Sri Ramakrishna's analogies on Brahman and Atman

[Guest guest]

> 1.Surely Thakurji meant the pot space and outside space as an analogy to make

> people get some notion to hold on to about Brahman and Atman. Because in a

different context he himself says that Brahman cannot be brought into words.

> He says that Vedas, Tantras, Puranas and all the texts of the world have

become like food spit out from the mouth because they are debated and discussed.

However Brahman is never that way because no one has been able to describe it in

words.

>

> 2.The analogy used by Thakurji for distingusihing Maya and Brahman is that of

a moving snake and a still snake. This means Maya is the energy manifested as

" Creation " - we preceive it by the 5 senses, mind and intellect. Brahman is then

unmanifested energy from which maya springs forth.

>

> 3. Regarding our attempts to understand Brahman, Thakurji has this to offer. A

person takes a diamond to the market and asks people how much it was worth:

> A brinjal vendor says it is worth about a basket of brinjals;A rice merchant

says about a bag of rice; So does every one value it according to their own

intellect. Finally a diamond merchant values it at a million. Thakurji concludes

by saying only Brahman can know Brahman fully( can't imagine what he wanted to

convey)

>

> 4. Another analogy by Thakur to clarify the relationship between Brahman and

beings

>

> Human body is the pot;Mind, Intellect,Senses are the water, rice and

vegetables in the pot; The heat from the stoves makes all this get cooked and

Thakurji likens the heat to Brahman. He says a person touching the cooked food

will feel the heat - in reality the heat is neither that of the pot nor that of

the food. Similarly humans do actions because of the energy that is Brahman.

>

> I do not know if these measure up to the tenor of the discussion in the list

on Atman Brahman and the like which uses some axioms and abstractions.

>

> But I find Thakurji's lucid explanations the guide to understanding abstract

concepts. They are like lamp posts which the mind can fall back on to get a

handle on these concepts.

>

> But at the end as Thakurji reminds us " All these efforts to grasp Brahman are

like knowing a particular country by poring over its map. There is no substitute

for experiencing the country firsthand! "

>

> regards

> Sreedhar

 

--

--------------------

Click here for Free Video!!

http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

 

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Sridhar. Very well put.

 

It is very true that there is no substitute for experience. It may be

almost impossible to describe Brahman. But, on the other hand, it may

not be that difficult to experience Brahman, because, in essence, you

are THAT.

 

So, the question becomes how do you go about experiencing yourself?

What is preventing you from doing so? Ah... Ha... If you believe

yourself to be something other than Brahman, then, of course, that

would be a barrier.

 

Many think that God is somebody other than them and they should

better act as slaves to God. I wonder why? Do they have a guilty

conscience. Others dare not think they can be Godlike. I wonder if

the reason is that they think it might anger God. Or, they want to be

thought of by others as humble! Such people remain trapped in the

idea that they are the ego. Funny, how people make their own traps.

Such traps were never intended in any of the scriptures. The traps

are derived only from the misinterpretations of the scriptures.

 

I have seen many people acting and behaving as if they are the body.

They tend to be more at the lower end on the I.Q. scale. Brahman is

certainly not the body. So, experiencing the body would not be

experiencing Brahman.

 

But, then, there are others who act and behave as if they are very

logical. They can even score pretty high on the I.Q. scale. But such

people feel rarely inspired about anything. They don't believe in

intuition either. So, basing one's experience on the mind ( " always

trying to know before you go " ) would not lead to experiencing Brahman

either.

 

Now what we are discussing among ourselves in this E-Group does have

some value. At least we can come to conclusions about what is NOT

Brahman.

 

And that can help us narrow our approach to experiencing Brahman.

 

Regards,

Vinaire