Guest guest Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 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.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 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 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.