[Sri Ramakrishna] Infinity

[Guest guest]

Dear Brad:

 

thank you for your very prompt and insightful response...

i too believe that Jesus and Sri Ramakrishna are identical in their

teachings...it is heartening to hear it from you, a Christian so devoted to

Christ, as well.

 

may i add my comments to yours under them...?

i do enjoy such discussions and i appreciate this forum for allowing such

conversations..

 

 

>Yes, in my previous message I said Samadhi could be defined as cessation of

>thought (as brought about by " stillness " of the mind). However, is it

> " cessation " or is it " one-pointedness " of thought. Or, is there even a

>difference between the two? When we cease our thoughts, or still our

>thoughts, or focus them into a singularity, are we not causing our mind to

>be receptive to God's thoughts? Regarding your comment: " In time and space

>alone can you have thought, as >thoughts have a beginning and an end. "

>That is an interesting theological question. If " thoughts " are derived from

> " consciousness, " then I would expect them to exist, even when one has

>transcended time and space. But, surely, they exist in a much purer form -

>without the tug and pull of the three Gunas. (Sri Ramakrishna certainly

>appeared to carry on a " dialogue " with the Divine Mother when in Samadhi -

>which required thought.)

 

From what little i know, samadhi involves the complete merging of one's mind

with that of the Supreme by eradicating the individual identity. " I " and

" mine " do not exist anymore, and so there are no two anything, no two

points, no two states, no linear time...and so thought as we know it, stops.

When Sri Ramakrishna experienced samadhi his breathing stopped and he

showed no signs of life...Only after, he would come a little lower down,

did he begin to chat with the Divine Mother...even that state was far

removed from the world as we know it...

 

again this is my (perhaps wrong!) view.

 

 

 

2) You commented: " Absolute anything especially absolute numbers are a

>relative concept. " I don't know if I would agree with the " absolute

>anything " part. Isn't the word " absolute " the very definition of something

>which transcends " relativity? " Sat-Chit-Ananda - as translated to mean

>Absolute Existence, Abosolute Consciousness and Absolute Bliss. To me,

>absolute simply means " one and only. " In this case, I was referring to the

>theory that our universe (which is a manifestion or superimposition of the

> " one and only, " but in varying degrees of intensity or vibration) has a

>point where the degree of " coldness " and " motion " can go no lower/slower.

>At this point, the theory goes, atoms cease to move, vibrate or radiate

>energy. Would not atoms in this state transcend the relative and achieve to

>the " one

and only " on which they were based? When we split the atom, we find

incredible energy. Therefore, when we " freeze " the atom, might we not find

incredible " truth? " Similarly, you say: " The concept of Zero exists because

of the existence of numbers...and so stay with in the relative world...which

is not in Infinity. " To the contrary, I would hazard the statement that

numbers exist because Zero exists! Therefore, Zero represents Infinity,

precisely because

>it is the basis on which all other numbers achieve their existence.

 

 

i cannot think of 'absolute' without adding another word next to it...for

eg...Abs Existence, or Abs zero...or Abs Knowledge...If that is so, that

absolute 'with the attribute' exist because their opposites exist also. and

so since we cannot relate to them without their 'opposites' Absolute

Anything is of this relative world.

Sat Chit Ananda...Truth(can only be perceived when there is untruth)

Existence(can only be understood when there is non-existence) and so on

They are however aids to guide us on the path to samadhi...

 

Again i may have a different and a narrower viewpoint than you do. But

perhaps that is why i believe it is impossible to put the Absolute in words

because as soon as we do, we tend to step into the relative plane.

 

The " one and only " from the coldest( a quantifiable and measurable concept

and so falls within the realm of the senses and the relative world) state

that atoms can reach being one with the " one and only " is possible i suppose

if

(a)that state is also universal and is changeless and is the source of all.

But by definition it has been cooled and so can change to higher degrees of

temp... and so is not changeless.

 

(b)the state of atoms has to be cooled to become one with the one and only,

that also means that the one and only already was in existence quite apart

from the atoms...

 

but aren't we seeking the one and only that is the cause of the energy in

the atoms, and the cause of the atoms themselves...a state that is quite

Independent of anything and everything of this world

but this is a question that is bugging me as well..

 

>3) That is why I humbly surmise that physical science (as opposed to the

>metaphysical science of Yoga), may someday ALSO lead us to Realization. God

>created our universe so that 2+2 always equals 4. Therefore, He created our

>universe so that it is based on both physical and metaphysical laws.

 

And so on this i do beg to disagree...for science, which is of the senses,

cannot, through our senses lead us to the threshold of God which by

definition transcends all senses.

I agree though that this world of the senses is infinite...there is a

shloka that goes that this Universe, since it evolved from the Infinite is

also infinite...for anything from the infinite is also infinite. But that

does not lead us to the Cause and the Universal, Changeless " element "

pervading the Universe...

 

Whew!!!

at this point i am exhausted...i shall remember to feed the List with fewer

questions and tackle my doubts one at a time...

 

with kind regards and pranaams

jairam

 

 

>In a previous discussion, we shared our thoughts on what would happen to

>our lovely world (sarcasm intended) if everyone stopped making widgets, and

>spent their time and energy meditating. God forbid! But, several astute

>Listees pointed out that man's nature would not allow that to happen. So,

>that begs the question, " What happens to mankind when all the

>metaphysicians (i.e., Sadhakas) achieve Moksha, leaving all the

>materialists behind? " I like to believe that our Creator, in His infinite

>wisdom has created another gateway to lilberation - albeit a more

>cumbersome one. So, I choose to respectfully disagree with your comment:

> " The only technology that will ever be available to attain to Samadhi is

>Jnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga as they seek

>to still and transcend! " I choose to believe that when physical science

>uses

>technology to uncover the " one and only " on which our universe was created,

>e.g., via the Absolute Zero, the Absolute Particle, the Absolute

>Mathematical Equation, etc., this will, somehow, also lead to Samadhi.

 

>3) You state: " Also the Concept of Infinity for me would direct me to look

>at the ONE source of material or energy or whatever you may want to call it

>as being not only PRESENT in EVERYTHING but also remains CHANGELESS. "

>

>I agree! Everything in our universe is a " manifestation " of the one and

>only, which is changeless, yet it is the source of all. However, only the

> " Manifestor " is real, not His manifestations.

>

>

>In summary: Isn't the process for achieving Samadhi the spiritual

>equivalent for achieving Absolute Zero in physics (i.e., stillness) or

>achieving Zero in mathematics (i.e., not one, not two, etc. - i.e., Neti,

>Neti)?

>

>God Bless,

>Brad

>

>

>

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp