My Spiritual Quest

[ghariharan]

Being is Knowing Sans Knower. When this apperception happens, the false sense of being the playwright or director of the
infinite Play Of Consciousness simply evaporates, like a cloud that seemed to obscure the sun is evaporated by the sun
itself. Then The Absolute Being is clear, as the false is SEEN as false. And Life goes on, but now without suffering!

[ragam-talam]

Can someone who attained enlightenment become unenlightened later?

[ghariharan]

It is a moot question. Their day-to-day life will appear (to others) to be the same, but enlightenment is a paradigm shift in the way of looking at the world. It would be illogical to expect them to revert back, but who knows, everything is an appearance of the One presence, and nothing is ruled out as a possible occurrence. Advaitam does not rule out any appearance, and includes everything. One cannot get out of awareness, and awareness includes everything. Whatever I write may appear silly, but that is because of the limitation of words, and the paradox that advaitam is. Words cannot describe what is pointed out here. Once words are uttered the mind creates meanings, pictures, visualization, possible interpretations, etc. But the truth is simple, everyday beingness. Everything takes place in that field. But everybody takes it for granted, and consedquently ignores it, and instead pays attention to the content thereof. (There I go, trying to express it in words, however clumsily). Remember, Lord Dakshinamurthy had to transmit the Truth to Sanakadi rishis in, and by, silence. The rishis could not break the silence, and were forced to introspect. Finally, it dawned on them).

There is a Tamil verse on Lord Dakshinamurthy, starting iwth "Kallalin kiz amarndu..". That reflects the truth. I dont remember the whole verse, but found it inscribed in front of the Dakshinamurthy shrine in Kapali temple, Mylapore, but for some reason it has since been removed. Googling might help one to find the full verse.

[ghariharan]

It’s so quiet in here….

We spend all our efforts trying to SEE something – with the expectation that we can find our “self” that way. In other words, we expect an EXPERIENCE of our “self”. We believe that knowing what you are means knowing a particular experience, getting a new experience, some mystical feeling or state, some bright light, some new view of the world.

The “doorway”, so to speak, is recognition of the true subject, that which is affirmed with certainty when we say “I AM”. Can the “subject” EVER become an experience? Isn’t that a contradiction? How can the subject be an experience to you?

The subject, by definition, cannot be objectified, cannot be experienced. So to wait for an experience of yourself is to overlook again and again what is being pointed to. The subject isn’t a “thing” – it doesn’t have any attributes – the mind cannot attribute anything to it. So the mind looks for an experience upon which to place that subject-ivity. The body/mind becomes a poor substitution for your “self”. This is called identification.

So instead of looking for your self as some experience – realize that endeavor is absolutely futile, once and for all. Don’t look for it to appear, don’t look for it as an experience. Then it may be realized that the subject has never been missing, the “self” has never been absent – only it is absent any objective qualities, anything by which it can be called a “thing”.

The subject is always perfectly present, yet it cannot be located in any terms the mind can come up with. You know it is present now because you are here, you know you are here. You know you are here because you know experience. Experiencing is happening.

Therefore we can equate the subject, not with another thing, but with experiencing itself, knowing – to be the subject is to know, to be aware. Experiencing is happening, no matter the quality or state of experience. It is experiencing itself which is invariable – changeless. It is experiencing itself which is unconditional – any experience is effortlessly, instantaneously and unconditionally cognized even before mind can grab hold of it to translate.

Yet because that “subject” has no objective qualities, it is not another “thing” among things. All “things” have their opposite – as a “thing” your opposite is the world. This is the root of separation. But in reality the subject is never another “thing” – therefore it has no opposite. YOU have no opposite – therefore you have no limitation.

With no “thing” as the subject, there is no way to posit an “experiencER”, a “knowER”, a “seER”. There is only experiencing.

There is no world as your opposite – all experience comes within this present experiencing, it seems. Yet even that split is only conceptual, only the last remnants of the mind’s attempt at definition, at explanation, at communication of reality. To communicate reality requires duality. But there is no actual split – there is no experience apart from experiencing – there never HAS BEEN. The experience and the experiencing are the same reality, the same IS-ness, the same present “happening”.

There is no opposite of YOU.

[ragam-talam]

I love this statement ascribed to the second-century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna:
"Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves."

[arasi]

r-t,
Interesting that you quote Nagarjuna. I was a youngster when I went there, with the Nagarjuna koNDa project going on (Nehru's pet project). A sort of a museum was already there and they were still digging for artifacts. That particular day was charged with such energy. I was flying, some unknown spirit pervading the place. It gives me goose bumps even to think about that day, tucked away in a distant past.

[srkris]

R-T,

That quote of Nagarjuna (I suppose from the mūlamadhyamakakārika) is merely a summary of the cardinal doctrine of pratītya samutpāda (interdependent origination, or conditioned genesis), and is one of the fundamental theories of causality upheld in Buddhist tradition.

According to this theory, all things are caused by (or have their origin from) other things, and are therefore subject to dependent origination. There is no "original" or primordial cause for anything. In other words, all things are conditioned to arise from other things without exception. If there are Gods, those God(s) could not be primordial or everlasting as they would have an origin from some other pre-existing thing/object/phenomena.

Thus all conditioned things have an origin and an end. These are impermanent (anitya) and one should not cling to objects that are impermanent since they cause dissatisfaction/disturbance (duḥkha). They are impermanent because they are empty (śūnya) of an innate individuality (anātman). Nothing that is fabricated has a wholly separate identity from its original state. For example a wooden table cannot be wholly independent of its source, which is wood from a tree. A tree similarly cannot be wholly independent of its sources (energy, earth, seed, water etc). These similarly have their own sources, and so on. So all things have a conditioned genesis or origin depending on other things, and are devoid of an innate or permanent individuality/self.

The Buddha exhorts people to understand that all conditioned things are devoid of a self (ātman) and therefore clinging to them will lead to duḥkha. The cessation of clinging to impermanent things leads to the end of duḥkha. The end of duḥkha is also the end of all views (since the person does not cling to this view or that view about anything), and thus attains pari-nirvāna (permanent extinguishment of all individuality) leading to the unconditioned state of nonduality. The being, not clinging to his own ego, comes to realize paramārtha (the permanent/absolute truth) by understanding the impermanence of pratibhāsa and vyavahāra (illusory and dualistic nature) of all conditioned things.

He stops short of saying that the nirvanic ideal is the ātman, because that would cause one to cling to that view and would not help in the discarding of all conditioned views.

[vasanthakokilam]

It’s so quiet in here….

This is a realized forum

hariharan: I will have to digest all this and come to terms with the content..

A few surface level questions for now.

1) Do all these view points quoted by you including the so-called western advatists, explain what is in the vedanta? Just making sure for my own information purposes whether they are also extending it in ways, subtle or not, so it is explainable..

2) At a meta-physical level, how does one even know what the realized state is, to the extent all these people describe it? The standard indian answer is, the vedic rishis "got it". What is the authoritative source here?

3) Who are these western advaitists? Do they predominantly come from the Maharish Mahesh Yogi school?

4) In fact, I do like the part about that at infinitesimal time units, nothing really happens. I see that you also like to stress that since I had seen you explaining that "back drop" in a few different contexts of both time and space. That is indeed attractive. Is that Vedantic thinking? I have heard Maharishi Mahesh Yogi talking about that "silence in between" and I am curious if the western advatists take that line of thinking from MMY.

5) Just an observation. You bring in modern physics in your explanation. Talking of correlation of modern physics with Advaita is interesting and it is hard to resist. Both modern physics and Advaita share one thing: Namely, it is inexplicable to our common notions of cause and effect. But beyond using it as a metaphor, there is a danger of over interpretation since modern physics is built on very abstract mathematical primitives as axioms with no relation to "reality" as we commonly think. The only reason why it is even a physics is because it is so successful in explaining what we observe at sub-atomical and cosmic level.

[ghariharan]

VK:

When it happens, it happens. You will know. That is one thing you cannot get a confirmation from outside, but that you will be sure about.

Presently, vedantic knowledge is centred in Australia, UK, USA, and Europe. I will PM you a list of modern vedantins(some call them Neo-vedantins for their direct approach). You can look up their biodata, resume, read up on their own experiences, and so on to get an idea of whether they are genuine.

Vedantam has become more easily available since the advent of the internet, especially since 1996 or so. But the easy access to the knowledge does not detract from the huge benefit derivable from it. It is a wonder of wonders that vedanta exposes us to. Nothing can be more absorbing than this knowledge.

It is amusing to see that one has been taken for a ride for such a big part of one's life. You chuckle then and get on with life.

[VK RAMAN]

The discussions so far are logical, fact based and scientific. Something simple that common people can carry with them is missing in our spiritual quest IMHO. I believe quenching the quest -give up attachment to anything emotional and material may help in this.

[ghariharan]

How does one give up attachment? By suppressing desires, anger and other emotions, going to the forest and living a solitary life? Please note that attachment (mamata) arises along with, and is based on Ahamkaram (ego sense). Making any efforts based on the ego self is going to strengthen the ego. There is no way to get rid of attachment unless one goes through the vedantic path, does vicharam, and gets the understanding that the ego is false. When the ego falls away and loses its hold on the mind, then detachment happens automatically. But this process happens when it happens, for no apparent reason. One may call that the grace of God, if one chooses to do so. There is no other way that attachment can be given up.

Tangentially, if we have any choice in our lives, we would not let ourselves be miserable at any time. But the lot of humankind is generally riddled with misery, dissatifaction, sadness, and so on.

[VK RAMAN]

The way to reach that stage of detachment may be manifold IMHO, such as service to humanity without expectation, giving what one has without any expectation, praising the Lord

[ragam-talam]

VKR, you are spot on!

Unfortunately, people who follow one path deride the other paths, e.g. vedantins pooh-pooh bhakti marga etc. Example of ignorance and arrogance.

[ragam-talam]

How does one give up attachment?

But why should one in the first place?
This constant hankering for bliss, happiness, moksha, brahman etc may itself be the problem.

I am reminded of the Mahabharata story of Kunti-devi who asks Krishna to give her lots of problems! When Krishna is surprised by this strange request, she tells him this would ensure she always thinks of Him.

A lot of wisdom in this story.

[ghariharan]

In the same context Kunti laments that she has too much attachment to the yadhavas and Pandavas, and beseeches Krishna to grant her the boon of detachment. Major contradiction, if there is any.

[srkris]

This constant hankering for bliss, happiness, moksha, brahman etc may itself be the problem.

That is a misinformed opinion. Brahman is not bliss, and there is no hankering.

[ragam-talam]

ghariharan - I was more cautioning about getting attached to the idea of detachment!

[ragam-talam]

That quote of Nagarjuna (I suppose from the mūlamadhyamakārika)

From Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:
25:19-20
न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं
There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana.
न निर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९
There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara.
निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च
(That?) is the limit which is the limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara;
न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २०
Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.
=================================================
This is brilliant stuff!

[ghariharan]

As I understand it, the only purpose of Sadhana Chatusthayam (Vivekam, vairagyam etc.) is to ensure that the mind does not stray too much while doing spiritual enquiry. That introspection is not disturbed by attention to external things.

Same logic applies to other restrictions such as brahmacharya, sathvic food, etc.

[ragam-talam]

ghariharan - it wasn't clear what point you were trying to make.

[ghariharan]

The point is that it is fine to study about and practice sadhana chatushtayam, understand avasthathrayam, the three shareerams, etc. But to dwell on those things alone, and try to reject any other point of view is self-defeating. That is because if one is attached to the ideas, the mind (and ego)gets stengthened, and is therefore an impediment to "seeing" the truth that is so simple and available all the time.

Go beyond your dearly held beliefs, faiths and concepts to see the truth that is fundamental to all experiences, pleasant or unpleasant. The so-called enlightenment is the discovery that there is no person, period. It follows that there is no one who can attain enlightenment. It is all a shadow play based on perception, memory, story-building, and so on.
If you want to know the truth, question everything. Do not believe something just because the scriptures say, or your guru said so, or that you have held on to that belief from childhood. Be bold, courageous, tenacious, and dogged in your pursuit. Continue till you convince yourself that you (the ego, i.e.) are just as much a concept as Santa Claus. That is why Ramana asked you to find out who has doubts, rather than trying to find clarifications to doubts.

Experiencing is happening 24x7, only you choose to select some of them and build stories around those experiences. It is the ego that is at work. In actuality, there is nothing happening, in the absence of a continuity that is made by memory-recall function of the ego-self.

So practices can be of help only to some extent. Only when it is realised that practices and so-called knowledge are actually an impediment that the truth shines in its full glory.

May be I should have explained all this in my previous posting.

[ghariharan]

When one discovers that one is not a personal entity, the following benefits are reaped. (Extracted from Eric Putkonen's webpage):

In realizing the answer to that fundamental question, you realize the true Self...that is Awakening, Enlightenment, and Liberation. With this realization also comes...

freedom from worry

freedom from blame and guilt

freedom from the fear of death

freedom from the emotional traumas of the past

freedom from the conditioning & limiting beliefs taught to you as a child

freedom from the search for something more (the end of seeking)

freedom to be open and loving without conditions

freedom to see things as they are

freedom to be spontaneous and adventurous

freedom to act instead of reacting

and more.

This is John Foster's expression: go to "Welcome Home" section of the page http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/4.html

[ragam-talam]

To this list you can add the following:
- freedom from worrying about whether you are free or not!

[ragam-talam]

Even this idea of becoming free could be a mirage... who said you are in bondage in the first place?

[ghariharan]

Yes, we are all already free. It is the identification with the ego as the doer/experiencer that is the problem. Yes, indeed, the felt need to get "enlightened" itself is a bond. But some of us maybe compelled to
get something more out of life than what is happening, and feel frustrated with trying to "improve" things. Seeking starts with the assumption that something could be better, will become better in time, maybe with some effort, and so on. The seeing that what is is already perfect, because it is not something else right now, is the release from bondage, from the need to seek "freedom" or "enlightenment".

Sure for one who does not feel wanting or is not searching, this pursuit is pointless.

[Nick H]

We are indeed only as free as we think we are, but is that a matter of spirituality or of psychology?

I recall a film scene from many years back, which still seems greatly profound to me. I guess it must have been a Western, and the gang riding through town has opened the prison and released the prisoners. Most shout with glee, but one old man, who must have been there most of his life, blinks at the sunlight, shakes his head, and returns to sit in his cell.

The message comes to us from all sides, political, ideological, psychological, spiritual. You have nothing to loose but your chains; you have nothing to fear but fear itself. Even Bob Marley sang, "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free our minds."

I know what I do, most of the time: slip back into my comfort zone and relax.

[ghariharan]

Yes, Nick, indeed so. The same conclusion comes from different directions. Only an overactive, agitated mind fails to see that.

[vasanthakokilam]

To this list you can add the following:
- freedom from worrying about whether you are free or not!

Even this idea of becoming free could be a mirage... who said you are in bondage in the first place?

Fair points... but the above two statements made by people on either side of the 'realized' divide may be syntactically the same but semantically infinite distance apart.

And the flaw in my statement above is the assumption that there is indeed such a dividing line. How do we know if there is a such a line? Even if you believe there is that line, where is it, which direction do you need to go to find it?

One way to test that personally is this.. Go in many directions a few "miles" and examine the above two statements you made. See if there is a qualitative difference in terms of how it resonates with you.. If it is remarkably different, may be you are going in the right direction. Once you cross the line, the same two statements should have an asymptotically different meaning.

[ghariharan]

Nick H

We are indeed only as free as we think we are, but is that a matter of spirituality or of psychology?

Nochur Venkataramanji would have picked the difference in a jiffy. Although the end results seem to be the same, there is an ocean of difference between the psychological approach and the vedantic one.

Psychology is based on the following posits:

1. There is a person.
2. He has a mind.
3. He has a bunch of traits and characteristics called personality.
4. There is a world that the person has to face and cope with.
5. The person can be conditioned and his personality tweaked to better cope with the world.

Personality development is based on behavioural changes to better deal with people and situations.

Vedantic enquiry, on the other hand, results in the discovery of the absence of a personal entity, leading to the following conclusions:

1. There is no individual
2. The person (Jeevatma) is a phantom, a fake, a set of conditioned responses that have been cultivated from early childhood by family background and cultural milieu.
3. Since there is no person, there can logically be no non-I, the world.
4. What one is, or what the world is, cannot be understood. The I thought is the core assumption leading to the (mis)understanding that one has a choice and that he has to use it to deal with the world.
5. With the conviction about the absence of an individual person, it is seen that the body-mind organism, as well as the world is illusory(Mithya). Time and space is a mental concept. There is nothing other than Here and Now, which the mind has interpreted into a past and present based on the faculty of memory/recall.
6. There is no You or Me.
7. There is no good or bad, virtue or sin, since everything is an expression of the One.
8. All is an expression/manifestation of One, that NO THING appears as EVERYTHING.

With this background, the problems are not taken on board. Life becomes less burdensome since there is no one to assume the burden.

[Nick H]

I know your bullet-point listing is a simplification, and would not write off the teaching behind it, but still, it seems to me that point 9 would have to be --- there is no point! Perhaps that, in some deeper sense, is actually true!

[ghariharan]

Agreed, Nick. Indeed, there is no point to anything. But the end result obtained through enquiry and understanding is likely to stay "permanent", whereas the other approach requires constant practice and reminding oneself.

[ragam-talam]

Indeed, there is no point to anything.

This is the viewpoint of existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre. But this realisation has led some of them to get depressed, commit suicide, etc. (what's the point? they ask)

I would suggest a slightly different (insightful) approach. I call this 'detached involvement'. Even after realising that all this is maya, no point etc. etc., be a committed actor on the stage of life. Be 100% involved, at the same time be completely detached - like a 'saakshi'. This is an art, a skill, that one can develop. Techniques like meditation can help in this process.

This is how a good actor plays his part on the theatre stage. ('All the world's a stage', as the bard reminds us.) For those moments he is on stage, he is the murderer, lover, householder etc - the role he plays. But he knows fully well that he is not that role.

Life is just another stage, perhaps with a bigger canvas. Don't identify with the role you are playing - be a witness constantly, at the same time be a committed player.

[srkris]

Yes, we are all already free. It is the identification with the ego as the doer/experiencer that is the problem.

Ghariharan, you have explained your misconceptions very lucidly. All problems require solutions, non-duality is not a solution for any problem, nor does it recognize any problem. Further, advaita does not prescribe the denial of the ego.

The person (Jeevatma) is a phantom

Advaita does not prescribe the absurdity that the jeevatma is a phantom.

There is nothing other than Here and Now, which the mind has interpreted into a past and present based on the faculty of memory/recall.

Advaita does not state the absurd conclusion that there is nothing other than Here and Now.

There is no good or bad, virtue or sin, since everything is an expression of the One.

Advaita does not deal with any "one", nor does it deal with expressions of that "one"

Life becomes less burdensome since there is no one to assume the burden.

Advaita is not a solution to any burden, or a prescription to get rid of burdens by shirking life.

Advaita does not hold that there is no point to anything.

So maybe it is time to stop pushing your misinformed opinions under the guise of advaita. The more you flap your wings trying to make yourself clearer, the deeper you sink into the rut of misinformation & miscommunication. It would be better if you didnt pretend your opinions are "advaita", but that they are only your own personal opinions.

[ghariharan]

Maybe it is my limited expression. But, on srkris's advise, I am retiring. No more postings.

[Nick H]

I would suggest a slightly different (insightful) approach. I call this 'detached involvement'. Even after realising that all this is maya, no point etc. etc., be a committed actor on the stage of life. Be 100% involved, at the same time be completely detached - like a 'saakshi'. This is an art, a skill, that one can develop. Techniques like meditation can help in this process. ...

That makes a great deal of sense to me.




(I realise there are several pages of this thread that I completely missed out on... catching up is in order)

[srkris]

Ghariharan, I did neither advise nor request you to retire from participation. If it is your decision, I am fine with that, but I did not ask for it.

You made some illogical comments and passed them off as advaita. I just asked you to stop passing of your personal opinions under the "advaita" banner. You are superimposing your own snake on the rope.

[VK RAMAN]

Ghariharan: "So maybe it is time to stop pushing your misinformed opinions under the guise of advaita" - this is what srkris wrote and there is nothing there to provoke you to retire IMHO. Why personalize; involve in a detached way as Nick says

[ghariharan]

Oh well, my observations are based on Nochur's lectures, Swami Omkarananda's lectures, my understanding of Tatvamasi and Aham Brahmasmi, my own quest on the lines of Who am I, etc. The expressions were in more modern language, and I did use some websites of contemporary realized souls. (They have spent on an average 30 years with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, and they also will say the same thing that enlightenment is no big deal. One comes to the conclusion after one's long and strife-ridden search brinking on depression. And they have also practised various meditation techniques intensely, and gone through the Buddhist traditions.) But I do not want to continue because I am likely to make more outrageous (but true) statements if I continue . It is something so intimate, so subtle, and so beyond words that it is futile to explain. Whoever finds it will find it. Again, it is not through human efforts that the door opens. Call it God's will, if you want to. But there it is. One will go on struggling, if that is what is meant to happen. No way of telling which way it will go, or who will "become enlightened". People will pounce on me if I reiterate that no enlightenment is possible for any one because so-called atma satshatkaram or enlightenment is coming to the firm conviction through the Who Am I vicharam that there is no individual, and hence there is no one doing anything or enjoying anything, that kartavyam-bhogtavyam arises because of the false identifcation with/as an individual entity. As I said, this is what Krishna says in the very beginning of his Bhagavath Gita advice to Arjuna, in the very first part of Ch. 2. The rest of the Gita (such as karma yoga, etc.)follows only because Arjuna is unable to grasp what Krishna said.

If I say you are already enlightened, and you just have to recognise the fact, that statement might sound outrageous, too.

Finally, I would strongly recommend Nochurji for anyone interested in knowing the truth about himself (and the world). I have great respect for him --although he is much younger to me-- for the role he has played in my life. Also go through the various upanishads, they all say the same thing. And, remember, Ramana did not read any books before getting "enlightened". And this knowledge is universal, available to any one of any nation, caste or creed. Reading books and trying to interpret the meaning of the words is futile; on the other hand, going to any guru to get it is worthwhile. But, remember, the guru does not give you anything new, but only helps you to remove the "avaranas", and the truth is then seen in all its glory.

Go ahead, and question everything, including your own separate existence. Get all the props needed in your search, such as Bhagavath Geetha, Upanishads, Brahma Sutra, Yoga Vasishta, etc. (through upanyasakars' mouth, not books).

Pranams to everyone.

[vasanthakokilam]

ghariharan, yes, please continue. To address srkris's point, if your material comes from several sources that is based on vedanta, it need not be advaita since the same vedanta has been interpreted differently by different philosophers. That is how different branches form. So it will be good to know which interpretation your sources follow. ( approx. ).

srkris: You have responded with what Advaita does not say. What does advaita say? And what is your source material? Direct reading and interpretation or someone else's interpretation? If latter, who?

[Nick H]

... involve in a detached way as Nick says

Just for the record those wise words were from ragam-talam, not from me.

I could have said them when I was much younger. I used to often think of the expression "like water off a duck's back" and feel that this is how we should be with the things that unbalance us. Now I get mad... or glad... but don't seem to be able to achieve the detachment any longer.

These things are supposed to get easier as we get older and more experienced. I think I'm living my life backwards

[srkris]

srkris: You have responded with what Advaita does not say. What does advaita say? And what is your source material?

Advaita does not say anything that can be parsed. There is no ultimate source to consult, and no direct positive message is offered. This is not my opinion.

Having a source (Nochur, Ramana, Sankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha etc etc) would make advaita a belief system, you need start believing the source or authority. Advaita is not a belief system (i.e religion), and so there is therefore no authority to believe in. The truth alone prevails.

Direct reading and interpretation or someone else's interpretation? If latter, who?

Mine is the path of no interpretations. I don't have an authority to quote, and I don't have any opinion to offer. I am not an authority either as I don't offer any explanation for anyone to follow or believe in.

My only opinions are those that refute other (misinformed) opinions.

[ragam-talam]

The truth alone prevails.
...
Mine is the path of no interpretations.

Such vacuous, pompous assertions!

ghariharan, please continue to post here. Some of us - myself included - do find your posts very insightful.

[ragam-talam]

Now I get mad...

Nick getting mad?? Next you will be telling us pigs fly too!

[ghariharan]

Let us put this back-and-forth arguments behind. It is perhaps not good to share openly. Those of you who are interested, please send me an email. I promise to respond back by email.

[Nick H]

Nick getting mad?? Next you will be telling us pigs fly too!

There have been a few times....

[VK RAMAN]

Pigs fly too?

[vasanthakokilam]

good one, vkr

[Nick H]

Hey, it was the pigs I was talking about!

[arasi]

Now, we are in 'Believe (Belief?) It or Not' land.
Pigs flying is no big deal, when you consider all the feats in mythology, or in Harry Potter stories, for that matter
And if the pig were the Empress of Blandings, she would fly in her own private jet! In PGW's times, he could have put her only in a luxury liner

[srkris]

Such vacuous, pompous assertions!

Thank you, if you really understood the vacuous nature of the assertion, you understood it well. A better way to understand it would be to view it as a non-assertion. You can apply any description to a non-assertion, it's all the same to me whether you think of it as pompous or non-pompous because they are not my assertions, I dont claim credit for them. What I described as "my path" in my previous post does not really signify any posession or ownership, and I already said I dont have any opinion nor do I have an authority to look up to. I dont have to build a halo around myself, because I don't claim to be an authority. I don't want you to accept what I say just because I say it. Of course these statements are vacuous. If you realize their meaning in the vacuum, that will be your realization.

Nochur and Ramana are as much non-authorities on advaita as are Goundamani & Senthil. Advaita cannot be taught since it transcends expression and experience.