Guest guest Report post Posted May 5, 2003 > > 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 dear Bobby, please ellaborate Love, Karta > > Love > Bobby G. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
