The Point

[Guest guest]

Frank-ji wrote:

so, unless we realize that our preoccupation with solving

philosophical riddles is an activity which, in effect, stalls [or

even reverses!] our progress on the path to Self-realization, we're--

at best!--wasting precious time. at worst, we've come to believe

such involvement is important and integral to the mokshamarga,

thereby further reinforcing our faith in its efficacy.

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Hi Frank,

A not unheard of view but neverthless surprising when it is

voiced on a vedanta list. In his foreward to VP Swami Madhavananda

mentions several commentaries on the original which he consulted along

with numerous other authorities. Have they missed the point? One wonders.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Frank-ji wrote:

> so, unless we realize that our preoccupation with solving

> philosophical riddles is an activity which, in effect, stalls [or

> even reverses!] our progress on the path to Self-realization, we're-

-

> at best!--wasting precious time. at worst, we've come to believe

> such involvement is important and integral to the mokshamarga,

> thereby further reinforcing our faith in its efficacy.

>

> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

>

> Hi Frank,

> A not unheard of view but neverthless surprising when

it is

> voiced on a vedanta list. In his foreward to VP Swami

Madhavananda

> mentions several commentaries on the original which he consulted

along

> with numerous other authorities. Have they missed the point? One

wonders.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

hariH OM! michael-ji,

 

namaskaaram.

 

(before i reply, i would like to reiterate what i've always pointed

out on our forum...that whatever my views are, i'm well aware they

could be wrong, despite the strength of their conviction overtly or

covertly conveyed.)

 

as we know, vedanta represents the essence or end teachings of the

vedas, and is primarily concerned with achieving Self-realization,

and the methods leading to it. we're told the most effective method

is the threefold approach, being sravana, manana, and nididhyasana

[the latter of the three representing the pragmatic vehicle for

progress on the path].

 

tackling philosophical riddles might be a source of interest, but

they can also be a source of endless debate which often leads to

circuitous mental excursions, entanglements, and eventually

confusion (the ultimate enemy of a sadhak!). obviously there are

aspects of sruti and smriti that are open to interpretation, which

can provoke useful debate. however, inordinately pursuing solutions

to matters that are in fact unsolvable tend to obscure/degrade the

necessity of the [immeasurably more important] *practical* sadhana,

which is centered on nididhyasana (e.g. meditation on the mahavakyas--

being among the primary, although not necessarily the most

expeditious--means).

 

i believe virtually every moment we're alive, regardless of what

we're doing, we're engaged in a form of meditation...a meditation of

the Mind which upholds the mayashakthi of brahman's lila (Life). the

Mind creates, sustains, and destroys life with every breath. this

has been described before, referred to as [the continuum

of] " spontaneous creation. " this i believe is part of what's

happening, coupled with an inexplicably intertwined experiential ego-

oriented expression of linear evolution (i.e. the common world

experience).

 

if in fact this is so, what does it do for me? did it help bring me

any closer to moksha? or did it just satisfy a curiosity?

 

or i might conclude that if it didn't help, then maybe the world view

i settled on was erroneous. so i might discover that if i ascribe to

a life conception that's in fact true ( " true " in the sense of being

*relatively* true, of course), such as one that has the idea of a

self-contained domain of space-time/extension, where past present and

future are wrapped in a unified whole, with linear progression being

a randomly selected illusion utilized by mutually exclusive ego-units

that spawn their own separative worlds of elaborate precision,

feigning thus our collective, shared world experience.

 

if i adopt the above alternative world view, assuming it might in

fact be the correct one (over what i currently believe), would *this

then* help bring me closer to moksha?

 

i contend, no on all or any accounts. *however*, i also understand

the importance of exploring and pushing the intellect to its limits,

for various reasons (karma is one; another is that it's a path in of

itself, such as the meditation on zen koans that, in time, exhaust

obsessively enquiring minds, resolving in satori or moksha). i just

dont believe this is the case for a number of members in this forum.

of course as i said, i could be wrong. but i believe a good number of

our members are a lot closer to moksha than they think. i also

believe a number of them are jnanis; however, among some of these i

was *apparently* proved wrong when they proclaimed otherwise. i

say " apparently " because i think it's possible they just stated such

to relieve the expectational pressure that'd be invariably created by

other members.

 

ok. it's true that sri ramana would often address [the above cited]

questions posed by seekers (such as what the state of jnana is like,

or if an ajnani experiences and is aware that he is brahman in deep

sleep, or if there's such a thing as free will, etc). on the other

hand, ramana would also not infrequently tell a seeker to first find

the Self and then find out if free will exists or not, etc. one

could imagine a number of reasons for his different reactions. it

would seem that the most obvious reason was based on what area the

individual needed improvement: in knowledge or practical

application. it should also be pointed out that ramana emphasized

adopting buddha's " middle way " in the distribution of one's overall

abhyasa (applied effort).

 

namaste,

frank