| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Trikal | Posted
on 08-May-04 02:45 PM
The mind desires this, And grieves for that. It embraces one thing, And spurns another. Now it feels anger, Now happiness. In this way you are bound. But when the mind desires nothing And grieves for nothing. When it is without joy or anger And, grasping nothing, Turns nothing away... Then you are free. -Ashtavakra |
| Trikal | Posted
on 08-May-04 02:46 PM
Talk as much philosophy as you like, worship as many gods as you please, observe ceremonies and sing devotional hymns, but liberation will never come, even after a hundred aeons, without realizing the Oneness. -Sankara |
| Trikal | Posted
on 08-May-04 02:48 PM
The supreme Self is neither born nor dies. He cannot be burned, moved, pierced, cut, nor dried. Beyond all attributes, the supreme Self Is the eternal witness, ever pure, Indivisible, and uncompounded, Far beyond the senses and the ego. In him conflicts and expectations cease. He is omnipresent, beyond all thought, Without action in the external world. Without action in the internal world. Detached from the outer and the inner, This supreme Self purifies the impure. -Atma Upanishad |
| bhanja | Posted
on 08-May-04 03:10 PM
To me trial and tribulation of life is what makes feel I am alive so I guess none of the teaching by any religion is valid to me.But I do respect people for their own believe. |
| Bramha | Posted
on 08-May-04 08:19 PM
Great paragraphs Trikal! There are really great stuffs out there hidden and I strongly believe they are very pure and divine! The Hinduism culture, I mean the bad parts, basically modified and abused by pundits is the only curse! No offense to other religions, although I don't follow and believe the most of the stuffs modern Hindu do, I strongly believe the only powerful and pure divine touch is there in Hinduism and of course Buddhism! Om Shanti Shanti! Bramha |
| jivman | Posted
on 09-May-04 07:51 AM
Paisa bane pachi, shivaji ko tin netra khulcha. |
| confused | Posted
on 09-May-04 10:25 AM
Beautiful post trikal ! Tad dhavato nyan atyeti tishthat nainad deva apnuvan purvam arshat Isha upanishad (the ultimate being which is Atma, outruns every uttermost reaches of our senses.) Atma is greater than the great and smaller than the smallest. Atma being the smaller of the smallest has no magnitude, but again its greater than the great (mahatyo mahiyan) that is reason why we feel universe is spreading beyound our limits, beyound our senses. |
| confused | Posted
on 10-May-04 09:24 PM
no one continuing this post ??? |
| Trikal | Posted
on 10-May-04 09:32 PM
Shree Ganeshaya nama: It is hard to find A man who has desire For what he has not tasted, Or who tastes the world And is untouched. Here in the world Some crave pleasure, Some seek freedom But it is hard to find A man who wants neither. He is a great soul. It is hard to find A man who has an open mind, Who neither seeks nor shuns Wealth or pleasure, Duty or liberation, Life or death. . . He does not want the world to end. He does not mind if it lasts. Whatever befalls him, He lives in happiness. For he is truly blessed. -Ashtavakra Gita |
| the other one | Posted
on 11-May-04 11:28 AM
Trikal Ji and others, good going, could you (or anyone who knows) please explain "neti" "neti" (neither this nor that) to me? I would be very much obliged.. thanks. |
| rauniyar | Posted
on 11-May-04 11:58 AM
Trikal Ji: Thanks for you kind postings. It all makes sense in larger picture of life. Uhi Rajeev, CT, Amrika |
| nsshrestha | Posted
on 11-May-04 12:02 PM
Neti Neti = Neither this nor that = This is that = Paradox = One who can exist here at the same time one who can exist there = God is omnipotent :) |
| Trikal | Posted
on 11-May-04 05:41 PM
Bramhaji, I agree with you. >> modified and abused by pundits is the only curse!<< The feeling of riligious service supposed to come from sincere heart and without hypocrisy or pretense. But These pundits took it as budiness and profession. It is true that the only powerful and pure divine touch is there in Hinduism. Good observation. Confusedji, Nice one !! The other oneji, "Neti Neti" it rhymes both word in simultaneous.literally 'not this, not this', the expression used to denote that Brahman is beyond all dualities and human thought. These Sanskrit words expressing the inexpressible - the Ultimate, the Absolute, the Transcendental, the Divine, God. rauniyarji, You are welcome. Nsshresthaji, Good explanation. I am impressed. ***************************** Like treasure hidden in the ground taste in the fruit gold in the rock oil in the seed The Absolute hidden away in the heart No one can know the ways of our Lord White as jasmine. Trikal....... |
| the other one | Posted
on 12-May-04 07:59 AM
Does "neti neti" refering to Brahma, and Brahma being the supreme conciousness, have any significance to the fact that there is no conclusive are in our brain that homes our personal conciousness, so the meditative aspect of neti neti is more univarsal? not in-the-brain personal? |
| the other one | Posted
on 12-May-04 08:01 AM
Thank you nsshrestha ji and Trikal ji.Please feed in more. |
| nsshrestha | Posted
on 12-May-04 08:33 AM
Trikal, Here comes a my dilemma with Neti Neti. It's just an inquiry of an inquisitive mind with limited knowledge, so don't take it too seriously. Does numena exists as it is? Existence of nature/reality as it is is numena so definitely by definition of numena. Does phenomenon exists as it is? Perception of nature/reality by human mind is phenomenon so by definition of phenomenon so it does not. Can we fully comprehend the nature? No, there is limitation to human senses. Can we not comprehend the nature at all? No, we can comprehend to some extent by our sensory organs and more by rationalization. Phenomenon is a subset of numena. Same metaphysical system exists in eastern philosophy. Sankara devised two systems of bramha, Parabramha and Aparabramha. Parabramha not percievable to bramhan, beyond senses. Aparabramha perceivable to bramhan, with in the reach of human senses. (Parabramha / Aparabramha may be flip flop). And he goes on saying we can not perceive bramha in its entirety but we can perceive to some extent. Is wheel a chariot? Neti Are horses a chariot? Net. Should it not be Pokito Pokito? Little Little Thoda Thoda, Ali Ali but Neti Neti? Tamaso ma Jyotirgamaya. |
| nsshrestha | Posted
on 12-May-04 08:34 AM
comes a dilemma comes my dilemma |
| the other one | Posted
on 12-May-04 09:31 AM
I am very new to this so please bear with me, Does parabrahma and aparabrahma in any way relate to numenal consciousness and phenomenal consciousness?? As to wheel the horses and the chariot, neti neti is supposed to blur the boundry and make it a ONE? so neti neti withought being a problem rather solves/dissolves it? |
| SITARA | Posted
on 12-May-04 09:53 AM
Empiricism, on its own devours its own logic. "Only that which can be received through our senses" defies the logic of common-sense... for how can common sense be touched, seen, tasted, felt or heard. To remove this weakness in empiricism, Kant created what is called a PRIORI; examples..." TIME" and "SPACE". Kant names "TIME" or "Timelessness" an INTUITION; applied to all data received by the senses to make intelligible. The potpourri of colors, shapes, forms received by the senses need to jell to give it a definite recognizable form. Kant applied the "Priori" concept to metaphysical phenomenas which runs parallel to "Parabhramha"; beyond the senses and yet existing like "TIME". So, here can we allot our Consciousness or Bhramha Gyan to be an intuition??? |
| SITARA | Posted
on 12-May-04 10:24 AM
On "neti, neti"... Does it bring to existence "that which is NOT?". Perhaps, you are your "Thule Sharir" as well as your "Atma Sharir" combined; and yet, you are neither when disected into the fine molecules of the elements that make up the "Thule Sharir" and not the "Atma Sharir"! |
| Nepe | Posted
on 12-May-04 08:43 PM
Great inquisitive mind thou hath, Nsshrestha ji. Briliiant quiries. Sitara, good references, notes and inklings. Ali elaborate garsyo na ! The other one, thank you for putting up a dam to the flood of wisdoms- now we can generate philosophical oorja in a controlled manner. Two chintaks that can make this a great chintan-manan are Gokul ji and Shiva ji. Just have Shiva ji's collection of poems 'Sapanaka rangaharu'. Here is one poem from the collection. The poet has given acknowledgement to Rigveda. 
|
| Bob Marley | Posted
on 12-May-04 09:07 PM
Hello everybody... I've started a thread a few days agoing about an important issue about Hinduism. It's called "HOLY COW". I hope you check it out. I thought it will be appropriate with this thread "Hindu Wisdom". |
| scatterbrain | Posted
on 13-May-04 06:41 AM
Interesting converesation. Uttam, ati uttam! :) I must have ran across the following at some point in my life ... k/:qL udgd\ k'0od\, :k;{g+ kfk gfzgd\ cfln+ugd\ dxf k'0od\, r'Dagd\ df]IfbfosM .. Artha k hola? Maile sonchya ta pakkai pani haina hola. :) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 09:06 AM
Since all you know seem to be expert on Hindusim and Sanskrit, will any of you, expecially Trikal guriu ji, be kind enough to explain Yama-Yami Samvada.. what it emans and how it relates to the Hindu Philosophy? I need it for my Sanskrit class and any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. PS: So, some of us dicovered Hick's and the Kantian persepective on religion. Interesting. Pople never fail to amuse and amaze me. On a side note: There is going to be an International conference on Kant at Peking University from Monday to Wednesday. Its a great oppurtunity to hear what the big shots from Hrvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Peking and Stanford + Heidelberg and other universities have to say on Kant. Interested? Send me an email. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 09:08 AM
ince all you know seem = all you seem |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 09:22 AM
For those interested in Sanskrit/Hindu Wisdom: A Sanskrit Reader by Charles Lanman, firts published by the Haravard University Press in 1884 (reprint, 1947, 1984) is a great book. It contains some stories from Hitopadesha and Kathasaritsagara and some Rig Veda readings and finally ends with the marriage and cremation ceremonies. Trikal Guru, if not asking much, why don't you get a hold of this book, and help me with my class (the final is coming soon). Its only $57 dollars :-). Also, if any of you know good Sankrit (learning) web sites, please feel free to email me or post the links here. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 13-May-04 09:43 AM
If ji: I would not put it so glibly and attach the word "discovered" to having come across Kant's views on the metaphysical. Any system of belief/s or theories (whether Shankaracharya's or Kant's) are manmade hence, can be dismantled and/or scrutinized from any angle. Perhaps, I have not had the good fortune to be immersed in a scholarly study of the Vedanta or Hume, Kant's or even Jung's theories....but, ( notice, it is not a big but) I have read somewhat enough, for them to stick into my mind to be digested at leisure. And, because I am not constricted by the limitations of an academic dissertation format, I have the absolute freedom (which I enjoy and fully exploit) to vacilate between Western and Eastern concepts on religion and the metaphysical. This "left field" play can be even more amusing/amazing (than just reading it in Sajha) when you deviate from bookish norms of analytic thought. I know you are busy, but I recommend you try it and see. And, yes I am so glad we do have Sajha to use as our sounding board where very well informed people congregate (regardless of their differences) to exchange ideas. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 13-May-04 10:07 AM
I didn't know that my use of word "discovery" would be taken that seriously by you, Sitara. My apologies. I used the word "discovery" because I myslef "discovered" Hick and the whole Kantian interpretation of religion(s) not that long ago.. I totally understand you questioning my choice of words here, and having re-read my post, I agree that it somewhat/somehow sounds condescending to the people engaged in this excellent discussion. You know, I have a hard time choosing the right words in English, Chinese and even Nepali. I certainly didn't want to sound disrespectful to any of the fellow posters here. And I hope you will forgive me for the mistake. It was not intentional at all. with apoligies, a Freak |
| SITARA | Posted
on 13-May-04 10:43 AM
IF ji: I was taken aback, yes. I had never assumed you to be a surface treader on any discipline; especially not on religion. Thanks for the clarification; truly appreciate it. :) Nepe ji... I was refering to "Tatwa Bhodh" where the physical body "Thule Sharir" is said to be made up of the 5 elements of universe which generates atomic energy: water, fire,air, earth,sky. And, "Atma Bhodh" which is the science of "consciousness of the self" or the soul. I don't know if "Consciousness" is interchangeable with "the soul". |
| Shiva Gautam | Posted
on 13-May-04 11:33 AM
Nepe ji, Thank you for posting my poem. I too have meditated on Neti -Neti (not read or researched much though) a little bit. Someone told me that it is one of the methods of looking for God/Truth, and that Yagyanbalka revealed this to Gargi at King Janak’s court. If you are looking for truth one way is to negate the false, and what remains is truth (this not it, this it not it- and finally what remains is the truth). In modern scientific experiments also often a null hypothesis is stated with an intention to reject/negate since such a hypothesis can not be proved even if it is true, but the falsehood of the hypothesis can be proved once an evidence against it is found. (In practice, we use a measure of uncertainty to disprove the hypothesis and sometimes when the uncertainty measure has a large value then we loosely say we accept the hypothesis) I think the Neti-Neti thing applies in other situations also. For example, if one wants to know what love is then one may start negating things that is not love e.g. is hitting someone love?- no, is 'gaali -galauj' love ?- no, etc. and finally love is all that is not not love. I am not an expert but I used this technique once when it became unbearable for me to take unstoppable sermon on love (cosmic) from someone. I asked the person “what is love ?” , then all of sudden he became speechless. I felt bad and suggested this line of argument- he seemed to agree. Thanks Shiva |
| the other one | Posted
on 13-May-04 12:10 PM
Nepe Ji, nice piece of a poem, I like the way it sways from secular Tao'ist paradigm to existancial profanity to my liking :). It should be the mock anthem for the athiests. |
| confused | Posted
on 13-May-04 07:42 PM
trikal ji thank you.. and thank you for everyone for providing such great knowledge..please continue posting.. i would like to post a poem by gREAT INDIAN POET KALIDAS, and his view upon VEDA .. vedanteshu yam ahur EKA purusham vyapya sthitam rodasi yasminn Ishvara- ity anayavishayah shabdo yatharaarthaksharah antar yash ca mumukshubir niyamita pranadibhir mrigyate sa sthanuh sthira - bhakti - yoga - sulabho nishreyasayastu vah. |
| nsshrestha | Posted
on 14-May-04 08:50 AM
Siva Sir, Nice extension of Hymes of Creation. Macdonnels translation is also stunning. Was it told to Gargey or Matrey in Brahdarkanya? |
| SITARA | Posted
on 14-May-04 10:11 AM
Still reading this puzzling thread. Some thoughts on Neti Neti: "Not this, not this" or "Not so, not so"... by the process of elimination of what is not, we are left with the "ultimate truth". The truth that is "Bramha". But what is the ultimate truth? (I don't know... :( ) According to Sankara's Adwaita concept, "Bramha" is beyond any qualities (for any stated quality holds an equality opposite quality). A form given to Bramha, actually, stems out of ignorance. A hallucination expressed as pictures on walls or posters; an illusion. Sankara goes on to say, the ultimate Bramha is just a being. The confusion for me is if the "ultimate truth/Bramha" is beyond the concrete, then how much more elusive can it get????! Can the "ultimate truth" even be attained if it defies any form, structure, description, concepts? Does it even exist? Anybody else have this confusion? |
| SITARA | Posted
on 14-May-04 10:19 AM
Typo correction: equal, opposite quality* the ultimate Bramha is a pure* state of being. |
| mitra 2 | Posted
on 14-May-04 10:50 AM
******* copy & paste from 'WHAT BUDDHISM IS' by Sayagyi U Ba Khin ******** The Buddhist concept of the Universe may be summed up as follows: There is the Okasa Loka (the Universe of Space) which accommodates Nama and Rupa (Mind and Matter). In this mundane world, it is Nama and Rupa (Mind and Matter) which predominate under the influence of the law of Cause and Effect. Next is the Sankhara Loka (the Universe of Mental Forces), creative or created. This is a mental plane arising out of the creative energies of Mind through the medium of bodily actions, words and thoughts. The third and last is the Satta Loka (the Universe of Sentient Beings) visible or invisible, beings that are the products of these mental forces; we may rather call these three the "Three-in-One" universe, because each is inseparable from the others. They are, so to speak, interwoven and interpenetrating. What will interest you most are the Cakkavalas or World-systems, each with its thirty-one planes of existence. Each World-system corresponds to the Human World with its solar system and other planes of existence. There are millions and millions of such World-systems; they are simply innumerable. The ten thousand World-systems closest to us are within the Jati-khetta (or the Field of Origin) of a Buddha. In fact, when the renowned Sutta (or discourse), the Maha-Samaya (meaning the "Great Occasion") was preached by the Buddha in the Mahavana (forest) near the town of Kapilavatthu, not only the Brahmas and Devas of our World-system but of all the ten thousand World-systems were present to listen to the teachings of the Buddha.[3] The Lord Buddha can also send his thought-waves charged with boundless love and compassion to the sentient beings of a billion such World-systems within the Ana-khetta (the Field of Influence). The remainder of the World- systems are in the Visaya-khetta (infinite space), beyond the reach of the Buddha's effective thought waves. You can very well imagine from these concepts of Buddhism the size of the Universe as a whole. The material insignificance of our World in the Okasa Loka (the Universe of Space) is simply terrifying. The Human World, as a whole, must be just a speck in space. Now I will give you an idea of the thirty-one planes of existence in our World-system, which, of course, is the same as in any of the other World-systems. Broadly speaking, they are: i. Arupa Loka The Immaterial Worlds of the Brahmas ii. Rupa Loka The Fine-material Worlds of the Brahmas iii. Kama Loka The Sensuous Worlds of Devas, mankind and lower beings. The Arupa Loka is composed of four Brahma Worlds of immaterial state, i.e., without Rupa or Matter. The Rupa Loka is composed of sixteen Brahma Worlds of fine-material state. The Kama Loka is composed of: a. Six Deva Lokas (or Celestial Worlds): i. Catumaharajika (the World of the Four Guardian Kings) ii. Tavatimsa (the World of the Thirty-three) iii. Yama iv. Tusita v. Nimmanarati (those who enjoy their own creations) vi. Paranimmita-vasavati (those who enjoy others' creations) b. The Human World c. The four Lower Worlds (Apaya): i. Niraya (Hell) ii. Tiracchana (Animal World) iii. Peta (Ghost World) iv. Asura (Demon World) These planes of existence are pure or impure, cool or hot, luminous or dark, light or heavy, pleasant or wretched -- according to the character of the mental forces generated by the Mind through the volition (Cetana) associated with a series of actions, words and thoughts. For example, take the case of a religious man who suffuses the whole universe of beings with boundless love and compassion. He must be generating such mental forces as are pure, cooling, luminous, light and pleasant, forces which normally settle down in the Brahma Worlds. Let us now take the reverse case of a man who is dissatisfied or angry. As the saying goes, "The face reflects the mind." The impurity, heat, darkness, heaviness and wretchedness of his mind are immediately reflected in the person -- visible even to the naked eye. This is due, I may say, to the generation of the evil mental forces of Dosa (anger) which go down to the lower worlds of existence. This is also the case for the mental forces arising out of Lobha (greed) or Moha (delusion). In the case of meritorious deeds such as devotion, morality and charity, which have at their base attachment to future well-being, the mental forces generated are such as will normally be located in the sensuous planes of Devas (celestial beings) and of Mankind. for more... - http://www.ubakhin.com/ubakhin/WHATBU1.htm |
| Nepe | Posted
on 14-May-04 11:59 AM
TheOtherOne ji, Mock anthem for the atheists ? we need to ask Shiva Gautam ji for his permission, because it's his poem. Particularly, his reference to the Rigveda could be problematic here. However, I suppose that was a broadly made reference rather than an assertion about the essence of the Rigveda. Or is the Rigveda really atheist ? Any body ? I like the way it sways from secular Tao'ist paradigm to existancial profanity to my liking :) Existential profanity- I guess this characterization does justice to the piece. However, I don't know about the reference to the secular Taoism. Will be helpful if you elaborate. ***************** Sitara, Thank you for that elaboration. I was also interested to hear more on the parallel you saw between Kant's "a priori" to the "parambramha". Also since, Sharir, Aatma, matter, energy, numena, phenomena, 'neti neti', knowability, objectivity, subjectivity etc are inter-related, I was thinking about a streamlined discussion among the participants, because you all have posted very interesting questions and thoughts. (In your latest posting, you have posed an interesting question- elusiveness of God. That's an interesting angle to look at. I think all this come to the notion of unknowability. I will shortly touch that topic) Before I put my view on 'neti neti', I would like to summarize yours. TheOtherOne: (i) neti neti = not-in-the-brain (ii) neti neti = blur the boundary Nsshrestha: Neti neti is not accurate. Assumption: our brain can know some, if not all, of realities. Sitara: (i)The distinction [of sharir and aatma] collapses as we go deeper and deeper and becomes not this nor that which we saw/thought they were. Boundary is superficial. (ii) God is formless, attributeless ?! Shiva: neti neti = null hypothesis ? Elimination method ? I agree with NS's explanation. However, my own interpretation of 'neti neti' is different. Obviously 'neti neti' was the description of God. (let's not go into the details of sub-division of God- that's meaningless). It simply meant what is described in scriptures is not necessarily true, because nobody has known it. To me, this is the pinnacle of honesty or rather a pure moment of honesty amidst all kinds of bias, prejudice, obligation and motivation we can imagine Shankaracharya was probably in. I have never come across any words more captivating, more powerful, more human, purer than 'neti neti' in spiritual discourses. I think the common interpretation of 'neti neti' has been as 'unknowability of God' (once again, let's ignore sub-divisions of God). For further discussion, let's be clear that unknowability is not undetectability (I have talked about it in one of my conversation with Gokul ji). Also, unknown-ness and unknowability are not the same. We can derive unknowability from 'neti neti'. However, I still think the originator did not mean it. I think he meant unknown-ness. It does not make a sense to assume someone saying, "I know that I can not know this one". That will be, in terms of numena and phenomena, like making numena as a subset of phenomena. That's not possible, because phenomena is subsets of numena, not the other way round (as NS ji has explained above). So the message 'neti neti' brings to me is that some of our ancient philosophers had ingenious way of telling the truth- without hurting powerful beliefs- of oneself and others. |
| Shiva Gautam | Posted
on 14-May-04 01:26 PM
nsshretha ji, Thank you. I do not know actual reference of Neti-Neti.-But stumbled into it somewhere and someone told me that it was a topic of conversttion between Gargi and Yagyanbalka. Nepe ji- relating Neti-Neti to the process of elimination and to null hypothesis - I saw something there-no assertions. Sitara ji- I had an interesting idea about Brahma and I asked some knowledgeable people in an Indian website a couple of years ago. The reply I got was that I was thinkings were similar to that of an ancient rishi these ideas were expressed in one of the Upanishads. I perhaps gloated too much and forgot to verify it I do not remember the Upanishad or the rishi's name. This is what I thought (I am very poor in explaining/understanding someone else's idea or what is in someone's head - so instead I try to think what might be they thinking? -was it something like this ? etc) Anyway here it is: Scientifically speaking, every thing is made up of atoms (at one point they thought that is the smallest thing and we can not go further), then go to smaller levels of electron, proton etc, and even further -- and the last thing where it stops is 'Brahma' and everything is made of that ultimate thing. That should be actually atom (that can be cut further) - or Atma (the essence) of every thing. And they (the rishi's) assigned a symbol 'AUM' to it - just like O is the symbol for oxygen. Now I admit that this is my thinking about those sages' thinking. This line of thinking is is strikingly similar to the collection of sloka you posted where it says I am Shiva and I am everything, I am the food I am the eater etc etc. ( I do not recall it- but was stunned when I first heard this in a Satsang gathering of Indians ) On Truth- I think over the time the word got so much corrupted (?) it is kind of useless to talk about it. Now the truth is pretty much subjective. Red color does not exist in color blind's world etc. Different people define and think of truth differently- I think. But the most prevalent one is - truth is that which does not change and remains the same (that changes is mithya or maya- untruth). In other words ‘what is’ is truth . This is what indicated in Gita chapter 2 (this one I have read- what is not will never be, what is will never cease to be. I actually wrote an article relating physics to few verses of Gita, chapter 2 - http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=240272 ) This one is very interesting to me. If 'what is' is the truth then truth must be the untruth (or maya) , because it is here always- it is amongst us forever- it keeps changing - keeps taking different forms- this is “what is”. In a sense, truth takes a form and becomes maya. A piece of cloth is made of threads. Threads 'is' the truth, cloth is maya - but the cloth is also nothing but threads. I wish I could elaborate but don't know how- and not sure what I am saying is 'true'. (this is more poetic than logic- I actually wrote a poem about it) Please read these not as answers or expalnations of Shastras- but some notes of a person who loves to think. |
| the other one | Posted
on 14-May-04 02:58 PM
Nepe Ji, I mentioned the first part of Shiva ji’s poem (now I know, thank you) coming as Tao’s flip side b/c Taoists contemplate on how there is a speckle of day at the mid night and night holds little of the day as well, but his poem negates the night and day, life and death as if transcended the Tao in all physical. More I think about Neti Neti more it seems like a vehicle used to wade through transcounciousness, sort of like the unified theory that physicists are trying out (or have they?) where the string theory that explains the macro energy is coalesced with the uncertainty principle that explains the micro. With Neti Neti, you can start by dichotomizing (I think that process itself is to hone your mind (thought yoga) so as to synchronizing your mind towards the penultimate consciousness, not much as a negating to find the truth) and as you pass through various stages you get there but still you are saying neti neti to describe the experience of Samadhi: for your goal might be reached but you are still wading on the same vehicle. After all you are a physical being, as much as people may say empiricism does no good, first you must make sure various firing from compartments of our brain are synchronized, the prefrontal cortex, amygdale, cerebellum, after all they are prone to habitual “misfiring” for the dislike of a yogi. So as to fine tue the “neuronal breathings” you hence start and finish with neti neti…..Like you said lets first focus on whats there and not out there :), I’m never good at bottom ups. |
| Gokul | Posted
on 14-May-04 07:28 PM
Dear Friends, These are all eternal philosophical questions: Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? Is there any meaning to life? etc. These are eternal because eventhough we know we cannot know- yet time and again we ask these questions. Look at Sajha itself. Some gets bored with politics and other stuffs and decides to return to this topic. Why? Because these are the most important questions. You always return to it. No doubt. Hinduism and especially Advaita Vedanta (Non-dualistic) has answers to all of these. Advaita vedanta is considered the most revolutionary, intellectual and the highest level of thinking human civilization has ever produced. Furthermore, the perennial beauty of the Advaita is that it does not consider other forms of thinking or philosophies as wrong. It regards them as a step toward the ultimate goal which is to realize that all that exists (living or non-living) is divine. It is the ignorance (NOT sin) that forbids us from seeing our true nature. Our true nature is FREE, ETERNAL, PURE. (See Shankaracharya's Nirvanashatkam for detail.) The vedantic term for this is "Brahm". Brahm is ->what was-what is-what will be. We are Brahm. Stone is Brahm. All that exists is Brahm. (See Hesse's Siddhartha for the beautiful depiction of the Unity of all things). Is there parallel between modern physics and Vedanta? Yes there is. In fact, physics (especially particle physics) after spending too much effort in details finds the same thing as Vedanta - the essential unity of all things (Tao of Physics explains this very well). What Vivekananda said illustrates this relationship: "Time, space and causation are like the glasses through which the absolute is seen. In the absolute, there is neither time, space nor causation." Science studies only time, space and causation - the tools for rational thinking. (All western philopsophers are bound by these artefacts, even Kant). Vedanta beautifully and effortlessly conquers them. |
| Gokul | Posted
on 14-May-04 07:29 PM
For ordinary people like us - Is there a way to realize this unity? Yes and no - Yes because you can try. No because there is no guarantee. How can we try? There are different ways - through devotion, knowledge, or duty. Neti Neti is the knowledge way. In fact, it is one of the Mahavakya (aphorisms) of the Vedanta. Others are Tat Tvam Asi, Charai Veti- Charai Veti. Together they give the complete picture. It is not this, it is not this (Neti Neti) - then what is it? Should I give up? Renunciate? Be frustrated? No, Keep on walking (Charai veti, charai veti ) because Thou art that !! (Tat tvam asi). Each of these aphorisms can be described in length. But that does not matter because logic and intellect does not lead you there as the Vedas themselves make this very clear: Nayam atma prabachanena labhyo, na medhaya, ne vedadhyayanena cha. This soul cannot be achieved (understood) by lectures, intellect or vedic studies (because it is not this, not this). |
| Shiva Gautam | Posted
on 14-May-04 08:09 PM
Gokul ji Opening lines of your posting caught my eyes. There you have mentioned questions people have been asking for ages. One such question is related meaning to life. I had written an article 'jivan ko artha chha ta?' arguing that looking for meaning to life is essentially a futile attempt. It could also be applied to search for truth. You may smell Krishnamurti in it, but I have my own insights too. The article can be found at the following website: http://www.nepalipost.com/past/literature/literature16.html#265 You may have to scroll up or down to find the article. |
| Gokul | Posted
on 14-May-04 08:55 PM
Shivaji, I had read your article previously. It is definitely interesting and to the point. However, I want to make the following comments: Your article seems to focus on an individual's meaning for his or her life. The anecdotes you've given demonstrate this. When I said it is an eternal question, I said it from the perspective of the human civilization as a whole. In this sense, it is an existential question and not a livelihood question. Also, I said that it is eternal because it is recurring. I agree that there may not be any meaning to seek meaning - but we cannot simply stop. It may be a disease as UG says. Also, you can give any clever or logical answer but you also cannot escape ["You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" :)]. Please be honest and answer this: Don't you ever wonder why you are doing all this? Going to university, raising family, writing poem, and discussing God? Aren't you seeking anything here? It may not be necessarily a meaning of life, but definitely you have goals or beliefs (either consciously or unconsciouly) which are enabling you to do all this. Once you have none of these, you may find it difficult to remember that you have to go to school today or you need to eat. Another point is that the struggle of human civilization is the struggle for meaning - meaning in everything we do. You cannot give a simplistic answer and leave everything unexplained. There are different answers -depending on the scope and domain. For everyday life (living, struggling, competing etc.) - the best answer (robust) for the meaning of life is the one given by the Cybernetics - THE MEANING OF LIFE IS TO SURVIVE. Perhaps we can discuss this sometime. |
| Shiva Gautam | Posted
on 15-May-04 05:53 AM
Gokul ji You wrote "For everyday life (living, struggling, competing etc.) - the best answer (robust) for the meaning of life is the one given by the Cybernetics - THE MEANING OF LIFE IS TO SURVIVE. Perhaps we can discuss this sometime. " I have a problem with that statement as a universal answer for meaning to life- but that could be a temporal answer. People commit suicide and at that particular moment dying becomes more meaningful than surviving otherwise they won't do it. Some terminally ill people want to end their lives and end their sufferings - to them death is more meaningful than life. If we say that those people’s life is not life then it is a different thing. You asked “Please be honest and answer this: Don't you ever wonder why you are doing all this? Going to university, raising family, writing poem, and discussing God? Aren't you seeking anything here? It may not be necessarily a meaning of life, but definitely you have goals or beliefs (either consciously or unconsciously) which are enabling you to do all this.” But you answered them in the present context “It may not be necessarily a meaning of life” On the lighter side -I started going to school first because my parents insisted – after marriage my wife and now I insist my children to go to school -for that reason I too go to university (there is survival thing somewhere for sure). I have asked myself why I write poem I have found different answers at different times. Questions related life do not have ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers or one answer. We are used to one answer (like in simple mathematics) and that seems to be problem. I started to write poem because my father wrote poems-they sounded good to my ears- I just wanted to copy his behavior. Then as I grew up I found writing poem feels good, and also draws some attention which felt even better. Then after that I thought it is related to pleasure, and security and my continuation. Poems in a sense are like my children who will continue ‘me’ (just a part of me) in a sense. Yet another time I thought I write poems just like a flower blooms- it is natural – no particular reason-- just I have ears and nose- I have poems in me- I never asked why I have a nose. I wish I could test in a lab and find out which ones or all of these are the right or wrong answers. |
| Gokul | Posted
on 15-May-04 07:36 AM
****I have a problem with that statement as a universal answer for meaning to life- but that could be a temporal answer. People commit suicide and at that particular moment dying becomes more meaningful than surviving otherwise they won't do it. Some terminally ill people want to end their lives and end their sufferings - to them death is more meaningful than life. If we say that those people’s life is not life then it is a different thing. ******* As a mathematician you know very well that a few exceptions (outliers) does not change the implication of what the majority is saying or doing. The null hypothesis that more people tend to commit suicide than try to survive will be rejected at any level of significance. Furthermore, some of those who commit suicide do so for their survival. Example: Palestinian suicide bombers. You seem to be commiting the type II error by not rejecting the Null even when it is demonstrably false. ***On the lighter side -I started going to school first because my parents insisted – after marriage my wife and now I insist my children to go to school -for that reason I too go to university (there is survival thing somewhere for sure). *** On the heavier side, it is ALWAYS SURVIVAL. You obeyed your parents because you wanted to SURVIVE their wrath or frustration. They insisted you because they thought you would be better off going to school than going to manual labor works. You teach in a school because you are brainy and NOT brawny. The chance of your survival is higher if you exploit your brain instead of your muscles.Now you know going to school really pays off, you are insisting your children to do the same. YOU WANT TO PERPETUATE YOUR SURVIVAL JUST LIKE YOUR PARENTS DID. ***I have asked myself why I write poem I have found different answers at different times.*** But the unifying theme is the same - SURVIVAL. **Questions related life do not have ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers or one answer. We are used to one answer (like in simple mathematics) and that seems to be problem. ** Even in mathematics, polynomials have more than one roots that satisfy the given condition :) |
| Gokul | Posted
on 15-May-04 07:37 AM
***I started to write poem because my father wrote poems-they sounded good to my ears- I just wanted to copy his behavior.*** You copied because there is an inherent tendecy to appease our parents by doing what they think and consequently we also think, is good. This is an adaptive behavior designed by the nature to ensure our survival. ****** Then as I grew up I found writing poem feels good, and also draws some attention which felt even better. Then after that I thought it is related to pleasure, and security and my continuation. Poems in a sense are like my children who will continue ‘me’ (just a part of me) in a sense. Yet another time I thought I write poems just like a flower blooms- it is natural – no particular reason-- just I have ears and nose- I have poems in me- I never asked why I have a nose. I wish I could test in a lab and find out which ones or all of these are the right or wrong answers. ******* Your immediate reasons are changing but underneath they were, are and will remain the same. You just want to perpetuate your feelings, ideas, emotions, genes by being engaged in various activities which ensure your physical and non-physical survival. You either consciously or unconsciously assign meanings. Meaning of life cannot be explored in isolation. It is just a gossamer thread in the web of life. But that does not mean it is insignificant. Meaning of life -> Manifest in our activities -> Purpose or Goal-oriented -> SURVIVAL |
| SITARA | Posted
on 15-May-04 09:14 AM
On suicide: Suicide does not necessarily imply death as being more meaningful. Suicide is another form of ESCAPISM parallel to taking drugs, drinking alcohol, "whoring", self-imposed isolation... to avoid or mask pain. When living hurts more than the thought of dying, then you make that choice. I remember, while going through a particularly difficult time in my life, I tried to rationalize alternatives to that particular phase... Here alternatives do not necessarily translate into meaning or survival.... just an escape. My father very objectively had stated: A person has four choices: - Take drugs or drink into oblivion -Go mentally crazy and end up in the hospital where you become a passive inmate -Go kill yourself and escape life OR Restart from ground zero, slowly crawling out of a chaotic mire, to escape and change the situation. Put into such a dispassionate perspective made sense to me because often Escapism takes precedence to Survival. ------------------------------- On writing poems/creative expression: Does one really write creatively to fit into a society/culture? Gokul ji, I strongly oppose that thought because creative expression goes beyond mere symantics, traditions or rituals. It is a need to communicate a vibe, a nuance and even an imagery ... however radical or tame. Radical thoughts/writing/art rather than confirming one into the ettiquettes of social structure dismantles that very structure. The use of metaphors, figurative speech, paint, clay.... other tools of expression. The expression translates into a need to communicate regardless of social norms. Does the "need" translate into "survival", I don't think so.... one can survive without writing poems or creating art that don't shake the very fabric of society. |
| Shiva Gautam | Posted
on 15-May-04 10:25 AM
Gokul ji I did not know I said so many things they deserved such examinations. Since I already said what I had to say on the subject I am focusing only on the following comment you made. You said "As a mathematician you know very well that a few exceptions (outliers) does not change the implication of what the majority is saying or doing. The null hypothesis that more people tend to commit suicide than try to survive will be rejected at any level of significance. Furthermore, some of those who commit suicide do so for their survival. Example: Palestinian suicide bombers. You seem to be commiting the type II error by not rejecting the Null even when it is demonstrably false. " I state a hypothesis "This urn contains red marbles" . Then I draw few (say 10 or so) marbles and examine them. If one of them is not red- I reject the hypothesis- I do not say it is an outlier. Modern hypothesis testing procedure is nothing but the mathematical model of this concept. (I took your ‘survival’ in that frame) In data analyses some people suggest dropping the outliers (just like you) before analyzing the data, but the general consensus is that one should not just drop the outliers. So those who say that outliers should be dropped are the outliars in a way. On the contrary they (outliar observations) get special attention -why they are there, and close examination of them often leads to new insights. Having said that I am not dismissing your opinion outright-just feel that your assesment is incomplete -if it was an opinion poll then it would have been different matter- but questions related to life and its meaning are not opinion polls, are not governed by mathemotical or predictive model, and I am not ready (yet) to accept exceptions and confirmations to a 'rule ' applied to it. That's all (If people say that only whites live in the US- saying a Nepali is an outliar-that would be a wrong conclusion- my existence would be denied) The null hypothesis you mentioned is the Frequentist approach. From the Bayesian viewpoint the whole thing is simply nonsense, and they are (Bayesian view) becoming more and more popular. Finally, any inference is heavily subjective (including this one). I feel we are going further from the original theme. All my wisdom on the subject has been drained- (perhaps shows how shallow I am). I cannot add anything further. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 15-May-04 05:15 PM
TheOtherOne ji, Thanks for the explanation re Taoist perspective. So Taoism sounds like 'differential dualism' as opposed to dualism or non-dualism ! And really fascinating interpretation, or rather should I say, re-interpretation of 'Neti Neti'. I think what you have described is actually inverse of neti neti- that is, focussing your attention at the ultimate goal/destination as opposed to eliminating false ones on the way. That will be 'Tatam' [=that one (among many)] instead of 'Neti neti' (= not that one, not that one too). The biggest problem with that is that, it requires a priori knowledge of the destination. So can not be used for the unknowns and definietly not for the unknowables. I still think Neti neti was an ingenious way, at least by the original speaker, to say nobody knows nothing about the God. If we could have a complete references regarding 'neti neti', it would be very helpful for this discussion. Any expert (Trikal Ji ?). From a quick googling it looks like it was first used in Brihadaranyak Upanishad by Sage Yajnavalkya. It is mentioned there at five different places including his conversation with his wife (as Shiva Gautam ji mentioned above). Then Shankarachrya developed it as one of the pillars of advaitbad in Brahmasutra. It is also mentioned in Geeta. This time as an analytical tool (elimination) for finding God. Trikal ji, could please verify this ? ****************** Interesting conversation among Shiva ji, Gokul ji and Sitara. Reagarding the meaning of life, Shiva ji (in his piece in Nepalipost) indeed talked about individual life (as Gokul ji said) and questioned the search for the meaning of universal life. Gokul ji maintains that although survival is the common meaning of life, the quest for something beyond that is inherent in human which possibly is our worth or meaning (I hope I summarized well). My own take on this is that- if we want to talk about the meaning of life, we first need to determine the meaning of 'meaning'. Until then, it is meaningless to try to look for meaning of life. Now, let's go to the purpose of life. We should separate purpose of individual lives from the one of universal life or rather collective purpose of life. Purpose of individual lives is probably not the topic of this discussion. So let's skip it. Now, about the collective purpose of life- if this is what Gokul ji is talking about- I think the problem with it is its anthropocentric approach and not taking the natural history of creation and life into account. Let's put the life in the timeline of natural history (we can trust this with fair confidence, right ?) 15 billion years ago- Big Bang 4.6 billion years ago- Formation of the earth 3.5 billion years ago- first life form appeared 6 million years ago- first huminid 130000 years ago - first modern human 6000 years ago - Writing developed in Sumeria It took more than 14 billion years for nature (okay, creator) to give us human brain (ignore the possibility of life in other part of the universe) which can think about the question we are asking. Does this not put a big question mark on the idea of collective purpose of life ? |
| Shiva Gautam | Posted
on 15-May-04 05:58 PM
Nepe ji You gave a new twist to it including meaning of the 'meaning' is an important thing- seems quite logical to me. I do not have any new ideas to post- if I try I know I will be repeating same stuff. If someday some new insight knocked at my door I will certainly share with you. I also got enlightened by Sitara ji -that suicidal tendency does not necessarily imply that death is more meaningful (at that particular moment ) than life- I think it has been gleaned it from some real situations- that assigns validity to it- because the person (the source of this knowledge) was also sharing the same life we all are experiencing. |
| the other one | Posted
on 17-May-04 09:12 AM
Nepe Ji, Thank you for your input on my explanation, actually, I was conscious of the use of neti neti in coming to terms with the truth through negation and I also wanted to find out how it might not require conscious prior knowledge of the destination. Lets see if an example will help us out here. Say, you are in the middle of a land and you see a little stream you make your goal to use this stream to get where it might take you withought the knowledge that it reaches the ocean, you circumspect the immediate vicinity and you make your goal to reach there because there is where the lowland seems to be, you rach the lowland and again circumspect and see another lower land and you start going there, because of the terrain you have to decide what direction you want to take ( there is a neti neti involved here), after making many of these decisions you are finally in the ocean, the brahma, then and only then you realize what its like to be there. Here the use of immediate phenomenon leads to to a higher experience, the line between neumena and phenomenon might be very fine, sort of like punctuated equilibrium, since neumena is not about explaining but realization there is no vicinity in our limited mind for it. Let me add, its because of this limited mind, where things happen unconsciously and since we are used to making decisions for reasons we often sense only vaguely, and seldom if ever understand fully, ignorance of this kind is conceived by this conscious mind as uncertainly to be resolved. It becomes pertinent that we use neti neti as an ensured choice to reach the unseen goal and in the process change our perception. |
| nsshrestha | Posted
on 17-May-04 11:15 AM
Sitara Ji, >>Can the "ultimate truth" even be attained if it defies any form, structure, description, concepts? Does it even exist? Isn’t this where comes the priori? Not analytical but synthetic priori? |
| SITARA | Posted
on 19-May-04 10:11 AM
Some fragmented musings/deviations Uncanny, that Shankaracharya, Socrates, Plato, Kant.....................many other philosophers (from both East and West) seem to have stumbled (?) across this pool of wisdom of "the omnipresent, omnipotent, omnicient soul/consciousness/Brahma/truth" which is beyond attributes and description. Even more difficult is the concept of a pre-existing "divine wisdom" which can only be accessed by reason and understanding of what is not spoken. Having read Shiva Gautam ji's article on the Gita and Science, brings to mind Plato's most distinctive reasoning of metaphysics: his so-called "theory" of "Forms". Like with all difficult ideas he had a hard time expressing and/or systematically clarifying his theory. The theory of forms is founded upon geometrical reasoning. Although, no physical object is *perfectly* straight, circular, equal-sided (irregularities can always be found if things are examined closely enough), theorems concerning geometrical concepts can be proved with certainty using deductive reasoning. He applies this thought on human nature; although no individual is a perfect paragon of virtue, using the faculty of reasoning, every human being has the ability to access what is known as "good", "truth", " ultimate reality". What gets even more interesting and seemingly contradictary of this very theory of form(based on deductive reasoning) is his belief that the soul exists before birth and will continue to exist after death. Again, referring back to the same pool of elusive divine knowledge; a Priori, as Kant termed ?! |
| SITARA | Posted
on 24-May-04 10:41 AM
The Other One and Nepe ji, here is a Tao-ist version of Neti Neti from the book of "TAO TE CHING" by Lao Tsu: The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things. Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations. These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery. |
| NSShrestha | Posted
on 24-May-04 11:14 AM
BUT, Mystic explanation of Neti Neti in either Taoism or Upanishad and the Neti Neti defined in Purba-Mimansa, one of the six orthodox system of Hinduism, has some difference. Crypto-Buddhist Sankaracharya is handcuffed with few preconditions, one of them is Net Neti can not be complete Neti Neti cause it will become the Buddhist VOID. Then he will lose the objective of defending Hinduism from Buddhism. :) |
| SITARA | Posted
on 24-May-04 03:01 PM
NsShrestha ji, You've made an excellent point. However, Taoism (translation: The Way or The Ultimate Basis for Reality) existed before Buddhism (even before Confucianism) which explains Taoism's contradiction of the Buddhist "Shunya/void". I remember a conversation of a long time ago, when my mother explained (attempted to rather, I was waaay too young then) to me the difference between the conclusive "Brahma" of Vedantic inquiry and "Shunya" of Buddhist inquiry. She simply stated, Shankaracharya had one lethal argument against "Shunya": "If everything is "Shunya", WHAT IS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS, which gave you the knowledge/awareness/gyan of "shunya". THAT CONSCIOUSNESS is BRAHMA!" It stuck! Now, years later, here I am trying to make sense of it! :) |
| yOuNgBlOoOdZ | Posted
on 24-May-04 09:12 PM
same ol' discussion with new topics.. |