Guest guest Posted October 14, 1999 Report Share Posted October 14, 1999 Hello Sudhakar If a void can be perceived then who perceives it? The perceiver is the self and not the void. Swami ><Sunil_Sudhakar >Ramakrishna >Ramakrishna >[ramakrishna] Dakshinamurthy Strotram >Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:00:14 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >From errors-65993-2033-nachiketas Thu Oct 14 05:54:36 1999 >Received: from [209.207.164.201] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailB9CF1D48014AD820F3B1D1CFA4C932FF0; Thu Oct 14 05:53:29 1999 >Received: (qmail 25506 invoked by uid 99); 14 Oct 1999 12:53:02 -0000 >Received: (qmail 7047 invoked from network); 14 Oct 1999 12:17:13 -0000 >Received: from unknown (209.207.164.241) by pop1. with QMQP; 14 >Oct 1999 12:17:13 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO fwcone.fwc.com) (205.247.229.70) by >mta2. with SMTP; 14 Oct 1999 12:22:45 -0000 >Received: by fwcone.fwc.com; id IAA24219; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:31:47 -0400 >(EDT) >Received: from fwcnotes1.fwc.com(207.11.152.1) by fwcone.fwc.com via smap >(4.1) id xma024044; Thu, 14 Oct 99 08:31:12 -0400 >Received: by fwcnotes1.fwc.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) >id 0525680A.004937BC ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:19:43 -0500 >X-Lotus-FromDomain: INTERNET >Message-ID: <0525680A.004935DD.00 >Mailing-List: list Ramakrishna ; contact >Ramakrishna-owner >Delivered-mailing list Ramakrishna >Precedence: bulk >List-Un: <Ramakrishna- (AT) ONElist (DOT) com> > > > > > Dear Everybody > > Could somebody tell me how one would logically prove that void is not > I? The commentary is silent on this. Can somebody help me out on this > please? I am sorry because this question is purely academic in nature > and has nothing to do with my belief. > > love > > Sunil > > ----------------------------Reply Header------------------------- > Commentary: > > From the atheism of the cArvAkas down to the Sunya theory of >Buddhism, > all the opinions are delusions. These delusions will vanish once the > intuitive perception of the Transcendental Absolute dawns on us. The > body cannot be the Self, because it is visible, it is inert, it has > colour and form, it has parts, it is made up of the five elements of > matter. Also, if body were the Self, even when it is sleeping, even > when it is in coma, in fact, even after death, it should be able to > recognize itself as 'I'. The senses cannot be the Self, because, >the > blind, the deaf, the lame all can recognize the 'I' in them. The >vital > breath prANa cannot be the Self because when the body is sleeping, >the > prANa is still working, but it is not sentient as is clear from the > fact that it does not recognize the purse being pick-pocketed from >its > body. The intellect cannot be the Self because it exists neither > before nor after life in the body and even while it exists in the >body > it is so full of change that you can never call it the immutable! > > Commentary and translation by Prof V Krishnamurthy > > > >------ >Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >Vivekananda Centre London >http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 1999 Report Share Posted October 14, 1999 Dear Sunil I will request Prof Krishnamurti to develop this theme as it was his contribution that you are referring to. The answer should be interesting - I await to see how this develops. jay Sunil_Sudhakar <Sunil_Sudhakar Ramakrishna <Ramakrishna > 14 October 1999 13:53 [ramakrishna] Dakshinamurthy Strotram ><Sunil_Sudhakar > > > > > Dear Everybody > > Could somebody tell me how one would logically prove that void is not > I? The commentary is silent on this. Can somebody help me out on this > please? I am sorry because this question is purely academic in nature > and has nothing to do with my belief. > > love > > Sunil > > ----------------------------Reply Header------------------------- > Commentary: > > From the atheism of the cArvAkas down to the Sunya theory of Buddhism, > all the opinions are delusions. These delusions will vanish once the > intuitive perception of the Transcendental Absolute dawns on us. The > body cannot be the Self, because it is visible, it is inert, it has > colour and form, it has parts, it is made up of the five elements of > matter. Also, if body were the Self, even when it is sleeping, even > when it is in coma, in fact, even after death, it should be able to > recognize itself as 'I'. The senses cannot be the Self, because, the > blind, the deaf, the lame all can recognize the 'I' in them. The vital > breath prANa cannot be the Self because when the body is sleeping, the > prANa is still working, but it is not sentient as is clear from the > fact that it does not recognize the purse being pick-pocketed from its > body. The intellect cannot be the Self because it exists neither > before nor after life in the body and even while it exists in the body > it is so full of change that you can never call it the immutable! > > Commentary and translation by Prof V Krishnamurthy > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 1999 Report Share Posted October 14, 1999 Wat is void n wat is context it is being referred to Who r carvakas n wat is sunya theroy of buddhism > > I will request Prof Krishnamurti to develop this theme as it was his > contribution that you are referring to. > > The answer should be interesting - I await to see how this develops. > > jay > > > > Dear Everybody > > > > Could somebody tell me how one would logically prove that void is not > > I? The commentary is silent on this. Can somebody help me out on this > > please? I am sorry because this question is purely academic in nature > > and has nothing to do with my belief. > > > > love > > > > Sunil > > > > ----------------------------Reply Header------------------------- > > Commentary: > > > > From the atheism of the cArvAkas down to the Sunya theory of Buddhism, > > all the opinions are delusions. These delusions will vanish once the > > intuitive perception of the Transcendental Absolute dawns on us. The > > body cannot be the Self, because it is visible, it is inert, it has > > colour and form, it has parts, it is made up of the five elements of > > matter. Also, if body were the Self, even when it is sleeping, even > > when it is in coma, in fact, even after death, it should be able to > > recognize itself as 'I'. The senses cannot be the Self, because, the > > blind, the deaf, the lame all can recognize the 'I' in them. The vital > > breath prANa cannot be the Self because when the body is sleeping, the > > prANa is still working, but it is not sentient as is clear from the > > fact that it does not recognize the purse being pick-pocketed from its > > body. The intellect cannot be the Self because it exists neither > > before nor after life in the body and even while it exists in the body > > it is so full of change that you can never call it the immutable! > > > > Commentary and translation by Prof V Krishnamurthy > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 1999 Report Share Posted October 14, 1999 Dear Everybody Could somebody tell me how one would logically prove that void is not I? The commentary is silent on this. Can somebody help me out on this please? I am sorry because this question is purely academic in nature and has nothing to do with my belief. love Sunil ----------------------------Reply Header------------------------- Commentary: From the atheism of the cArvAkas down to the Sunya theory of Buddhism, all the opinions are delusions. These delusions will vanish once the intuitive perception of the Transcendental Absolute dawns on us. The body cannot be the Self, because it is visible, it is inert, it has colour and form, it has parts, it is made up of the five elements of matter. Also, if body were the Self, even when it is sleeping, even when it is in coma, in fact, even after death, it should be able to recognize itself as 'I'. The senses cannot be the Self, because, the blind, the deaf, the lame all can recognize the 'I' in them. The vital breath prANa cannot be the Self because when the body is sleeping, the prANa is still working, but it is not sentient as is clear from the fact that it does not recognize the purse being pick-pocketed from its body. The intellect cannot be the Self because it exists neither before nor after life in the body and even while it exists in the body it is so full of change that you can never call it the immutable! Commentary and translation by Prof V Krishnamurthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 1999 Report Share Posted October 15, 1999 Namaste Sunil-ji We know that we are a conscious being. If we are not, then this discussion cannot take place. But something void cannot be conscious, therefore it contradicts our very nature. Therefore, the 'I' cannot be the Void. It has to be something Conscious. The I is also called Sat-Chit-Ananda rupa. The Chit implies that it is aware or knowledgable. Just my 2 cents worth. Om Shanti Kathi > > Sunil_Sudhakar [sMTP:Sunil_Sudhakar] > Friday, October 15, 1999 6:00 AM > Ramakrishna > [ramakrishna] Dakshinamurthy Strotram > > <Sunil_Sudhakar > > > > > Dear Everybody > > Could somebody tell me how one would logically prove that void is not > I? The commentary is silent on this. Can somebody help me out on this > please? I am sorry because this question is purely academic in nature > and has nothing to do with my belief. > > love > > Sunil > > ----------------------------Reply Header------------------------- > Commentary: > > From the atheism of the cArvAkas down to the Sunya theory of > Buddhism, > all the opinions are delusions. These delusions will vanish once the > intuitive perception of the Transcendental Absolute dawns on us. The > body cannot be the Self, because it is visible, it is inert, it has > colour and form, it has parts, it is made up of the five elements of > matter. Also, if body were the Self, even when it is sleeping, even > when it is in coma, in fact, even after death, it should be able to > recognize itself as 'I'. The senses cannot be the Self, because, > the > blind, the deaf, the lame all can recognize the 'I' in them. The > vital > breath prANa cannot be the Self because when the body is sleeping, > the > prANa is still working, but it is not sentient as is clear from the > fact that it does not recognize the purse being pick-pocketed from > its > body. The intellect cannot be the Self because it exists neither > before nor after life in the body and even while it exists in the > body > it is so full of change that you can never call it the immutable! > > Commentary and translation by Prof V Krishnamurthy > > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ 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.