Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 Hello Friends on the path All physical properties and scientific explanations of what an object is? is of no concern to Advita. From the mystical or spiritual or advaitic, stand point, an object is " something " THAT HAS AN EFFECT ON ME. I might like it, hate it, want it, use it, dispose of it; and so forth. Similarly the reverse, the " something " hates me, threatens me, degrades me, pleases me, loves me; and so forth. I see the " image " of a woman, So far, no object is created in Consciousness, it is only an image of the same nature of Consciousness, it cannot be separated from Consciousness. Now. The image of the woman is " Beautiful " or " Ugly " or " Rich " or " Poor " ; this single concept creates in Consciousness a separation, a division, it becomes No longer the " image " of a woman, but it is transformed immediately to an " object " that I might want, I might dislike, it provokes in Consciousness a " DESIRE To... " posses, reject, benefit from.... etc. If this " Desire To... " is not born in Consciousness, then it will remain as the " image of a beautiful woman " , " the image of an ugly woman " , " the image of a poor woman " , not separated or alienated from Consciousness. Therefore, what is an object? The OBJECT IS THE DESIRE TO... The desire to posses, the desire to control, the desire to escape from, the desire to avoid...etc. This is what CREATES an OBJECT, This is what gives Birth to an OBJECT. Therefore, Strictly speaking there are NO OBJECTS. There is a very illuminating statement by Sri Atmananda (Gurunathan): " Who truly enjoys the picture in the window of the shop? The shopkeeper who wants to sell it for the highest price? No. The buyer who wants to purchase it for the lowest price? No. The Witness who neither wants to sell or buys; is the one who truly enjoys the beauty of the picture. " hsin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 There is this alien, Who came from some region, Far out in space, And spotted a big pappad On my dinner table. He then looked out of the window Spotted the Moon, Out there in yonder sky, And thought he saw The thing of the dinner table again! Here there is no association or anything of that sort. This is what perhaps is happening when people spot UFOs, if their accounts are true. Cigar shaped, saucer shaped etc. etc. Actually what are they really like, we have no clue. A ball might look like a disc to one who has no association with spheroids and a cylinder might look rectangular for one who has never felt circumferential curvature. An object is object, therefore, irrespective of our associations or desires. Association or desire might only add to the quality of our relationship with it. Madathil Nair ____________________ advaitin , " hsin_shang " <hsin_shang wrote: > > Hello Friends on the path > > > All physical properties and scientific explanations of what > > an object is? is of no concern to Advita. > > From the mystical or spiritual or advaitic, stand point, an object > > is " something " THAT HAS AN EFFECT ON ME. I might like it, hate it, > > want it, use it, dispose of it; and so forth. Similarly the > > reverse, the " something " hates me, threatens me, degrades me, > > pleases me, loves me; and so forth. > > I see the " image " of a woman, So far, no object is created in > > Consciousness, it is only an image of the same nature of > > Consciousness, it cannot be separated from Consciousness. Now. The > > image of the woman is " Beautiful " or " Ugly " or " Rich " or " Poor " ; > > this single concept creates in Consciousness a separation, a > > division, it becomes No longer the " image " of a woman, but it > > is transformed immediately to an " object " that I might want, > > I might dislike, it provokes in Consciousness a " DESIRE To... " > > posses, reject, benefit from.... etc. > > If this " Desire To... " is not born in Consciousness, then it will > > remain as the " image of a beautiful woman " , " the image of an > > ugly woman " , " the image of a poor woman " , not separated or > > alienated from Consciousness. > > Therefore, what is an object? The OBJECT IS THE DESIRE TO... > > The desire to posses, the desire to control, the desire to escape > > from, the desire to avoid...etc. This is what CREATES an OBJECT, > > This is what gives Birth to an OBJECT. > > Therefore, Strictly speaking there are NO OBJECTS. > > There is a very illuminating statement by Sri Atmananda (Gurunathan): > > " Who truly enjoys the picture in the window of the shop? > > The shopkeeper who wants to sell it for the highest price? No. > > The buyer who wants to purchase it for the lowest price? No. > > The Witness who neither wants to sell or buys; is the one who > > truly enjoys the beauty of the picture. " > > hsin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 advaitin , " hsin_shang " <hsin_shang wrote: > > Hello Friends on the path > > > All physical properties and scientific explanations of what > > an object is? is of no concern to Advita. > > From the mystical or spiritual or advaitic, stand point, an object > > is " something " THAT HAS AN EFFECT ON ME. I might like it, hate it, > > want it, use it, dispose of it; and so forth. Similarly the > > reverse, the " something " hates me, threatens me, degrades me, > > pleases me, loves me; and so forth. > Hsin > Namaste. This thread was started by hsin-ji with his post #39624. The question is, what is an object? The Samskrit word for `object' is vishaya. In the very first sentence of his adhyAsabhAshya Shri Shankara uses the word `vishaya' to denote the BMI. So BMI as well as all the external objects in the world are vishaya. The correct meaning of this word can be understood by looking at its derivation. In Samskrit most nouns are derived from verbal roots. The word `vishaya' is derived from the root `shinj' which means `to bind', with a prefix `vi' added to the root which gives the meaning `to bind firmly'. Thus the meaning of the word `vishaya' is `that which binds firmly'. Vedanta says that bondage is the result of our attachment to objects. The derivation of the word `vishaya' itself brings out this Vedantic truth. But an object does not by itself cause bondage. It binds me only if I react to it, either favourably or unfavourably. An object to which I am indifferent cannot cause any bondage for me. Such an object is as good as non-existent as far as I am concerned. So, though every object has the potential to cause bondage, this potentiality is actualized only by my attachment or aversion to it. Attachment and aversion give rise to the desire to possess and enjoy the object or to get rid of it. It is this desire which causes bondage for me. A jIvanmukta is indifferent to all objects; he has neither attachment nor aversion for them. So it can be said that it is my desire that endows a thing with the power to bind, which is the characteristic of a vishaya according to the derivation of the word. So, though there are any number of objects in the world, only those in respect of which I have some desire, whether positive or negative, become `vishaya' in the full sense of the word, namely, a thing which binds. So in a way it can be said that a vishaya is nothing but what I create by my own desire. Hsin-ji seems to have hinted at some thing like this in his post. Regards, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Honnoured S.N.Sastri You are absolutely right. One point only: The Jivanmukta has NO INDIFFERENCE. Everything is levelled and deserves from him the UTMOST CARE AND CONCERN. Nothing does not concern him, but with No gain or No loss; and NO right or No wrong. The Jivanmukta is out of the CONDITIONING. hsin ====================================== advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > advaitin , " hsin_shang " <hsin_shang@> wrote: > > > > Hello Friends on the path > > > > > > All physical properties and scientific explanations of what > > > > an object is? is of no concern to Advita. > > > > From the mystical or spiritual or advaitic, stand point, an object > > > > is " something " THAT HAS AN EFFECT ON ME. I might like it, hate it, > > > > want it, use it, dispose of it; and so forth. Similarly the > > > > reverse, the " something " hates me, threatens me, degrades me, > > > > pleases me, loves me; and so forth. > > Hsin > > > Namaste. > This thread was started by hsin-ji with his post #39624. The > question is, what is an object? > The Samskrit word for `object' is vishaya. In the very first > sentence of his adhyAsabhAshya Shri Shankara uses the word `vishaya' > to denote the BMI. So BMI as well as all the external objects in the > world are vishaya. The correct meaning of this word can be > understood by looking at its derivation. In Samskrit most nouns are > derived from verbal roots. The word `vishaya' is derived from the > root `shinj' which means `to bind', with a prefix `vi' added to the > root which gives the meaning `to bind firmly'. Thus the meaning of > the word `vishaya' is `that which binds firmly'. Vedanta says that > bondage is the result of our attachment to objects. The derivation > of the word `vishaya' itself brings out this Vedantic truth. But an > object does not by itself cause bondage. It binds me only if I react > to it, either favourably or unfavourably. An object to which I am > indifferent cannot cause any bondage for me. Such an object is as > good as non-existent as far as I am concerned. So, though every > object has the potential to cause bondage, this potentiality is > actualized only by my attachment or aversion to it. Attachment and > aversion give rise to the desire to possess and enjoy the object or > to get rid of it. It is this desire which causes bondage for me. A > jIvanmukta is indifferent to all objects; he has neither attachment > nor aversion for them. So it can be said that it is my desire that > endows a thing with the power to bind, which is the characteristic > of a vishaya according to the derivation of the word. So, though > there are any number of objects in the world, only those in respect > of which I have some desire, whether positive or negative, > become `vishaya' in the full sense of the word, namely, a thing > which binds. So in a way it can be said that a vishaya is nothing > but what I create by my own desire. > Hsin-ji seems to have hinted at some thing like this in his post. > Regards, > S.N.Sastri > 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.