Arthur
Registered: 10/08/09
Posts: 15
|
| | 10/13/09 at 10:51 AM | Reply with quote | #16 |
|
Dear Jayaram,
Hello. I would like to say that your anger is unjustified. I would also like to say that I never asked for your opinion. I want the truth and not anyone's opinion. You misunderstand me, Jayaram, and that is unfortunate for you.
I hope the following can help you get a better understanding of the truth.
"He comes to the thought of those who know Him beyond thought, not to those who imagine [or speculate] He can be attained by thought: He is unknown to the learned and known to the simple."
Kena Upanishad
Jayaram, you fail to understand me because of your own personal beliefs which make up the philosophy you choose to follow. I have shared with you the highest philosophy, the only "perfect" philosophy, the Advaita Philosophy, but evidently it is beyond your comprehension.
Life is a test, and God is the Tester. I am here if you want to continue our discourse.
Love,
Arthur |
| Loading... | |
JayaramV
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 35
|
| | 10/13/09 at 01:49 PM | Reply with quote | #17 |
|
"Greetings. I was wondering if there was anyone who could tell me how is my thinking? I have expounded on some of Mr. Jayaram's words in an attempt to simplify and clarify the dual nature of the One." These were your words.
Since you said you were clarifying my words, I responded. If you said, "Well this is my opinion, what do you think?" it would have been a different case.
I have no issues with the advaita or the dvaita. Both are probably true in their own spheres. But what the advaita philosophers call as an illusion, you are calling as eternal. Hence the response.
You could have avoided making those personal statements about me or projecting your own feelings onto me. For me every spiritual conversation is a blessing and an opportunity to interact with the higher mind. I do not have to agree with you nor you with me. But we need to maintain mutual respect and tolerance which seem to be lacking on your part. But then it is upto you how you treat others. I will conclude this convesation of mine with you with the following quotes from the Kena and the Bhagavadgita.
"To whomsoever it is not known, to him it is known; to whomsoever it is known, he does not know. It is not understood by those who understand it; it is misunderstood by those who do not understand it. (Kena Upanishad 2:3)
The Bhagavadgita
It is said that these bodies of the eternal soul which is indestructible and incomprehensible come to an end. Therefore fight O Bharata. (Ch 2: verse 18).
Beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in the middle and unmanifest again in their end, O Bharata, what is there in this for lamentation?
The supereme indestructible self is Brahman, one's own self is called adhyatma...All perishable objects are adhibhuta.. (Ch 8:Verses 3&4)
At the coming of day (Brahman's day of a thousand yugas) all manifest beings proceed from the unmanifest and at the coming of the night, they merge again in the same called the unmanifested.
*************************
|
| Loading... | |
Arthur
Registered: 10/08/09
Posts: 15
|
| | 10/13/09 at 04:23 PM | Reply with quote | #18 |
|
Dear Jayaram,
In response to your last e-mail regarding my quote: "Greetings. I was wondering if there was anyone who could tell me how is my thinking?" I did not imply that I was asking for anyone's opinion. This is your interpretation, your misunderstanding. And unless you humble yourself to this fact, you will not take responsibility for your erroneous judgement.
Jayaram, I am not here to share my opinions with you, but to speak the truth. If you seek the truth yourself, then you will never seek another's opinion on any matter.
My words are not meant to offend you. So please do not misinterpret them.
Your Friend,
Arthur
P.S. I hope we can continue our discourse. I really appreciate our converstations. Thank you, Jayaram, for that.
|
| Loading... | |
soul
Registered: 09/14/09
Posts: 11
|
| | 10/13/09 at 06:12 PM | Reply with quote | #19 |
|
Pranam
Many Thanks to both of you for throwing light on this subject , since i had started this thread and asked qns. I am sorry if anything i wrote was ambiguous.
JayramJi, your point is well noted that words like soul, eternal, transient, mithya , illusiory, temporary have to be carefully used and explained in case of spiritual topics like these - due to danger of misunderstanding.
I am new to these forums but see that JayramJi has eloquently explained (and written articles on) Hinduism topics from various philosophies , itihaas & puranas to Jainism and Buddhism without any personal bias - which is not a very easy thing to do.
Thank you for this website.
Jai Sri Krshna
(P.S. This is not my name, its a way to glorify the Lord. I simply belong to Him. ) |
| Loading... | |
JayaramV
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 35
| |
Arthur
Registered: 10/08/09
Posts: 15
|
| | 10/14/09 at 01:02 PM | Reply with quote | #21 |
|
Dear Jayaram and Dear Soul,
Hello, my friends. I have recieved both of your e-mails. Thank you very much for your humble words.
My goal is to realize truth absolutely in heart and head. I strive for a perfect understanding of God and not merely a perfect love of Him. Only "absolute" advaita can give this. Every other philosophy is imperfect. This is a statement of fact and not opinion.
One must first be grounded in the Absolute, and then strive to express perfect logic. Unfortunately our own personal biases, beliefs, get in the way. My convictions are always open to correction if someone can tell me for a fact that I am in error. I do not allow opinions to sway my mind. Nor should you.
I have come to find that it is very difficult to discern a true saint in the world. Why? Because, though actions speak louder than words, actions do not always define the true character of a spirit. Only genuine humility can give us the vision to discern correctly.
Let us continue our sharing of ideas with humility. Our thoughts may be different, but our love should be one.
Always Your Friend,
Arthur |
| Loading... | |
soul
Registered: 09/14/09
Posts: 11
|
| | 10/14/09 at 07:21 PM | Reply with quote | #22 |
|
Thank You JayramJi for those blessings. I liked the articles too. God is absolute that mere thought of Him brings Him to us right by our side, and there is nothing better than living with Him.
|
| Loading... | |
soul
Registered: 09/14/09
Posts: 11
|
| | 10/14/09 at 07:30 PM | Reply with quote | #23 |
|
Namaste SatyakamaJi
Please explain how the individual mind is indestructible on the relative plane.
With reference to the 24 elements (Sankhya) , That which IS never ceases to be , and what IS NOT never comes into existence - says Krshna in the Gita.
So from that point of view i do understand.
However, at this point (liberation) isn't the mind disjoint from AtmA ?
Thank You
|
| Loading... | |
Arthur
Registered: 10/08/09
Posts: 15
|
| | 10/21/09 at 02:03 AM | Reply with quote | #24 |
|
Dear Soul,
Hello, again. I would first like to say that I am very impressed by your intelligent question.
Disjointedness is apparent, not reality. It is a sign of an unrealized, unenlightened or ignorant mind. The Atma or Self and the mind are one and the same. I, as Atma, an no different from this world, the mind. For example, the statement "What I see is what I am" is an expression of the "enlightened" mind's sameness, oneness, and not twoness or disjointedness, with the world.
My dear friend, only at the point of ignorance (darkness) or individual egoism, does the mind appear disjointed from the Atma. The real point of liberation is union, light.
A guru is a dispeller of darkness, a bringer of light. I hope I am proving my worth to you. My deepest desire, dearest friend, is to be absolutely true through and through.
Yours Forever,
Satyakama |
| Loading... | |
Arthur
Registered: 10/08/09
Posts: 15
|
| | 10/21/09 at 02:19 AM | Reply with quote | #25 |
|
Dear Friends,
So there is no confusion, know that the enlightened mind is the Atma, the Self. There is nothing other than the Self. It is all Self. Where is God even, when all is Self?
Jnana is when the worshipper and the worshipped both cease to exist and only the One remains. A Jnani sees only the One, the Self.
|
| Loading... | |
soul
Registered: 09/14/09
Posts: 11
|
| | 10/22/09 at 12:45 PM | Reply with quote | #26 |
|
Thank You.
May i ask one more qn ...
What happens to the various enlightened minds after the bodies 'die' ?
Do they continue to live on as enlightened minds [relative] who identify only and only with Brahman [absolute] ?
( i.e. They do not distinguish themselves as different from others [absolute] , but they do exist as particles in Brahman [relative] )
|
| Loading... | |
soul
Registered: 09/14/09
Posts: 11
|
| | 10/22/09 at 12:49 PM | Reply with quote | #27 |
|
Also, as saint Jnaneshwar (Dnyaneshwar) says, the Jnani has to realize that he is Brahman to know Brahman, but he may remain as two , devotee and Lord for the sake of bhakti.
Acc. to him, Krshna says :
1. He is a Jnani because He knows Brahman (Me), and considers the VAsudevmay Universe as his Self.
2. He is my dearest soul (devotee) because he has 'anuraag' towards Me
3. He is focused on the Self so he is a Yogi
|
| Loading... | |
Arthur
Registered: 10/08/09
Posts: 15
|
| | 10/22/09 at 03:00 PM | Reply with quote | #28 |
|
Dear Soul,
Hello, again. To quickly comment on your second message. You speak not of a Jnani, but rather, a Bhakti-jnani. Like Sri Ramakrishna, for example.
Now regarding your first message. I do not have a very detailed understanding of many technical things, my friend. I haven't refined my intellect to that point yet. However, if you truly want to know, then you must ask yourself that question. Try to get yourself in the habit of Self-inquiry. You do not need an outside source to do that. All you need to do is be thoughtless, and then with absolute logic think with the deepest concentration. Only after thoughtlessness or enlightenment will your answer be of God.
With Love,
Arthur
P.S. On second look, know that an enlightened mind is both absolute and relative. |
| Loading... | |
soul
Registered: 09/14/09
Posts: 11
|
| | 10/23/09 at 12:00 PM | Reply with quote | #29 |
|
Thank You very much for enlightening answers.
Please accept my humble pranam.
Quite some ignorance has been dispelled.
soul |
| Loading... | |
Arthur
Registered: 10/08/09
Posts: 15
|
| | 10/29/09 at 01:28 AM | Reply with quote | #30 |
|
Dear Friends,
Hello. I have been noticing that Atman (Self)-realization is being equated with Brahman (God)-realization. This is not correct as I see it. Self-realization leads one to God-realization. Can anyone grasp this meaning? Self-consciousness expands into God-consciousness. The Self does not refer to the individual ego here. The ego must first reach its real source, the Self, and expand from there. When the ego reaches the Self it is considered Self-realized, but the journey is not yet complete. God-realization is the ultimate goal, and not merely Self-realization.
However, God-realization does not mean that one will be following a perfect philosophy. For example, Buddha was fully God-realized, but His philosophy was imperfect. Am I not speaking the truth? Only a genuine knower of God can answer me. Why should any genuine seeker of Truth care for the opinions of others? Can you not see the fallacy in doing so? Why waste time seeking answers from opinionated people? They do not know the truth.
Who can tell me the truth? Who knows God with perfect logic? It is said that one does not truly know another until one has fought him. What did Shankara do, but travel all over India conquering all with his flawless logic. What did the great philosophers do at the courts of kings, but battle using their logic. The different schools of thought apply their logic based on the teachings of another, but a genuine Advaitist is Self-taught. He stands on his own two feet and not on the thoughts of other great minds. Am I not speaking the truth? As an Advaitist, I do not stand on the thoughts of Shankara. I merely verify my own thoughts with his. But know that Shankara did have some flaws despite his apparent flawlessness. Where his heart, his love, failed so did his logic. But who could tell?
That is all for now. What schools of thought do you see yourselves following?
Arthur
|
| Loading... | |
