Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Sadaji wrote: Current scientific investigations are still looking for the ultimate indivisible particles, by which the universe exists or ontos or the ultimate reality of the universe. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Sadaji, Of course that is a foolish project because what science could find would not be the ultimate reality of the universe or even a ultimate theory. You write: Vedanta goes one step further and this is where Scripture becomes a pramaaNa. ||||| But ones interpretation of the Scripture is not a pramaaNa which is a point that can be forgotten. Even the apparently simple utterance requires interpretation which is why views proliferate. In the end the best that can be hoped for is development of doctrine according to the founder of the tradition in a coherent and rational manner. You write: Carpenter creates furniture, wood becomes furniture. Wood is inherent in the products of wood (carpenter is not). The scriptures uses both words for Brahman since it is one without a second?? both as creator (nimitta kaaraNa) as well as uses the word -become or became - as the world too as the material cause or upaadaana kaaraNa - with the example of spider in Mun. Up. |||||||||||| This is an analogy drawn from the notion of material identity and causation and it requires that we recognise that this is not a complete account of causality but just a facet of it for illustrative purposes. You are not suggesting, I hope, that the cosmos is made out of Brahman but that the being of the contingent requires foundation or something of the kind. Analogies are serving suggestions not explicit menus. To look again into the connection between the material and its products in terms of real and unreal, imagine a combined smelting and moulding machine. Lumps of gold go in one end and come out the other as rings, bangles etc. As the rings etc are produced the operative takes those rings and dumps them into a smelter which bring them back to their original lumpen state. Are we to consider that the same lump of gold passes from being real to unreal and back again? What I am saying is this - an analogy for an ontological theory is not ontology. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > > Sadaji wrote: > Current scientific investigations are still looking for the ultimate > indivisible > particles, by which the universe exists or ontos or the ultimate reality > of the > universe. > > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Namaste Sadaji, > Of course that is a foolish project because what science could find would > not be the ultimate reality of the universe or even a ultimate theory. > > You write: Vedanta goes one step further and this is where Scripture > becomes a pramaaNa. > > ||||| But ones interpretation of the Scripture is not a pramaaNa which is > a point that can be forgotten. Even the apparently simple utterance > requires interpretation which is why views proliferate. In the end the > best that can be hoped for is development of doctrine according to the > founder of the tradition in a coherent and rational manner. > > You write: Carpenter creates furniture, wood becomes furniture. Wood is > inherent in the products of wood (carpenter is not). The scriptures uses > both words for Brahman since it is one without a second?? both as creator > (nimitta kaaraNa) as well as uses the word > -become or became - as the world too as the material cause or upaadaana > kaaraNa > - with the example of spider in Mun. Up. > > |||||||||||| This is an analogy drawn from the notion of material > identity and causation and it requires that we recognise that this is not > a complete account of causality but just a facet of it for illustrative > purposes. You are not suggesting, I hope, that the cosmos is made out of > Brahman but that the being of the contingent requires foundation or > something of the kind. Analogies are serving suggestions not explicit > menus. > > To look again into the connection between the material and its products in > terms of real and unreal, imagine a combined smelting and moulding > machine. Lumps of gold go in one end and come out the other as rings, > bangles etc. As the rings etc are produced the operative takes those > rings and dumps them into a smelter which bring them back to their > original lumpen state. Are we to consider that the same lump of gold > passes from being real to unreal and back again? > > What I am saying is this - an analogy for an ontological theory is not > ontology. > > Best Wishes, > Michael. >=== JKrishnamurti.org - Daily Quote === Behind the screen of words It is important to see, is it not?, that no one can give us freedom from the conflict of relationship. We can hide behind the screen of words, or follow a teacher, or run to a church, or lose ourselves in a cinema or a book, or keep on attending talks; but it is only when the fundamental process of thinking is uncovered through awareness in relationship that it is possible to understand and be free of that friction which we instinctively seek to avoid. Most of us use relationship as a means of escape from ourselves, from our own loneliness, from our own inward uncertainty and poverty, and so we cling to the outer things of relationship, which become very important to us. But if, instead of escaping through relationship, we can look into relationship as a mirror and see very clearly, without any prejudice, exactly what is, then that very perception brings about a transformation of what is, without any effort to transform it. There is nothing to transform about a fact; it is wh at it is. But we approach the fact with hesitation, with fear, with a sense of prejudice, and so we are always acting upon the fact and therefore never perceiving the fact as it is. When we see the fact as it is, then that very fact is the truth which resolves the problem. The Collected Works, Vol. VI - 207 _____________ DailyQuote mailing list To : go to http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/rss/ To : go to http://www.kfa.org/dq-remove.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 --- On Thu, 9/17/09, rgoteti <rgoteti wrote: >=== JKrishnamurti. org - Daily Quote === Behind the screen of words It is important to see, is it not?, that no one can give us freedom from the conflict of relationship. We can hide behind the screen of words, or follow a teacher, or run to a church, or lose ourselves in a cinema or a book, or keep on attending talks; but it is only when the fundamental process of thinking is uncovered through awareness in relationship that it is possible to understand and be free of that friction which we instinctively seek to avoid. ---------------------- Sri Rgoteti - praNAms. Sir, you are quoting J. Krishnamurthy words. I hope you understand them -to quote JK - not as understanding as in understanding as a thought but understanding as in understanding as a fact Can you please translate the above sentence that you have quoted into plain English that I too can understand what that sentence really means or implies or what exactly involved in the process of thinking that is to be uncovered through awareness - assuming that you have understood what JK means as you are quoting him profusely? Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > --- On Thu, 9/17/09, rgoteti <rgoteti wrote: > > >=== JKrishnamurti. org - Daily Quote === > > Behind the screen of words > > It is important to see, is it not?, that no one can give us freedom from the conflict of relationship. We can hide behind the screen of words, or follow a teacher, or run to a church, or lose ourselves in a cinema or a book, or keep on attending talks; but it is only when the fundamental process of thinking is uncovered through awareness in relationship that it is possible to understand and be free of that friction which we instinctively seek to avoid. > ---------------------- > Sri Rgoteti - praNAms. > > Sir, you are quoting J. Krishnamurthy words. I hope you understand them -to quote JK - not as understanding as in understanding as a thought but understanding as in understanding as a fact > > Can you please translate the above sentence that you have quoted into plain English that I too can understand what that sentence really means or implies or what exactly involved in the process of thinking that is to be uncovered through awareness - assuming that you have understood what JK means as you are quoting him profusely? > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event. We Indians feel word heavily since we were taught that way.How we feel the sense of a word?Every word carries several meanings according to its usage.A Word Atma (sanskrit) got so many notations and references in several places so the meaning is changed accordingly. One thing is certain that word is an abstract entity all by itself but people are loaded with its meanings and they are in use. thank you sekhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > --- On Thu, 9/17/09, rgoteti <rgoteti wrote: > > >=== JKrishnamurti. org - Daily Quote === > > Behind the screen of words > > It is important to see, is it not?, that no one can give us freedom from the conflict of relationship. We can hide behind the screen of words, or follow a teacher, or run to a church, or lose ourselves in a cinema or a book, or keep on attending talks; but it is only when the fundamental process of thinking is uncovered through awareness in relationship that it is possible to understand and be free of that friction which we instinctively seek to avoid. > ---------------------- > Sri Rgoteti - praNAms. > > Sir, you are quoting J. Krishnamurthy words. I hope you understand them -to quote JK - not as understanding as in understanding as a thought but understanding as in understanding as a fact > > Can you please translate the above sentence that you have quoted into plain English that I too can understand what that sentence really means or implies or what exactly involved in the process of thinking that is to be uncovered through awareness - assuming that you have understood what JK means as you are quoting him profusely? > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > For the means of knowledge to operate, it requires the notion of a doer, and the notion of a doer is the result of superimposition on the unattached brain. In other words, as soon as one falsely identifies the self as a mind, i.e. an agent, or doer, then all fields that operate are in the field of ignorance. Science, means of knowledge etc, since they require a distinct doer, are therefore bound in the field of ignorance. Simply to say that the instinctive behavior of humans in the empirical field is due to a series of misconceptions due to non-discrimination between the subject and the non-subject, and that humans share this behavior with the rest of the animal kingdom. Now humans, apart from their faculty of discrimination, must be different somehow, and therefore not subject to ignorance? In his brief introduction, sankara tells us the reason we cannot attain enlightenment. It is because it is in our nature to mix up the real and not real and therefore perceive a world of duality with multiple knower/doers/subjects and things to be known/done/objects. In particular, we falsely confuse the eternal Truth that is our innermost self and is The Witness with no role in empirical life, to be acting as an agent. This confusion is innate to us, and is a matter of common experience requiring no proof. It is beginning less and endless in the sphere of the empirical universe. This confusion or superimposition is the basic ignorance that results in this world of duality. The world of duality fashioned by ignorance is termed to be illusion, as it can only be perceived once this basic superimposition has occurred. And all activities include the secular and scientific fall into the field of ignorance as they must presuppose a distinct doer. The purpose of the philosophy texts is to point out this ignorance as essentially the nature of a false mental notion, and remove all misconceptions, to reveal the nature of Truth. A thorough understanding of imposition is required as a first step, therefore, is vital to understand the texts of philosophy and Wittgenstein in particular. It is for this reason that this text is held in such high regard, and deserves to be studied by all serious students of philosophy. Verbatim is super imposed over real for certainty. Thank you sekhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Dear Sekhar. Your 46670. Sure you did an excellent job explaining JK. However, there are perils. You said: " For the means of knowledge to operate, it requires the notion of a doer, and the notion of a doer is the result of superimposition on the unattached brain. In other words, as soon as one falsely identifies the self as a mind, i.e. an agent, or doer, then all fields that operate are in the field of ignorance. " WOW! Does the stupid mass of grey matter called the brain have to exist a priori for the means of knowledge to operate?! What about the means of knowledge, i.e. the five indriyAs (senses) to reduce them to a very corporeal level, i.e. the level of the stinking body? Isn't that body in awareness? And, where does that *one* who falsely identifies the self as the mind come from? I would, therefore, put it this way. Awareness is a self-iridescent screen on which everything gets projected. It is a given. You have no choice about it. The everything here means the body, the bloody brain (which if it belongs to a poor animal can end up fuming on a restaurant dish), the " I " notion etc. Nothing is left out. " Be the screen! " , that is what JK screams. " Be the being and not the stupid thinking one " . That is what Tolle also screams and our old Sankara too. That way lies salvation or liberation or whatever name you want to call it by, after knowing which it is known that nothing has at all been salvaged or liberated! But, we don't heed. That is the tragedy of our scholarly situation where we know all the scriptures by heart and miss their very soul. Cheers. Bdest regards. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 > > " Be the screen! " , that is what JK screams. " Be the being and not the stupid thinking one " . That is what Tolle also screams and our old Sankara too. That way lies salvation or liberation or whatever name you want to call it by, after knowing which it is known that nothing has at all been salvaged or liberated! But, we don't heed. That is the tragedy of our scholarly situation where we know all the scriptures by heart and miss their very soul. > > Cheers. > > Bdest regards. > > Madathil Nair > Dear sir As you said when there is no notion of I, is there any necessity to intellectualize? thank you sekhar 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.