debate. As one of the moderator

of this list, I have seen that the subject matter that you try to

explore has potential for going out of focus from the scope of this

list. Most of the members in this list believe in Vedanta and every

discussant is obligated to keep that in mind. Since we use words of

English language (not a perfect medium to conduct spiritual

enquiries) for our discussions, we need to be make sure that

our `terminology ` is agreeable to the standard terminology that the

readers of this list are familiar with. (this is just a final word

of caution).

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

>

> But more importantly, what is lurking behind this question, unspelt

> and unexpressed? It is *fear* and fear of death. So one should

> really look into what is fear, what is death and who or what

actually

> ends in death.

>

> 2. World as `maya' and mahavakya etc.:

>

>

> Mahavakya: The Upanishads themselves never upfront stated anything

in

> them to be a mahavakya, like preambles to a law or statement which

> will follow later.

>

> Ramana's Quote: I withhold my comment on the Ramana quote for the

> present.

>

> Theosophists: May I know if the reference to theosophists alludes

to

> the views of Bishop Leadbeater or is it any officially declared

> statement or principle of their Society?

>

> Living like H.D. Thoreau: Living simple life does leave a lot of

> opportunity to ponder over many issues, being free from deadline

> driven externally imposed conditioned life.

>

>

> 3. Academic pursuit:

>

> If the various in-depth discussions are an intellectual

> pursuit with an academic interest, they have their own value.

> I do not have any competency or qualification to contribute to

> them. If, however, the propelling reason is a burning desire to

> find out Truth, it is a different ball game altogether.

>

> Other preachers: Some have a gift of gab and make a living out of

> it.

>

> 4. Individual suffering, empathy, cause of misery, grace etc:

>

> Assumptions are the worst type of 'memes'

> whcih we unknowingly calim owenership. They will undoubtedly

> provide a `comfort-zone'.

>

> 5. Science and gadgets:

>

> A number of us are still carried away by the Cartesian dichotomy

that

> science deals with the physical and the scientific contribution is

> only towards the materialistic world. This is not any more true.

> Science does not now consider mind-matter as two separate .

>

> Secondly, and very importantly, one should also state that when it

> comes to very fundamental " Why " questions, neither Vedas (ever) nor

> science (at present) have been able to provide an answer.

>

>

> Even the so-called " Liberated person " did and do suffer

> (experience the world)! We may come up with some circumlocutory

> explanation (making more assumptions) to explain the suffering of

> the " Liberated. " There is no way of knowing the validity of such

> explanations.

>

> The second point I was trying to make was that the `dream analogy'

> for the visible world and its disappearance during deep sleep were

> based on incomplete understanding of the natural brain processes at

> the time the Vedantic concepts were developed.

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " frank maiello " <egodust wrote:

>

 

considering mahavakyas such as TAT TVAM ASI and OM TAT SAT.

>

>....

> the theosophists i'm refering to, in order of psychic reliability

> (analyzed according to my own psychic faculty), were alice bailey,

> helena blavatsky, helena roerich, and rudolf steiner.

....

 

> i rely on my own psychic faculty to asssess whether something is

> right or wrong...it's not infallible,

 

.....

 

> [...] If one jnani exists in the world, his influence will be felt

by or benefit all people in the world and not simply his immediate

> disciples.

> _____________________

>

> some sample highlights of my psychic experiences

> .....

>

> OM namo bhagavate sri sadasiva dakshinamoorthi!

 

Respected Frank Sir,

 

Thank you very much for very informative and thoughtful inputs. I

am grateful to you for all the elaborations and quotations.

 

I am aware of the interpretations of 'Tat tvam asi' etc. I happened

to read some volumes of Shri Ramana's dialogs and I never doubted

what you said in your very first mail. I never meant to ask for more

evidence. It was that I had a diffrent take and I did not want to

provoke unnecessary arguments. Now in hindsight, it looks I did the

right thing as some sensitivities are apparent.

 

I did read some of the works of Mrs. H. P. Blavatsky. I am not

familiar with Alice Bailey. I have not read any of her works. Yes,

Theosophy had played an influential role in highlighting to the world

the wisdom of ancient India. C. W. Leadbeater played the role of a

mentor to Mr. J. Krishnamurti. (Now that I know some of your

feelings on CWL, may I know how you place JK? Have you rated him in

your psychic assessment? (I will appreciate if you can convey

through a separate mail, if you feel so)).

 

Also, my admiration for you on your psychic abilities.

 

As Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj used to say, any event, situation,

person etc have innumerable causes. World is truly a web. Trying to

look or identify a single cause is naive. A holographic world

indeed. So a Jnani or equally any simple person will have both

forward and reverse effect on everything and everybody else. I can

fully realize it.

 

With best of my respects,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

 

Honestly speaking, there is nothing to debate with respect to your

question –

> " HOW FAR DOES VEDANTASPEAK TAKE US? " The answer is quite simple,

> it can take us as far as we want to go!

 

Those who have faith and conviction, they believe that Vedanta can

help them with the wisdom to reach the Ultimate Reality. With

conviction, it does not really matter whether we know what

that " Ultimate Reality " really means!

 

.........

> In your posts, you have made several `sweeping remarks' without

> providing evidence(s) in support of your assertions. .

 

....

 

that only you possess the full wisdom and others

......

 

then I want to say that Jiddu Krishnamurthy has well articulated

> a similar position in his famous treatise - " Truth is a Pathless

> Land. "

>

> Before closing, I do believe that we all have to recognize our

> limitation in the understanding of Vedanta, Vedic scriptures, works

> of Vedantic scholars and the scientific theories. Those who

recognize will be able to recognize that limitation in our

understanding is the most significant barrier for finding the Truth

 

...............

 

and consequently will be more sympathetic to other view points.

 

...........

 

 

I further suggest you go over

> the `list archives' and read the postings and discussions

 

 

 

Respected Shri Ram Chandran,

 

Whatever has to be said, you said it excellently, logically and

unambiguously. Undoubtedly your words are a very befitting closure

statement and nothing more need to be added.

 

In fact, I already sensed that it would be better to exchange

thoughts through personal email if interest continues and indicated

so in one of my posts (Ramesam's Response # 2).

 

Just because I am responding to your mail for the first time, please

let me add a few sundry points:

 

I would like to submit that my intention was never to arrogate to

myself all knowledge (to do so will be a sure sign to the

contrary!). I was admittedly, however, a bit on the provocative side

just to open up free talks.

 

As far as evidence and citation of references for my statements go, I

did not want to make the post look like research thesis. I am always

ready to provide necessary references on demand.

 

I am quite familiar with JK and his talks, books.

 

As far as 'limitations' are concerned, our belief structures are our

first limitations. Of course, it is equally true that if we do not

have any beliefs acting as filters to what is cognized, we would all

be schitzophreniacs!

 

As you must be aware, now economists and biologists are teaming up

with neuroscientists in understanding why a man behaves the way he

does while the classical economic theory talks of profit motive but

there is altruism in species survival and brain feels rewarded by

sharing and contributing to charity. With such new developments all

the time, it may not be a bad idea to revisit some of the issues

discussed earlier as and when appropriate.

 

Many thanks again and with warm regards,

 

ramesam

 

P.S. I take it that we may not have any more posts on this thread.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> those who

> **believe** in the validity of the Vedas and the goals that the Vedas

> propose for the individual. They believe that their sages were

> competent scientists in the realm of the mind and beyond the mind, in

> spirit. And they believe that through the processes of yoga, etc.,

> these sage-scientists did find out " Truth " . To be a competent judge of

> this science of the spirit, they also believe that one must follow the

> rules laid out by the sage-scientists, and not till then is one

> competent to judge or understand its merits. That is why inspite of

> being topclass experts in VedantaSpeak, they bow at the feet of those

> who VedantaDo and aspire to become such themselves.

 

The word " belief " often comes into harassment in such discussions. Sri

Kotekalji made an important point in the VP thread (as I understood)

that Vedanta does not constitute a mere belief in conclusions but is a

conviction in methodology, that is common for human beings. As I said,

that conviction itself will translate as belief in the field of

religion. But that may well be because of our ignorance to the methods

and lack of real practice.

 

Instead of a lifetime pursuit, Vedanta tends to be regarded as a

side-course, along the way, as we pursue everything else. It is like

reading a " Physics for Dummies " book and thinking I am a physicist. It

is ridiculous and disrespectful to sages who devote all their time,

and know the real nuances involved. VedantaSpeak must be understood as

most relevant to those who seek to VedantaDO.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sir Ramesamji:

 

Your footnote further confirms our limitations and I have not

requested you to stop posting on this thread.(If you got the

impression, that is once again due to the inadequacy of the media of

communication - words to describe what we really mean!). I may or may

not agree with your observations but you always have the freedom to

make your observations. At the same time members posting should not

expect that everything what we claim will be necessarily acceptable

to everyone. As long as we maintain the attitude as an Enquirer and

agree to respect other viewpoints (giving the benefit of doubts when

we have no concrete means to accept or reject it) our search will

likely take us closer to the Truth.

 

I hope this clarification helps,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

> P.S. I take it that we may not have any more posts on this thread.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

(Now that I know some of your

> feelings on CWL, may I know how you place JK? Have you rated him

in

> your psychic assessment?

 

hariH OM! sri ramesam,

 

pranaam.

 

leadbeater along with annie besant [whom the former to some degree

evidently convinced it was their mission to] prepare and school JK to

be the next world teacher. it's rumored that leadbeater believed he

was destined to be in fact the second coming of christ. JK was never

comfortable with this idea in his youth. (he was found and taken

under their wing around the age of 15.) JK later realized this wasnt

his role, left them, and set out to in fact effectively criticize

many established religions. his talks proved quite enlightening for

many. i found them sometimes confusing and muddled; however i saw he

had extraordinarily lucid moments in his ability to interpret the

spiritual energy glowing in his heart (which is what's happening to

us all, as the Self itself dwelling in the cave of the

heart...however, it's a matter of degree who has what developed

capacity to mentally receive and then transmit it [through words or

silence]). i have no doubt he was a jnani. i sensed his diksha was

transmitted through his presence far more than his verbal teachings.

as i said, my psychic faculty isnt infallible.

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

Pranams Shri Ramesam-ji

First of all if, after an extensive reading of the Upanishads, the

Gita, Bhagawan Ramana, Shri Nisargadatta-ji, and Shankara's works,

you have arrived at the set of befuddled conclusions that you have

elaborately promulgated in your posts, then let me offer you my

respectful sympathies and my sincere and humble prayers. You already

have a wonderful and sharp intellect - what is needed in addition

for a understanding of Vedanta is Grace and Guru. I am certain that

with time, these will accrue to you as well.

 

Secondly, I have a feeling you have strayed into the wrong list -

this list primarily serves the purpose of bringing together people

who share a common interest in learning about Advaita Vedanta in a

traditional backdrop with Bhagwan Shankara's teachings as the basis.

Not that you are unwelcome here, its just that I doubt this list

will prove beneficial to you in your current stage of mind.

 

I will just make a few general points.

 

The underlying basis for Science is not benefitting the world or its

improvement - the only basis for true Science is enquiry -

scientific enquiry. Who we are? What constitutes our make-up? What

is this Universe? What constitutes the intelligence that seems to

pervade it? As Einstein put it - I want to know God's thoughts - the

rest are details.

The by-product of such scientific enquiry may of course continue to

lead us into an era of industrialization, but with WMDs,

deforestation, global warming and the imminent human cloning era, it

is not hard to see that it only ends up creating its own

Frankensteins. Our value systems have eroded, the pursuit of

materialism and material success has only intensified greed and

avarice, the family structure has deteriorated into becoming both

nuclear to fractionated; we may have new-found comforts, but at the

loss of comforting. What will help resolve Suffering is not more

science, but Harmony and Peace - Man has to re-learn how to live in

Harmony with Nature and more importantly with himself - as the

Ancients would pray - sarve bhavantu sukhinah...sarve bhadrani

pashyantu....scientific progress does not help in this regard. What

is needed a reverential understanding of the Order that is

Ishwara....Look at the morning prayer before getting out of bed -

" Samudravasane devi, parvatastana mandite, visnupatni namastubhyam,

padasparsham kshamasvame - O Mother Goddess Earth who consists of

the Oceans, the mountains and trees, please forgive me as I set foot

on you " - this how our Ancients approached Nature, this is how

Harmony is nurtured.

 

It would only be arrogance for a man of Science to look upon himself

to save the world - there is One Narayana, under whose diktat the

galaxies pulsate to a timeless rhythm - nothing that happens is ever

for a second going to be in violation of His Order. Who is man, with

his puny insignificance, to set out to rid the world of suffering?

All a true man of science can do is with humility approach Nature or

Srshti with a spirit of healthy enquiry and attempt to better

understand its myriad and endless manifest mysteries.

 

Vedanta's approach to suffering is not a emotional reaction seeking

to diminish it, nor a irrational attitude of denying it, but a

dispassionate and deliberate means to understand it. Not " what can I

do about my suffering? " but " why am I suffering? " The verysame spirit

of Vichara or enquiry that constitutes the essence of Science is

also what underlies the basis of Vedanta as well. The only

difference is Vedanta directs the enquiry in towards the very

Subject, and there-in begins a journey of self-discovery, from what

is unknown to what is known and finally to the Knowing that

underlies them both.

 

What one prays for is not immortality for this body which is a mere

conglomeration of elements but of the indwelling spirit - the

reincarnating jiva - which itself being immortal is ignorant of its

true nature and continues to harbor a notional assumption of

limitation and i-ness and consequent mortality and " suffers. "

 

The indweller in this body is " more " than just this body - so when

you hear or read about neuronal pulsing, etc ask yourself it is

neurons that are in deep sleep or a " entity " ? is it brain cells that

get hungry or fall in love or a " indiviual " ? is there a " i " , a

fundamental indweller to service whom alone the entire material

matrix that constitutes the human body has been intelligently put

together?. The idea that i am nothing other than this body, the

notion that there is really no mind, no soul, other than

modifications of matter and their interactions - is not in the least

bit novel. It is the ancient Charvaka philosophy - " only what is

cognized and what can be objectified is true. who has seen a soul or

God or heaven or any of this? has any dead man lived to talk about

the after-death? everything is nothing but matter interacting with

matter including pleasure and pain, so make merry, drink ghee(i.e.

feast your senses), and enjoy what little time you have left on this

earth. "

There is very little basis for any discussion between them and a

vedantin - inasmuch as there is little basis for a 4 year old

discussing quantum theories with say a Schroedinger.

 

The reason this is a Royal Secret, accessible only to a few,

understandable to fewer and Known to the fewest is precisely because

it requires Grace that takes a multitude of births to accrue. It is

incorrect to say the Seers benefit none but themselves - they are

nothing but Divine Sparks that bless everyone and everything

wherever they dwell, they spread the message of peace and

brotherhood to all, and impart the priceless ambrosia of Knowledge

to anyone with sincerity, humility and a spirit of dispassionate

enquiry.

 

My unsolicited advice, if you need to know what is Vedanta, would be

to find a Guru, or listen to tapes on something very basic

like " tattvabodha " just to familiarize yourself with some basic

concepts about the subject matter. Alternatively a thorough survey,

with an open mind, of Dr.Sadananda-jis thesis on " introduction to

vedanta " that you may find in the archives of this very list may

help in this regard, if you are so inclined.

 

Once again my very best wishes to you my brother, and wishing you

Peace and Right knowledge.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

> There is hope (a salvation?) in science. This does not mean we

deify

> science or reify `consciousness.' We have to search for a more

> realistic large scale applicator to alleviate misery in the world

and

> make available at common man level.

>

[Guest guest]

On Feb 11, 2008 3:29 AM, ramesam <ramesam wrote:

> RAMESAM'S RESPONSE (# 2):

>

> 4. If the discussions are going to be between only a handful of

> us and dialog mode is the best-suited format for exchanging ideas,

> may I suggest that we may adopt individual private email for future

> communications between us depending on interest?

 

Shri Ramesamji,

 

Please do not take this interesting discussion offline. Please

continue to post here so that curious others may at least listen!

 

Sai

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramesamji,

 

While many of our respected members have already

addressed several of the points which you raised

in your post, I thought I would also add a few

comments as an exercise in mananam for myself,

and I ask pardon in advance from the members

for any mistakes made below.

 

First of all, it seems to me that you are making

an initial statement and then building upon that

statement, when what is needed first of all

is to question whether that initial statement

is valid or not.

 

In fact, there are many statements in your post

which I think need to be looked into. First of all,

is the alleviation of suffering within the realm of

duality the highest goal to be achieved, and can it

even be achieved?

 

What is it that each human being is really seeking

in every circumstance? Isn't it lasting happiness?

Whatever we say we want from a given situation, if we

really look into it, we will find that our highest value

is for personal happiness, even if that happiness comes

as a result of personal sacrifice. We sacrifice,

even our life, if we think it will serve our highest

value.

 

We know somehow that our nature is happiness.

I feel 'myself' when I am happy. I know this

is how I am 'meant' to be. It doesn't feel

'right' to be unhappy. However, there is

a problem with the way we go about trying to find

happiness, because we are trying to find lasting

happiness in changing circumstances.

 

This is normal, because it does seem to work sometimes,

but it isn't actually possible. In fact, according to

the teachings of Vedanta, to recognize that lasting

happiness is cannot be found in changing circumstances

is to have recognized what can be called 'the problem.'

 

Now at point of recognizing 'the problem,' some people

might just despair, and say, " Okay, I'll just make do.

I'll make the best of a bad lot. What cannot be cured

must be endured, etc. "

 

Or others might say, " Well, this is a world of woe,

but there is no sickness, toil, or danger in that fair

land to which I go, " indicating a belief in some sort

of permanent heavenly destination. Or others

may take to social activism, and charitable or

humanitarian efforts in order to try and make the

world a better place.

 

These might be called 'coping mechanisms,' and some

may perhaps be healthier than others, but there is a

whole other way of dealing with 'the problem' once

recognized, and that is for the person to say, " This

changing world is not capable of giving me the happiness

which I seek. I know that, but what I want to know is,

is there anything that can? " Asking this question is

the birth of the mumukshu.

 

Contrary to what you indicated in post # 39501,

mumukshutvam is not the only qualification necessary

for gaining self-knowledge, but it is one of them.

And it is the one which, if sincerely asked, is held

to lead the seeker to find an appropriate teacher and

a teaching which will help solve 'the problem.'

 

Another equally important qualification is sraddha

(faith pending understanding), that words of the

teacher and teaching are true.

 

It seems to me that you have indicated that the

awareness or consciousness spoken of in the Upanishads

is actually a product of brain function. If you hold

that to be true, then what do you think

'enlightenment' is? You do seem to indicate

that there is such a thing as enlightenment.

 

Enlightenment is the recognition that 'I' am indeed

that consciousness/awareness, which is limitless,

which is existence, right now, and so in fact is

everything else.

 

From the start one can say, " I am conscious and I exist, "

so that needs to be looked into. Is this conscious/existence,

which I am, a product of the body/mind/sense organs,

or is it something else altogether?

 

If you take consciousness(awareness)/existence to be

a product of the body/mind/sense organs (which is generally

what everyone does), if you do that, and cling to that

belief without question, then your mind is not really

available for what the teachings of Vedanta have to offer.

 

On another point, you said, " When it is known that the

indweller (Saririnah), Atma is without birth or death,

the objective of the prayer for immortality must have

been for the sake of the body (sarirah). "

 

This isn't true. The prayer for immortality means,

" May I be lead from the mistaken belief that who

I really am, is subject to death, to the clear

and direct recognition that who I really am,

is eternal and not subject to change in any way. "

 

atma=existence=consciousness=limitless=brahman=

without birth and death=who I really am.

 

All of these words and phrases are synonyms for

each other, (and there are many more which are

used in Vedanta), but to understand that all of

these words are synonymous requires a lot of teaching.

 

You mention, highlighted by various quotes,

that very few gain enlightenment. The fact that

very few gain self-knowledge is not to say that

it cannot be gained. It can. The very fact that

one is interested in obtaining it, IMO, indicates

certain level of readiness to obtain it. How many

people are even interested or believe that such a

thing is possible? Very few. To have cleared that

hurdle, one has already come a long way.

 

So now, let's look at the elimination of suffering,

which you mentioned, and then ask the question, " Is such

a thing possible? " We've already seen that finding such

a thing is not possible in the world of changing

circumstances, because what everyone really wants

is lasting happiness, and no situation that samsara has

to offer will ever be provide lasting happiness.

 

How can it when the very definition of samsara is

'that which changes very well.' If I look for

something lasting within samsara, then I am doomed

to failure.

 

That is not to say that one should not help others.

Certainly one can and should, if drawn to do so,

work to alleviate the suffering of others caused

by adverse circumstances. Such efforts have their

own rewards both here and now, and in the future,

and may even be helpful in gaining self-knowledge,

by enabling one to gain certain mental qualities

which are also qualifications for self-knowledge.

 

However, within the realm of changing circumstances,

suffering can never be totally eliminated. That is

just the way the set-up is.

 

So, to first of all posit that the elimination of

suffering is possible within the realm of duality,

and that the highest goal is to work to achieve

it, and then compare that unobtainable goal with the

goal of gaining self-knowledge, seems to me to be

comparing apples and oranges, as it were.

 

These two goals do not exist within the same order

of reality, and furthermore, one can be obtained

(self-knowledge), and the other cannot (the complete

elimination of suffering through the improvement

of changing circumstances).

 

Let's look at the cause of suffering. Why do I suffer?

 

I suffer because I take who I am to be a small, insignificant

and subject to change. I take myself to be the body, and

at the mercy of anything which might affect the body,

the mind, and the sense organs, up to and including death.

Pretty scary!

 

But what if this 'I,' this already present 'I,'

this conscious existent awareful being, is not a

product of the body, or the mind, or the sense organs,

and is not subject to their problems?

 

So, this is where the teaching takes over. And the

Upanishads, the Mother Shruti, with infinite patience,

using logic and reason, shows the student from more

angles than one human mind can conceive, that "

" You, Oh beloved seeker, in truth are neither

the body/mind or sense organs. You are that

which never is born, which never dies, and which

never modifies in any way.

 

You are that from which this whole creation of

time and space has come, and that into which it

will return.

 

You are in fact the very locus of happiness

you have been seeking in all transitory objects

and experience. "

 

When the mind sees that, when the mind knows that,

not as a catechism, or a belief, but rather as a

direct recognition of what is actually and factually true,

then suffering ceases because its cause ceases.

 

" In this manner, the continuous knowledge 'I am brahman'

[limitless unchanging existence consciousness]

destroys the projections brought about by ignorance

[taking my self, brahman, to be a product of the body/mind]

just as medicine removes disease. " Atmabodha verse 37

 

After that recognition the body may suffer and the mind

may suffer, but all of that takes place in an unchanging

'me' which never suffers, and which is never subject to

modification in any way.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Human suffering: Vedanta doesn't prohibit a vedantin from trying to

alleviate the suffering of others. In fact, a vedantin is better

equipped than a non-vedantin to play this role effectively as he/she

knows the nature and root cause of human suffering. He/she knows

that the suffering humanity is not other than or apart from himself.

Since we love only ourselves by default, the vedantin who knows that

the entire world is himself is spontaneously in love with the

suffering humanity. The best self-service can, therefore, be

expected of him.

 

I remember once a self-proclaimed rationalist asked the teacher in a

Vedanta class if it was not more worthwhile doing humanitarian

service in the Siberian remoteness than listening to all the Vedanta

gibberish. (I don't know, of all the places in the world, why he had

that passion for Siberia?). The teacher countered him saying a

vedantin could do that job better as he is equipoised vis-à-vis pain

and pleasure and heat and cold, whereas the questioner would be more

worried about the comforts of his own body than those whom he sets

out to serve. The non-vedantin would be like a contagion trying to

contain its own epidemic! Moral of the story: Understand yourself

first before you speak of serving others. Nothing else tells you

about yourself better than Vedanta.

 

Death: Vedanta's objective is not the `mitigation of death'.

Vedanta helps you discriminate between what dies and what does not.

Once this discrimination dawns, death is a non-issue – a non-problem.

 

The three states: Vedanta takes up the three states of deep sleep,

dream and waking to articulate the fact that it is the same entity

that passes from one state to another and in effect pervades all the

three. In a similar manner, Vedanta also considers the unity that

serves as the background for the continuous change called growth from

infancy to old age.

 

The neuronal explanation might be valid. But, that is unimportant

for Vedanta. Why?

" A " is a researcher on neuronal activity of the brain. He

subjects " B " , " C " , and " D " to some tests in his lab. and reaches

certain conclusions. Does this mean that the neuronal activity

of " A " has observed the neuronal activity of his experimental

subjects? Isn't that ridiculous? Are we to assume that " A " 's

neuronal activity has the upper hand to sit in judgment of the

others'? Aren't we missing something here?

 

To take up an analogy, let us configure a set of mirrors in bright

day light in order to bring about some visual effects using their

reflective power. Every change in the configuration brings about a

new special effect. Now move the mirror set-up into a dark room.

Are there any visual effects produced now? Nothing will be produced

because sunlight that empowered the mirrors to behave in different

ways is no more available in the dark room.

 

In a similar manner, we need the light of Awareness to appreciate the

pulsation of neurons. What is appreciated or observed cannot be the

source of that Awareness. Our ancients knew this truth from which

modern science tries to shy away even today. Go to any temple and

listen to what the priest chants while showing the light to the

deity. He sings the glory of that Light which alone shines and which

all the other lights and luminaries like the sun, moon and stars

(including the neurons!) shine after.

 

For doubting Thomases, here is another suggestion which I have

mentioned here before several times. Bomb the world and totally

extinguish all neuronal activity and life. What would remain? The

obvious answer would be a lifeless, barren world. Let us expect

someone really wise to say that nothing would remain. Will that

lifeless world or a nothingness have any validity or existence

without there being an intelligence to appreciate its existence?

Never. That appreciating intelligence is the Awareness or

Consciousness of Vedanta. It has to be there for a statement to be

made that the world or even nothingness exists. It is there and it

will always be there.

 

So what is *really* present in the three states and in all states

that we can conceive for that matter including the body's death is

Awareness. Full stop. Take it or leave it. If the decision is to

leave, then leave this forum to champion the cause of the toiling

proletariat elsewhere.

 

Now about the disappearance of the world in sleep. When one

understands that one is not the BMI but Awareness that shines the BMI

and the rest of the world, then everything is within Awareness.

There is nothing outside. There is no outside. If there is, that

outside is also inside. If there is no outside, there is no inside

or `within' either. That means everything is Awareness or there is

only Awareness. The world of duality, which includes my BMI, erected

by the fundamental building blocks of ignorance called space/time is

thus really an indivisibility called Awareness. It is into this

natural indivisibility that the world is withdrawn during sleep. It

is therefore ridiculous to suggest that the world `evaporates into

thin air' or the world's disappearance is due to cessation of

neuronal activity in the brain. The brain and neurons were a part of

that world, no? There is no denying the world in Vedanta. The world

is understood as nothing other than Brahman (Consciousness or

Awareness).

 

Benefit of Vedanta: All those who can think on their own are

benefited by the study of Vedanta and they in turn benefit the

world. Bhagawad GItA, which assures that even a fraction of the

knowledge of Vedanta saves one from great fear, is the guarantee.

What is important is not `total realization', which may or may not

occur. Who cares? A vedantic vision based on a doubtless

understanding that we are indeed Awareness, the world is nothing

other than that Awareness unraveling Itself before our eyes and

therefore not different from ourselves, coupled with the readiness to

use the discriminating faculty and power of contemplation, with which

we are gracefully blessed, is more than enough. The rest has to

naturally follow. Such persons are a real boon to the world. We

don't have to worry about their numbers. One such called Gandhi

moved a whole nation, nay, the whole world. A Hindi movie made

around his apparition half a century after his departure draws the

whole nation into movie houses shaming commercial extravaganzas

released around the same time proving that millions are there waiting

to listen and follow. Who then would bother about taking a census

of self-realized ones?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair