Guest guest Report post Posted May 5, 2003 , professorhkl <professorhkl@n...> wrote: > My comments are at the bottom of the post. I will pass this on to HS as > well. > > Harsha > > Jay Nelamangala wrote: > > > As you might have seen under the last month's discussions on > > "free-will and fate", > > some in this group accept there is free-will and yet there are others > > who don't, > > and both being devoted, learned advaitins. What does that tell us? > > It tells us that > > "sAkshee khalu sarva pramANa prAmANya nischAyakaha". The final > > pramANa on > > what is acceptable and what is not, is one's own sAkshee or > > 'conscience' ( the notion > > of sAkshee in vEdanta, is much broader than what the word conscince > > indicates, but for a > > lack of a better word in english, we will use the word conscience > > itself). > > > > In matters of right and wrong, just and unjust, truth and false, the > > final pramANa is one's own sAkshee for that person. This is why, what > > one is convinced about, others are not. > > There is lot more that is said to be about sAkshee. If the > > moderators' are interested, may be a month can be devoted just on that > > subject. > > > > >For realisation, Jnana and Bhakti both are necessary, it is like the > > two wings of the Bird, a Bird >cannot fly with only One wing. Think in > > terms of Advaita! With Love > > > > But jnAna is getting stuck in intellect, Bhakti is in SaguNa Brahman > > which is again considered mithyA. > > > > Let me explain why my conscience does not let me think ' I am > > Infinite' , ' I am God', and such other ideas that seem to freely > > float around in this forum. People have given different names to it > > : 'stuck in intellect', 'lack of understanding', 'not God > > realized', > > 'being in the wrong email list', ' dualistic thinking', 'not thinking > > in terms of Advaita', ' not learned enough', 'not able to rise above > > mind', "not realized Pleroma", "not able to comprehend advaita", > > etc etc. > > > > My understanding is that the highest discipline is Brahma- jignyAsA > > which comes in the form shravaNa-manana-dhyAna. > > Thus, meditation on a real thing, that leads to the realization of it > > and in this case the right understanding of the thing is > > obviously the presupposition of the meditation, because dhyAna is an > > aspect of memory, and efforless dhyAna is samAdhi. > > > > But in advaita, this object of dhyAna is mithyA and the meditation on > > it is somehow supposed to remove wrong notions > > and thereby help the correct understanding of Truth. My conscience > > does not let me accept this position because, firstly > > If the final Truth, that we have called God or Parabrahman is > > self-evident or sva-prakAsha, and with reference to it the > > distinction between right and wrong knowledge can not be justified > > because it is all notional and intellectual. My conscience does not let > > me accept the fact that meditation on a wrong thing, i.e, the thing > > that is arOpita, removes wrong notions about Truth and leads to > > the correct understanding of it. Consiously I can not accept such a > > position simply because, it is not very convincing. Further, > > dhyAna and samAdhi are lower forms of discipline, and discipline in > > the higher sense consists in application to shAstra, and this > > presupposes no meditation. > > > Dear Jayji, > > You say that your conscience does not let you accept certain things, > etc. There is no one here objecting that you should not follow your > conscience and whatever approach to the divine that seems natural to > you. You can certainly take satisfaction in your understanding and > knowledge. > > Our sages who proclaimed the Maha Vakyas took satisfaction in their > knowledge of the Self as it was their first hand knowledge and not just > based on someone else's word or reading of books. Realizing the Self is > the ultimate satisfaction. Sages declare that "Knowing That, nothing > remains to be known". > > Atman Is Brahman is Both the basic axiom of Advaita as well as the > Actual Experience of Sages. If Self-Realization could be contradicted by > words and/or differing interpretations of Sanskrit verses, it would not > be much of a Realization and could stand the test of time. > > Brahman is One without a second. Upon encountering IT the "I" does not > survive as the mind but becomes (Recognizes It Self) as the very Eye > that is Self Seeing and Self Being. > > Self is Sat-Chit-Ananda, Nityam, Poornum. > > These are not attributes of Brahman but the very nature of Brahman. It > only appears paradoxical through the perspective of the mind, yet those > who Know their own Heart as the Self finding nothing mysterious in it. > > Brahman does not have attributes that are complete. Brahman Is Complete. > > Love to all > Harsha hi Harsha: That is certainly a well phrased point of view. If I understand it Jay won't meditate on something false, mythya, as it goes against his conscience. Since he won't use mythya drishti then he should go for one of the other two: badha drishti, or pravilapa drishti. The last is said by Ramana to be the most powerful anyway. >From near the end of Vivekachudamani-p257 of "The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi" publisher V.S. Ramanan Love Bobby G. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
