Maya3: This is in response to your following comment elsewhere in this Board:
"I thought that the Atman is changeless, and that the outer shields of our other bodies is what is evolving, and that the inside the Atman is always the same. When we become enlightenend we can see what has always been inside of us, even throughout our lives as plankton, fish, mammals, birds, humans"
Firstly, this new format of Beliefnet is confusing to me. Hence didn't feel like visiting!
Suppose we substitute cliche terms like "atma", "purusha" "prakriti" etc with "energy" "mass" or "matter", we find that that there is no death as such. Neither energy persishes nor the mass. Mere change of status takes place! [Modern science has shown that energy or energy-mass is the same as it was at the beginning. Therefore on death, nothing goes out of the system or nothing comes into the system on birth] On death of, say samst what dies is the identity of samst and nothing else; name is gone body is renamed as corpse and disposed off! Example given in Astavakra Gita is a good one:
"As the same all-pervading sky [air] enters into the jar, even so does the immutable and all-encompassing Brahman enter into all beings and things" [AVG I.20]
When a jar made of clay is empty, it is filled with air. When the jar is broken, does the air inside die? Or does it undergo any change or evolution et al?
Rshis "saw" or realised the all-pervading energy, which is constant [purusha], precisely and everything else got blurred or vanished. [refer Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle] We commoners are seeing both but in a blurred condition! A name is generally attached to a shape; both come from us! When both are "dead" energy remains as always unaffected, unstained. We strive towards that energy through various means like religions faiths etc. Call that energy purusha, paramatma, Jehovah, Buddha, etc. that doesn't make any difference to that energy.
I know I don't like the new beliefnet either. It's actually horrible, especially that you cannot keep track of your posts! It lists the same one over and over again on our profiles. I don't know HOW they could think it is an improvement?
I like your thoughts, so if I understand you correctly you are saying that I understand it right when it comes to the Atman being changeless?
Yes, you & I see it [atman or energy] as changeless. But different people look at it differently.That is how all the existing controversies arose.
Let's get back to the example of air in the empty jar. We may say it is the same as the one outside. Another may say that it is the air of the jar and so long as the jar exists it will be so and it is "inferior" to the one outside. [In a lighter vein, this is the difference between Sankara & Ramanuja, the two of the greatest philosophers of India]
Same thing is true of energy. We may see all energy as one. But scientists for practical purposes classify it into different categories. Of course they do not call one "superior" and another "inferior" and so on as we do often!
Shortly stated, we all are like the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes [Jain literature], even the sighted man said at last, "who can positively affirm or deny anything, especially when dealing with subjective matters of philosophy?"
Truth cannot be rejected. There is no scope there.
When a person says "this is air in jar" so its inferior to the "air that is the whole" ... he is still identifying with the jar. So to a person who is already identifying with mind and body, to tell a statement like this, i think, is totally useless.
That jar is not there are all ... this is needs to be taught[mandukya upanishad karikas].
Ramanuja tried to establish that TAT TVAM ASI means qualitatively they are one, not quantitatively. Its like saying a rose is red ... he says. But he could not have said this without rejecting lot of scriptures. he did not write a complete commentry on all upanishads. The reason is straignt forward. Kaivalya upanishad says "Tvameva tat, tat tvameva" ... you are that alone and that is you alone. Please see that his interpretation fails with this statement totally.
Sankara's interpretation is by far the most logical interpretation.
Yes, you & I see it [atman or energy] as changeless. But different people look at it differently.That is how all the existing controversies arose.
Let's get back to the example of air in the empty jar. We may say it is the same as the one outside. Another may say that it is the air of the jar and so long as the jar exists it will be so and it is "inferior" to the one outside. [In a lighter vein, this is the difference between Sankara & Ramanuja, the two of the greatest philosophers of India]
Same thing is true of energy. We may see all energy as one. But scientists for practical purposes classify it into different categories. Of course they do not call one "superior" and another "inferior" and so on as we do often!
Shortly stated, we all are like the blind men and the elephant. As the story goes [Jain literature], even the sighted man said at last, "who can positively affirm or deny anything, especially when dealing with subjective matters of philosophy?"
Love & God Bless.
Samst,
I agree, that is the same thing that my teachers are teaching as well.
You've just gone and proved the issue under discussion!!!
"Truth cannot be rejected. There is no scope there"
Issue is what truth, whose truth? Your "truth" is true to you so is others' truth. There is no single "truth" valid across all frames of philosophical thought.
"That jar is not there are all ... this is needs to be taught[mandukya upanishad karikas]"
This is precisely what every teacher who came along said in respect of his/her belef! One may agree with one view and follow that and another may opt for another and so on. But why the endless arguments and fights as to whose belief is superior?
"Sankara's interpretation is by far the most logical interpretation"
Again, those who follow Ramanuja say the same thing about him. Who's right & who's wrong. One can discuss till cows come home and yet reach no conclusion! Is there any material or spiritual gain in that?
Incidentally, just as a matter of fact and NOT with the view to discuss, Ramanuja did deal with both "tatva masi" & "aham brahmasmi". According to rules of logic, they're sound. Whether you or I agree with them is immaterial.
"that is the same thing that my teachers are teaching as well"
Spiritualism,if I may say so, is highly subjective. Each has to find his own path or make a path. Eckhart Tolle explains the confusion about Enlightenment nicely. A bit long, but I thought worth reproducing:
What is "enlightenment," and why does there seem to be so much confusion about it in these times?
"Well, the confusion arises because so many people write about it without knowing it directly. One can become an expert on it without knowing it directly. Because an expert means you know a lot "about" something, but you do not necessarily know "it.” Confusion arises there.
What is enlightenment? Again, it is so vast not any one definition would do it justice. It would be a tiny aspect of it. And you can look at it from so many perspectives, this one, that one, that one. And every time it looks as if it were different.
Another reason why it can be confusing is you reach one person's definition of enlightenment, he or she is looking from "this" perspective. And then you read somebody else's, and they are looking from that perspective. There's the ancient old Indian story of blind men describing an elephant, one touching the trunk, another a leg, the tail, and so on. (Laughter]
The confusion arises in trying to understand through the mind what enlightenment is. That is impossible. Any description is only a signpost. So the mind can only go a certain way, and then the signpost has to be left behind. And the mind gets attached to a signpost, which is a teaching or description, a concept. And then confusion arises because then it sees another signpost and says, "Oh, maybe that is the true one." It becomes defensive, identities with "this one" and says that's me.
So, to the question. "What is enlightenment?" one could say simply, it is when there is no longer any identification with thinking. When there is no longer self-identification with thought processes and self-seeking through thinking. Then the compulsive nature of thinking ceases. Then gaps arise in the mind-stream. That means the unconditioned consciousness arises and is realized as stillness or presence. There is nobody there who "realizes." It is realized. It realizes itself. [Chuckle]"
When there are two people who are fighting over one idea ... it could be that both are seeing partial truth or one is seeing the whole, but the other is unable to see or none are seeing anything. it is not necessary that both are seeing partial truth. Advaita is complete and this i am saying after some study. So you can question me: how do you say Truth cannot be denied? and i can give an explanation. infact, through a series of questions i can lead you to the same thing.
When you say: "Ramanuja presented meaning of Tat-Tvam-Asi" logically",
that is a statement based upon someone's authority. How do we know if it is logical? To be clear, you will have to research and find out. and now you may ask "what is the spiritual benefit" ... that there is no spiritual benefit is a belief many people hold and this belief is wrong. And this too i am saying after research. we can discuss it after some time.
I discussed this issue with some vishistadvaitic scholars. They Reject scriptures that cannot be "mended" to their way of thinking. For example, show me a vaishnavite who can give a consistent commentry of Yoga Vasishtam? Or show me a vaishnavite who can give a consistent commentry on Ashtavakra Gita? When i mentioned "tvameva tat ; tat tvameva" statement from kaivalya upanishad --- many vaishnav followers [who claimed to be scholars!] rejected the statement! they could not explain. Shiva-literature like ribhu gita etc are anyways totally and diagonally opposite! Now the so called "Logical" argument was based upon "Sruthi" as Pramanam... meaning, the scriptures are the Axioms on which they infered. If they reject some of these important scriptures ... then that is totally incomplete.
:) How do we know who is right ? Research ... find out. BTW how did you accept all are correct in their own way? Coz it suited your "Feelings" ? or was it based on study?
I agree that it is indescribable also that there are so many perspective on it, we cannot really know until we are enlightened ourselves, but by then there are probably no words to describe it.
>>I agree that it is indescribable also that there are so many perspective on it, we cannot really know until we are enlightened ourselves, but by then there are probably no words to describe it>>
Right you're. There is this this saying - Those who've seen have not spoken; those who've spoken have not seen! Legend has it that Buddha fell totally silent on enlightenment and he was requetsed by Brahma to spread the faith. Much later same thing happened with Ramana. When asked, all he would say was, What's there to speak?. Only later, apparently to satisfy the numerous follwers he became one among them to guide!
We cannot "see" energy; only its manifestations or "reflections" through various means.
