My Spiritual Quest

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 21 Nov 2010, 03:37

It is difficult to interpret the sutras due to their being cryptic.

Actually
1.1.30: "aakhyaah pravachanAt"

has been interpreted to mean that " attribution (of the vedas to persons (puruSha)) is due to their (clever)
interpretations. Thus Jaimini maintains the impersonality (apauruSham) of the vedas. Thus he denies the authorship
to the putative authors to whom the vedas are attributed.

The following sutra as quoted by SR
1.1.31: parantu shrutisaamaanyamaatram
is actually
1.1.31: param tu shrutisaamaanyamaatram
which changes the meaning as
' It (veda) but is beyond (interpretation) (param) , (and what is given as interpretation ) is just an
ordinary sense (shruti saamaanya maatram).
The reason he gives is
1.1. 28: anityadarshanacca
'the interpretation of the words refer to impermanant (transitory) objects'
while
1.1.29: uktantu shabdapUrvakam
'because of the vedic words exist before they were interpreted or spoken of"

By the by my comments are based on the sanskrit bhAShya of Jaimini Sutra by
Rshiputra ParamEshvara (of Kerala)

All these analysis cannot be justified by our modern logic since the 'vedic logic' is circular
just like the evngelist justifying the Bible from the quotations in the Bible itself!

IMHO this is a futile exercise.
You believe it or dont believe it, and the choice is all yours

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 21 Nov 2010, 03:58

You believe it or dont believe it, and the choice is all yours - I agree - belief or disbelief it is up to each individual.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 21 Nov 2010, 08:26

Thank you CML.

Let us consider for a moment the text that the sutras seek to base themselves on. The mimamsa sutras are based on the brahmanas (i.e., the brahmanas are the root text thats are sought to be explained by the sutras). It is another thing altogether that the brahmanas deal with the mantras indirectly in the performance of sacrifices described in the brahmanas. This is why commentators on the sutras give examples from the brahmanas rather than from the samhita, the mimamsa tradition's primary focus is on the brahmanas.

The mimamsa sutras are not a commentary on the mantras/samhita. The mantras have their commentary in the samhita (for eg. Sayana's) bhasya. Therefore when we talk about the mimamsa sutras, our focus is always primarily on the brahmanas, and only indirectly on the samhita (just the same as how when we talk of uttara mimamsa, our primary focus is on the upanishads that the vedanta sutras seek to address or clarify). We should therefore not lose sight of the brahmanas whenever we talk of the mimamsa sutras.

Now, if we go into the brahmanas, there is no prima facie claim that they make about the infallibility or the eternity of the veda. This is a major distinction between the brahmanas themselves, and the mimamsa sutras. The brahmanas are more innocent of such wild claims and in fact mention several conflicting claims that existed in their period, and deal with such claims by reasoning them out (not directly opposing them) one by one. The sutras however built their own logic upon the base provided by the brahmanas, and we should not expect them to be wholly representative of the brahmanas.

The brahmanas themselves are late vedic texts that were composed when differences arose in the interpretation and performance of vedic rites and sacrifices, their primary purpose being to reconcile those differences of opinion. So we should not forget that the brahmanas are removed several centuries from the samhita. The samhita itself was compiled/redacted by "the redactor" ("vyAsa") a long time after the mantras were composed, and the mantras themselves were composed over hundreds of years. The mimamsa sutras being based on the brahmanas are several centuries later than the brahmanas (the brahmanas are in vedic, while the sutras are in classical sanskrit). Hence it makes sense to believe that the mantras were composed long long before the mimamsa sutras. The commentaries (vRttis initially and bhasyas later) on the sutras are similarly removed centuries from the sutras themselves, and each has their own logic and twist on the sutras. This is why I do not hold Kumarila (or even jaimini for that matter), as an incontrovertible authority on the mantras or the brahmanas.

The point I am trying to make is that the sutras may claim eternity and/or infallibility of the veda in some way or the other, but that is not representative of the tradition as a whole, and particularly not representative of the brahmana, and much less the mantras in the samhita.

Also Jaimini (the putative author of the sutras) was opposing the views of other scholars of his time, as he lists down their objections to his view, so his view is just one among many. In many cases, Jaimini indulges in logical fallacies, and he has not satisfactorily therefore answered his opponents. We should therefore have an open mind and not take Jaimini or Kumarila (or even Shabaraswami) as the sole authorities on mimamsa. The tradition was richer than the individuals.

girish_a · Post by **girish_a** » 21 Nov 2010, 10:43

This thread started as a serious discussion about a spiritual quest. It has now degenerated into unnecessary hair-splitting on irrelevant issues like the origin of the Vedas, Sutras, this or that aphorism etc. none of which makes any sense whatsoever to unlearned laymen like me (and most others here).

I found Sangeet Rasik's explanation to my skepticism about the Vedas "not being of human authorship" unsatisfactory. I refuse to accept that the Vedas "were given" to humanity in some hoary past. My mind refuses to accept that the Vedas came from some source other than human beings. And I say this not as a commentary on Sangeet Rasik's undoubted scholarship, but from a purely personal dissatisfaction about not hearing a convincing explanation to my doubt.

However, I find that pursuing this point further is only going to provoke others to get on the bandwagon and cause this thread to degenerate further into personal attacks and accusations.

So this is a call for sanity and an appeal to all participants to cease and desist from making any posts that are only of cursory interest and completely irrelevant to the serious topic being sought to be discussed here.

girish_a · Post by **girish_a** » 21 Nov 2010, 10:56

So in continuation to my previous post, I want to ask:Does knowing all these things (Sutras, Mimamsa etc) really help one spiritually?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Nov 2010, 11:20

intellectually empty and dishonest views

You are just abusive. [/quote]You are just abusive. Once again, I recommend that you go educate yourself about fundamentalism, and I appreciate that my recommendations are of no use to you.

Thank god (if there is one) that we don't speak the same language

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 12:41

CML,

Thanks for weighing in. My responses below:

cmlover wrote:It is difficult to interpret the sutras due to their being cryptic.

That is why we have the bhashyas and vartikas.

By the by my comments are based on the sanskrit bhAShya of Jaimini Sutra by
Rshiputra ParamEshvara (of Kerala)

Parameshvara is not an authoritative commentator on the Jaimini sutras. Authoritative bhashyas/vartikas are by Shabara, Kumarila, Parthasarathi, and Prabhakara.

Actually
1.1.30: "aakhyaah pravachanAt"

has been interpreted to mean that " attribution (of the vedas to persons (puruSha)) is due to their (clever)
interpretations. Thus Jaimini maintains the impersonality (apauruSham) of the vedas. Thus he denies the authorship
to the putative authors to whom the vedas are attributed.

That is not the mainstream mimamsa interpretation. Although in this case, the result is essentially the same.

The following sutra as quoted by SR
1.1.31: parantu shrutisaamaanyamaatram
is actually
1.1.31: param tu shrutisaamaanyamaatram
which changes the meaning as
' It (veda) but is beyond (interpretation) (param) , (and what is given as interpretation ) is just an
ordinary sense (shruti saamaanya maatram).

Again, this is not the mainstream opinion (but an interesting interpretation, nevertheless). Please see the slokavartika by Kumarila which is followed by the vast majority of mimamsakas. Prabhakara also concurs with this definition (I have not read his work in the original, but Ganganatha Jha includes his commentary in this text on the Mimamsasutra). Anyhow, the result of Paramesvara's interpretation is practically similar to the others.

The reason he gives is
1.1. 28: anityadarshanacca
'the interpretation of the words refer to impermanant (transitory) objects'
while
1.1.29: uktantu shabdapUrvakam
'because of the vedic words exist before they were interpreted or spoken of"

Could you please check your text again ? Otherwise, I feel that this Paramesvara is seriously at odds with the mainstream opinion in mimamsa. The sutra 1.1.28 is not the view of mimamsa, it is stating the view of the purvapaksha (opponent) before it is refuted in 1.1.29!

All these analysis cannot be justified by our modern logic since the 'vedic logic' is circular
just like the evngelist justifying the B**** from the quotations in the B**** itself!

I request you to desist from such comparisons. You know well that the place of the Vedas is elevated above mere scripture. It is the colonial western Indologists who have clubbed it under the rubric of scripture.

If you are talking about "scripture" and the "circular logic" that invariably arises in texts which claim "God-to-Man" revelations, the appropriate Hindu counterpart of the prophetic religions is NOT the Vedas, it is the Bhagavad Gita. And it is in fact, the Bhagavad Gita that forms the basis for "messianic" forms of Hinduism like the Hare Krishna sect.

People read scripture ultimately to find comfort in higher powers and a loving God who will "take them under their wing". That is the domain of the Bhagavad Gita and similar prophetic scriptures. These are idiosyncratic works and obviously the works of fundamentalist persons. You will never find the copy of the Rgveda in a hotel room or in a courtroom. There is no comparison between the Vedas and scriptures of religions. The Vedas are impersonal and not interested in comforting human beings vis-a-vis God and his loving nature.

IMHO this is a futile exercise. You believe it or dont believe it, and the choice is all yours

It may never be "proved" beyond doubt that the Vedas are eternal. However, this belief is logically and rationally held, and it is, epistemologically speaking, just as good as the other sources of knowledge that we take for granted (do you have a proof that perception and inference are intrinsically valid ? There is none.). That is the important point that we should know. Furthermore, the philosophical framework behind this should be known to all of us, because they elevate our mind, intellect, and qualities. Instead of trying to find "spirituality" in nihilist, dishonest, entirely absurd views based upon defective logic, one should take the path of honest work and honest inquiry. That is lacking in our education system but exemplified in the philosophy of Mimamsa and Vedanta.

Best Wishes,
SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 12:52

Girish_a,

girish_a wrote:I found Sangeet Rasik's explanation to my skepticism about the Vedas "not being of human authorship" unsatisfactory. I refuse to accept that the Vedas "were given" to humanity in some hoary past. My mind refuses to accept that the Vedas came from some source other than human beings. And I say this not as a commentary on Sangeet Rasik's undoubted scholarship, but from a purely personal dissatisfaction about not hearing a convincing explanation to my doubt.

I have never held any interest in converting you to my views. Fifteen years ago I would have said the same thing as what you have written here. My response was to not just "refuse to accept" because my conditioned worldview held me back, but to spend years reading the foundational texts of Indian philosophy and the Vedas.

The result has been an enlightening and ennobling experience. Not only have I learned a great deal on how to conduct an intellectual inquiry (perhaps as much or greater learning than my career of 16 years in science), but I am also happy that this search has brought me in close connection to the Vedas and Vedic Sanskrit - far elevated even beyond the mundane classical Sanskrit - and I do not really care if others will never experience that connection.

As far as your belief that the search for "spirituality" is a serious endeavor, you could not be more mistaken (in my opinion). The "spirituality" that deluded persons reach for is just a temporary physical and psychological sensation that is mistaken for some kind of enlightenment, whereas many useful works and initiatives could have been undertaken in that time.

At the end of the day, "a nation of enlightened shopkeepers" is far better than "a nation of good-for-nothing spiritualists".

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 12:54

girish_a wrote:So in continuation to my previous post, I want to ask:Does knowing all these things (Sutras, Mimamsa etc) really help one spiritually?

The Vedas and the Mimamsa do not dabble in the cesspool of "spirituality", which has only produced inertia, dishonesty, pessimism, and brainwashed individuals incapable of any useful works, throughout human history. So the answer is No.

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 13:12

Srkris,

(I am still laughing).

srkris wrote:Let us consider for a moment the text that the sutras seek to base themselves on. The mimamsa sutras are based on the brahmanas (i.e., the brahmanas are the root text thats are sought to be explained by the sutras). It is another thing altogether that the brahmanas deal with the mantras indirectly in the performance of sacrifices described in the brahmanas. This is why commentators on the sutras give examples from the brahmanas rather than from the samhita, the mimamsa tradition's primary focus is on the brahmanas.

A dishonest and silly statement, which is full of generalities that are picked up from some internet source.

Let us be 100% clear. The first pada of the first adhyaya of the purvamimamsasutra is regarding the eternality of the ENTIRE Veda. There is no two ways about it. It is obvious and well-known that the Mimamsa focuses on the Brahmanas. But it would be eminently stupid of the Mimamsa to not include the entire Veda (including Samhita) in the sutras 1.1.1-1.1.32.

This is like saying, "the Newton's laws of motion apply only to the pulley and block of wood on the incline, because these were the only two example problems given in my physics textbook - even though the introduction says they are applicable to any macroscopic object."

The mimamsa sutras are not a commentary on the mantras/samhita. The mantras have their commentary in the samhita (for eg. Sayana's) bhasya. Therefore when we talk about the mimamsa sutras, our focus is always primarily on the brahmanas, and only indirectly on the samhita (just the same as how when we talk of uttara mimamsa, our primary focus is on the upanishads that the vedanta sutras seek to address or clarify). We should therefore not lose sight of the brahmanas whenever we talk of the mimamsa sutras.

Who said they are a commentary on the Samhita ? Spelling it out plainly: if you desire to prove the validity of the injunctions in ANY part of the Vedas (e.g. the Brahmanas), you MUST prove the eternality of the ENTIRE veda before you start on that quest. That is the whole point of the first adhyaya of the mimamsasutra, which you are blissfully unaware of. Even beginners in Mimamsa and Vedanta know this - but you are still writing nonsense!

Once again, it is clear to me that you know next to nothing of the Vedas or the Mimamsa. You pick up on entirely irrelevant points and start discussing them. You should learn the art of separating what is relevant from what is not - it is a necessary skill in philosophy, and in life.

The sutras however built their own logic upon the base provided by the brahmanas, and we should not expect them to be wholly representative of the brahmanas.

A false statement. Again, perhaps the *philosophically most important* part of the Jaimini mimamsasutras is the first pada of the first adhyaya. That is why the "flagship Mimamsaka" (Kumarila) has devoted an ENTIRE TEXT (the slokavarttika) to expounding this section. It is THE document that convincingly refutes the Bauddhas and also the other orthodox darshanas, and which is freely borrowed upon by Vedanta. Please do not try to misrepresent Indian philosophical schools, you have shown enough dishonesty already.

The point I am trying to make is that the sutras may claim eternity and/or infallibility of the veda in some way or the other, but that is not representative of the tradition as a whole, and particularly not representative of the brahmana, and much less the mantras in the samhita.

Completely false. You still have not mentioned to me the name of a single author of mimamsa or Vedanta who claims the Vedas are not eternal or infallible. These are your own concoctions for which there are no serious takers nor any evidence in the texts.

Also Jaimini (the putative author of the sutras) was opposing the views of other scholars of his time, as he lists down their objections to his view, so his view is just one among many.

This is news to me. What is "many" ? The six orthodox darshanas, or some 500 schools of philosophy ? Let us be very clear again: the Vedic and Vedantic schools have held near-total status-quo dominance of Indian philosophy (and for good reason). The other schools (nyaya, vaisheshika, sankhya, and yoga) have never had a substantial philosophical following. However, intellectual debate was always part of the Indian philosophical tradition, and the views of these schools are indeed included and refuted. That is a far stretch from your make-believe assertion that Jaimini is just a "voice in a crowd".

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 13:43

Dear Rasiks,

I have decided to close my account at rasikas.org. This is a note of explanation to the genuine rasiks in the forum.

I hope the genuine rasiks will not misunderstand me. I have enjoyed sharing my compositions with you. My musical journey will continue and hopefully become more visible in the music community in the coming years. I have also enjoyed the many discussions I have had here, and appreciate your attention to my compositions and my views.

Three reasons have come together to precipitate my departure:

1) It is not appropriate for me to post my compositions on a forum run by an individual like srkris, whom I find to be an intellectually dishonest person. I can understand inexperience and unfamiliarity with the literature, however, I cannot condone wilful disregard of honest advice and continued misrepresentations of my views and those of Indian philosophy. This is not tolerable and I do not need to patronize a forum run by such people.

2) I find myself unable to participate regularly, since my life has become much too busy over the years and new directions have arisen that take up my limited time. I travel too much, manage too many people, and have family commitments - which, taken together, do not allow me to participate effectively any more.

3) I find that most of the substantial contributors have left the forum at various points of time, and the bulk of the cohort that remains is not particularly interested in advancement of new music, or in promoting an Indian worldview that is not based on the false "spirituality" that we are famous for. I should say that the obsession with "bhakti" and "spirituality" has always been an issue for me on this forum, but never bothered me quite enough to part ways - until recently.

These are again my opinions - you may disagree. However, it is time for me to make an exit.

If you are interested in receiving links to my compositions, you can send an email to SangeetRasik@comcast.net, and I will place you on my (anonymous) mailing list.

Best Wishes,
SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 21 Nov 2010, 15:07

The Vedas and the Mimamsa do not dabble in the cesspool of "spirituality"

Will you kindly note the title of the thread atleast now, and acknowledge that you brought in this irrelevant topic into this thread, whatever your reasons may have been to do so?

I can understand inexperience and unfamiliarity with the literature, however, I cannot condone wilful disregard of honest advice and continued misrepresentations of my views and those of Indian philosophy. This is not tolerable and I do not need to patronize a forum run by such people.

Please spare us the lecture and suit yourself. I have received requests from members to remove you from the forum for your abusive language and tone. Not that I was intending to do it, but just thought I would let you know. The world does not come to an end with the exit of SR from rasikas.org, and the vedas will not become "unfixed from the universe" for SR either. Au revoir.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 21 Nov 2010, 15:41

I have decided to close my account at rasikas.org.

Hey, no need to pick up the marbles and run away!

Dear SR - while you may have things to contribute here, the tone of your posts does leave a bitter aftertaste. I find a lot of arrogance in your posts, and that's not helpful in a discussion forum like this one. It doesn't matter if you have spent 16 or 20 or 30 years of your life researching into all these fine topics. You also need to exhibit patience and respect for others when you post in a public forum. Otherwise even any valid points you make get drowned under all the harsh words you have been drenching us with.

There's a lovely saying 'Vidya dadaati vinayam'. Please meditate on that. Thank you and wish you all the best in your future sojourns.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Nov 2010, 16:14

Sangeet Rasik wrote:Dear Rasiks,

I have decided to close my account at rasikas.org. This is a note of explanation to the genuine rasiks in the forum.

Ahhh.... silence may not be the beginning or the end of spirituality, but it is certialy refreshing.

If you could contribute without insulting and belittling others, your posts really could be most interesting. There is nothing wrong with being forthright: you should hear what I have to say about my wife's religion, which, of course, she continues to practice! You go to far.

girish_a · Post by **girish_a** » 21 Nov 2010, 18:11

Sangeet Rasik wrote:
As far as your belief that the search for "spirituality" is a serious endeavor, you could not be more mistaken (in my opinion). The "spirituality" that deluded persons reach for is just a temporary physical and psychological sensation that is mistaken for some kind of enlightenment, whereas many useful works and initiatives could have been undertaken in that time.

SR

I request you, in refutation to this view of yours, to read the following fascinating account by an Englishman called Paul Brunton who set out on a spiritual quest less than a century ago, sought out masters and men of wisdom in India, and discovered in Sri Ramana Maharshi a truly enlightened sage - a spiritual superman, and with his help was able to personally experience some enlightenment himself. Read it, it is completely fascinating: it makes one think that there may indeed be such a thing as true spirituality, and that "self-knowledge", "enlightenment" etc. are not words merely for the amusement of deluded persons, but are indeed attainments that can be had by anyone who seriously embarks upon such a quest:

http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/downlo ... essage.zip

This is an extract of the most important chapters of a book called "A search in secret India" in which Paul Brunton recounted his experiences as a seeker of spiritual wisdom.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 21 Nov 2010, 20:55

Anything close to your heart, do not go into argument nor make any emotional attachment - a lesson learnt

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 22 Nov 2010, 07:44

SR

I am indeed sorry to note that you ar quitting this Forum. In fact your posts have been refreshing as also your scholarly compositions that you shared with us. But your parting shots hurt.

There is no reason for you to take umbrage at srkris who had been most decent to you. He had been debating you equally at a scholarly level point for point at an academic level (which you must have been used to) but you have not been totally honest and occasionally descended to ad hominems and name callings. He never abused his position as the admin (not only in your case but ever with other members of this Forum) but expressed his views just like any member freely and frankly and in good faith. If you have failed to convince him then it is your fault which you should admit and carry on but neither have you convinced many others at this Forum. To blame srkris for your quitting this Forum is simply unfair, to say the least.

Of course you are entitled to take a break for various reasons as many of us do. In fact I am on a break myself for some valid personal reasons (though some may feel that they have successfully hounded me out and I don't want to destroy their foolish paradise). This is a Public Forum (srkris in spite of his rights has never treated this as his private property and nor has imposed his ideas on any body). Folks do come and go taking a long break and then coming back with full vigour. All of us are grateful to those who spawn new ideas and make this Forum interesting and of course educational. Though primarily a music Forum we have not banned discussions on many unrelated areas which may be of public interest.

There is only one way of exiting this Forum which is getting 'banned' for dangerous/mischievous or malicious activities. That is undertaken after deliberations among the moderators and admin only as a last resort and is often reversed if the person recants. You do not belong to that category and I hope your sabbatical is temporary and you will come back at your own discretion.

I am surprised at your last comment that "substantial contributors have left the forum at various points of time, and the bulk of the cohort that remains is not particularly interested in advancement of new music". A casual glance at the comments on your recent contributions will show the level of appreciations for your work and contributions. We are mostly Rasikas and not performers to imbibe and bring your musical ideas into practice. Your attempts to bridge the CM/HM interface has been highly lauded as also your sahitya expertise imbedding 'vedic' themes and interpretations. The general CM community at large is still quite conservative and it will take time for novel ideas to sink in and take root.

I fully enjoyed your musical contributions as well as the exposition of 'spiritual ideas' in the vedic perspective and indeed hope that you will come back after taking the time off for sorting out your personal affairs. Let there be no hard feelings since the door is always open! adieu..

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 23 Nov 2010, 16:54

This thread is about spirituality. Let us put an end to this meaningless issue of the eternity of the Veda and the questionable applicability of the mimamsa sutras to the samhita, for it is not relevant to this thread in any way.

One person managed to troll his way towards diverting this thread into irrelevant issues, and finally himself took offence to others not towing his line and left. Not a problem.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 26 Nov 2010, 01:07

Read this article: http://blog.dawn.com/2010/11/25/the-science-of-farce/

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 26 Nov 2010, 01:57

CML,

Thanks for your post. I write only to clarify my position - I have not left "in a huff". It is a well-reasoned decision and based upon what I see going on in the forum.

You are right - there is no way to "delete one's account" - as I found the other day when trying to close my account. Thus, it appears that it will remain as a "trishanku". I will, however, not post here henceforth.

Thanks to all the members who emailed me. I will be creating a webpage in the future to disseminate my compositions and your comments/discussion will be welcome. Members are most welcome to search it on google, or email me to be added to the distribution list.

As for your other comments:

cmlover wrote:There is no reason for you to take umbrage at srkris who had been most decent to you. He had been debating you equally at a scholarly level point for point at an academic level (which you must have been used to) but you have not been totally honest and occasionally descended to ad hominems and name callings.

CML, I find it quite impossible to agree. I don't think the person in question has ever been discussing with me at a "scholarly level". At first I thought he had something substantial to add, but it soon became obvious that it was all a bluff - initial bold assertions and "I-know-the-answer" type of postings, followed by completely inane and ridiculous explanations with no reference material. It became clear to me that this person has no knowledge of, nor has undertaken deep thought on, any of the subjects in discussion here.

Despite repeated requests (from myself and others) for reference materials (a basic courtesy in any substantial discussion), he has not been forthcoming. Yet he continued to slander my views by claiming them to be different from the views of mainstream mimamsa and vedanta philosophers. In fact, he even descended to the level of claiming first-rank Indian philosophers to be only "less than 1%" of their field. At that point it became clear that there is something seriously wrong here.

At the end of the day, I could not believe that behind all this bravado is merely the pitiful arguments he has brought up recently (trying to argue with me on the table of contents of a text which I have in front of me). I am sorry to say, but this is utterly shameless and a setback to promoting right-thinking views.

And now he is busy posting links to P***stani newspapers. Great going, Mr. Forum Admin.

Also note the anxiety of the person in question to repeatedly state the "meaningless" nature of the eternity of Vedas, painting me as a "troll", etc. Given the number of forum members who have responded at the email address I supplied, it is clear that many have found interesting and valid principles to be explained in my posts. There is nothing crazy or meaningless here. What is unfortunate is the kind of "dumbed-down", "new age" nonsense that the forum administrator wants to promote as "spirituality". My purpose has not been to convince anyone of anything. I have posted to correct misconceptions and to provide information that may prevent a slide into obscurantism and nonsensical beliefs posing as a search for "spirituality". I hope the forum changes direction, but it seems it is becoming more and more parochial in nature and disconnected from the larger Indian ethos.

Your attempts to bridge the CM/HM interface has been highly lauded as also your sahitya expertise imbedding 'vedic' themes and interpretations. The general CM community at large is still quite conservative and it will take time for novel ideas to sink in and take root.

I appreciate your comments again, as I always have. However, please know that my decision to leave the forum has nothing to do with the response of CM community to my compositions. It is a decision based on the fact that I belive the forum has mainly become a venue for religious and obscurantist discussions, with or without music involved.

I fully enjoyed your musical contributions as well as the exposition of 'spiritual ideas' in the vedic perspective and indeed hope that you will come back after taking the time off for sorting out your personal affairs. Let there be no hard feelings since the door is always open! adieu..

Thanks, and there are no hard feelings at all. I have only expressed my views in plain, yet civil, language.

I do want to clarify - for the last time here - that there is no exposition of any "spiritual ideas" in my compositions. There are only two "religious" compositions in my repertoire. These were composed with a complete absence of any "spiritual" or "religious" beliefs but with a knowledge that they will likely appeal to the "religious-minded" CM listener. As Sharangadeva says, one characteristic of a good vaggeyakara is "paracittaparijnAnam" (knowledge of the other's mind).

The Vedic words are impersonal, disinterested in the human condition, and are not "spiritual". They provide correct information about the universe, knowledge of which can be thought of as true "spirituality" (although I find the word absurd). Some of my compositions may highlight this fact in different ways.

Best Wishes,
SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 26 Nov 2010, 16:13

>>And now he is busy posting links to P***stani newspapers. Great going, Mr. Forum Admin.<<

It appeared to answer you directly, that's why. What is wrong with posting a link to a pakistani newspaper's website? Why can't you even tolerate the name of Pakistan?

>>I don't think the person in question has ever been discussing with me at a "scholarly level".<<

There is no scholarly discussion possible about the vedas being fixed in the universe and the vedic rishis being non-humans or that the vedas contain laws of nature

. Scholars do not dispute patent absurdities.

You were not aware that the mimamsa sutras are based on the brahmanas. I can imagine you found it mentioned in no book that you read. So you started a bilious rant about me and my scholarly level. Nowhere did I claim I am a scholar.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 26 Nov 2010, 16:50

SR states:
>>The Vedic words are impersonal, disinterested in the human condition, and are not "spiritual".
Then why do you bring in all this discussion of the vedas in a thread titled 'My Spiritual Quest'? From your posts, it's quite clear you dismiss anything 'spiritual'!
You could have started another topic to discuss the nuances of the vedas etc.?

rajeshnat · Post by **rajeshnat** » 26 Nov 2010, 18:49

SR
I have nothing to say in this thread because most of the stuff went above my head. I think your contribution is very unique in writing with lot of conviction . I remember long back you took atAnA rAga with so much of counter points . Your contributions in composing and sharing them is really superb. In total there is no reason for you to leave the forum , may be there is just a reason to only quit posting any more posts in this thread.

We need your continued presence. Looking forward for the same.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 27 Nov 2010, 04:06

Even in former times, people were highly dissatisfied with the Vedas (because of understanding them incorrectly). They expected the Vedas to be the be all and end all of human life, and were therefore felt betrayed by the fact that the Vedas did not afford them what they wanted - the perfect life.

The reason was because they attributed superhuman (and even superdivine) qualities to it. The vedas were uncreated, no less. This kind of absurd attributions and over-expectations did not fail to create the discontent that would set in once they were found to be illogical.

The great contrarian movements that arose as a result (Vedanta, Samkhya, Buddhism) followed by the other darshanas sought to have their own explanations about what purushArtha (the goals of human existence) was supposed to be.

These darshanas sparked off a spate of national and regional literature in late antiquity. We find Tiruvalluvar, for example, classifying his verses into the 3 major purushArtha categories - Aram, Porul and Inbam (i.e Dharma, Artha and Kama) -- moksha was as yet not a purushArtha.

mankuthimma · Post by **mankuthimma** » 27 Nov 2010, 08:43

srkris
In all humilty let me say that you should not continue on the Vedas here . Not because I know anything on the subject , but simply because you and I know that this is not the forum for this subject . There are many more serious forums for these subjects.
For Gods sake disable that " Quote " facility . If people have to write down everything that they want to oppose , they will drop the idea after typing out a few sentences .
The larger issue for you as the admin is that you cannot take loss of members lightly .

If I were you I would say
to hell with the Vedas
and keep dreaming
of hills and trees ,
butterflies and bees

16 days to go and this phase will never come back to you .
Enjoy the moment . It will pass in a flash...

mankuthimma · Post by **mankuthimma** » 27 Nov 2010, 08:45

And remember .
You are going to tie a knot with someone who will typically say 20 years down the line , while reading the newspaper :

Honey . I took the compatibility test in the paper today and You failed ...

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 27 Nov 2010, 09:00

srkris wrote: We find Tiruvalluvar, for example, classifying his verses into the 3 major purushArtha categories - Aram, Porul and Inbam (i.e Dharma, Artha and Kama) -- moksha was as yet not a purushArtha.

Kindly refer to 35th and 36th chapters of tirukkuRaL - tuRavu and meyyuNardal. In Tamil the equivalent word for mOksha is vIDu.

I am surprised at the statement 'moksha was as yet not a purushArtha'.

This topic is degenerating into unnecessary politics about Hindu religion.Words like 'absurd attributions' are not part of healthy debate.

Intellectualism is the stepping stone for any quest but not end in itself. It breeds only egotism.Intellect is only a tool.

epporuL ettanmaittAyinum apporuL meypporuL kANbadaRivu - (355 tirukkuRaL)

'meypporuL kANbadu' is apprehension and not comprehension.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 28 Nov 2010, 21:36

Thimma is right!
eVedas looked backwards will be 'sad eVe'

(.. not appropriate for one on the eve of his wedding !)

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 28 Nov 2010, 21:44

VGV
VaLLuvar was a Jain and naturally he was after nirvANa (thuRavu) rather than enlightenment!
He has condemned implicitly Purvamimamsa (sacrifices) i.e., vedas as the means of salvation!

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 28 Nov 2010, 22:14

May be I am not knowledgeable.
May be this is not the forum where I should raise these issues.
But my understanding of vEdAnta indicates that 'nirvANa', 'mOksha', 'kaivalya' and such terminologies are synonyms.
And, in my humble opinion, 'meyyuNardal' is enlightenment.
In any case, isn't 'tuRavu' - 'saMnyAsa' the fourth and final of ASramas?

I do not know whether we have been able to establish that tiruvallurvar was a jain. But the first chapter 'kaDavuL vAzhttu' does not convey that he was a jain.

'piRavip perunkaDal nInduvAr nIndAr iRaivan aDi sErAdAr' (10).

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 30 Nov 2010, 22:00

VGV
The terms 'nirvANa', 'mOksha', 'kaivalya' etc are indeed euphemisms for 'death'.
The important question is whether the 'consciousness' survives independantly after death.
All religions agree on the dichotomy of the Body and the Mind including science.
If by analogy the Body is the hardware and Mind the software then we can comprehend their modus operandi.
Whereas among humans the mind (Self) understands its separation from the Body which you may call
'mini enlightenment', the Computers are still unenlightened and the analogy stops. Once we find a way to make the
computers 'Self aware' then we will have a better understanding of the process of 'enlightenment'.
Our Hindu belief in reincarnation is the equivalent of transferring the software from one computer to a new one. It does
carry all the errors and 'baggage' from the previous one like our carrying the 'prArabda karma' and paying the price for
our human foibles. Neither do we recollect our previous incarnation like the computer. In this case humans are 'Gods' in the realm of the computers. By analogy we postulate a 'God' (Brahmam) in the realm of humans. In fact the arguments for the existence of God in Brahmasutra run on similar lines.

If ever the Computers discover a 'super program' to become Self Aware, they will know All about their Gods!
If ever we humans discover the secret of our Consciousness we will discover All about Brahman!
That is enlightement in short!

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 01 Dec 2010, 09:29

The terms 'nirvANa', 'mOksha', 'kaivalya' etc are indeed euphemisms for 'death'.

What a death!

If ever the Computers discover a 'super program' to become Self Aware, they will know All about their Gods!

Finding the creator!

If ever we humans discover the secret of our Consciousness we will discover All about Brahman!

Penetrating our consciousness - audacious!
Worth discussing further.

There are, IMHO, two kinds of approach - bottom up - nEti nEti. The second is top-down approach - which is what 'ashTAvakra' prescribes.
Shall we discuss this gItA/saMhita?
If you are not having a copy of the book, I shall post the Slokas.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 01 Dec 2010, 21:11

Either way is good for me. I mean Top Down or Bottom Up..
I am trying to pull in the 'Modern Scientists' in our Forum to join and express their views.
Introspective investigation does not nulliify Scientific speculations!
I am not the one who will admit that all the answers are in the Religious Books iincluding the Vedas!

I have not studied Ashtavakra seriously. Do post the relevant ideas for our edification.
I have read Sanatsujatiya where he responds to DhritiraShTra's query:
[/b]sanatsujAta yadidam shR^NOmi mR^ityurhi nAstIti tavOpadEsham ,, [/b]
(SanatsujAta! I have heard that you teach that there is no death)
The discussion is fascinating but much goes above my head being too much 'Scientifically trained'

It will be nice to look at Gita/Samhita in that light without getting too abstract.
Do post your ideas and the shlokas whenever necessary...

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 01 Dec 2010, 23:28

na nirOdhO na cOtpattir-na baddhO na ca sAdhakaH |
na mumukshur-na vai mukta ityEshA paramArthatA || 574 - vivEka cUDAmaNi ||

There is no birth nor death, neither bondage nor aspirant, neither one desirous of liberation nor one liberated. This is the ultimate truth. (Translation by Swami Turiyananda)

tavaivAjnAnatO viSvaM tvamEkaH paramArthataH |
tvattO(a)nyO nAsti saMsArI nAsaMsArI ca kaScana || 15.16 - ashTAvakra saMhita ||

It is through your ignorance alone that the universe exists. In reality you are One. There is no individual self or Supreme Self other than You. (Translation by Swami Nityaswarupananda)

It is through your ignorance that all this exists. In reality you alone exist. Apart from you there is no one within or beyond samsara. (Translation by John Richards)

With these bold assertions, here is the first verse of ashTAvakra saMhita -

janaka uvAca -

kathaM jnAnamavApnOti kathaM muktir-bhavishyati |
vairAgyaM ca kathaM prAptamEtad brUhi mama prabhO || 1.1 ||

Janaka said -
How can knowledge be acquired? How can liberation be attained? How is renunciation possible? - Tell me this, O Lord (SN - Swami Nityaswarupananda)

How is knowledge to be acquired? How is liberation be obtained? And how is dispassion to be reached? Tell me this sir. (JR - John Richards).

ashTAvakra uvAca -

muktimicchasi cEttAta vishayAn vishavattyaja |
kshmArjavadayAtOshasatyaM pIyUshavadbhaja || 1.2 ||

Ashtavakra said -

If you aspire after liberation, my child, shun the objects of the senses as poison and seek forgiveness, sincerety, kindness, contentment, and truth as nectar (SN)

If you are seeking liberation, my son, shun the objects of the senses like poison. Practise tolerance, sincerety, compassion, contentment and truthfulness like nectar. (JR)

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 01 Dec 2010, 23:33

Penetrating our consciousness - audacious! - Indeed. Thanks.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 02 Dec 2010, 03:35

I have heard another interpretation for viShayAn as worldly activities (lOka vyavahAra) though sense indulgence (indriya sukham) as you have put also fits.
In (8.4) he concludes on 'Bondage and Freedom' as

yadA nAhaM tadA mOkShO yadAham bandhanaM tadA|
matvEti hElayA kincit mA g^RhANa vimu~nca mA||

which Chinmayananda translates as:
"when there is no ego-I there is freedom, when there is ego-I there is bondage.
Knowing thus, stop from accepting or rejecting anything playfully"

He interprets that even playflly accepting or rejecting anything is a display of ego which should be nullified.

But I think the final 'mA' means 'mine' or Ego. Which means the last line is interpreted as:
not even playfully accept anything as mine; (thus) reject/get rid of Ego.

This is indeed the niv^Ritti marga which the Lord expatiates in the Gita.
In fact that is what Janaka practised as is evident from the story where he remained unperturbed at the illusion
where he saw Mithila burning..

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 02 Dec 2010, 17:21

In the first verse itself, janaka asks about 'mOksha'. Therefore, it will be appropriate to assume that he understands what is 'mOksha'. This should be based on conviction about one's sincere enquiry leading to such a desire - to know about 'mOksha' with the intent of practising it. Otherwise, if janaka is indulging in an intellectual exercise, either to test ashTAvakra or just while away time in meaningless dialogues, then the interaction will be purposeless.

It is seen that, in the second chapter itself, janaka utters such words which brings out that, not only he has totally grasped what ashTAvakra conveys in chapter 1, but also after practising it, realised it. When, in the subsequent chapter, ashTAvakra chides janaka's material pursuits, the latter responds in such a manner which more than convinces ashTAvakra. Therefore, the whole subject of 'mOksha' has been dealt from practical stand-point. Therefore, there is a need to understand what this 'mOksha' is all about.

You have said about 'mOksha' - that it is 'death'. Since you have put this word (death) in quotes, it is clear that you do not mean 'death of the body'. Accordingly, I would like place my understanding of what 'mOksha' is.

As per my understanding, 'mOksha' is not something which can be 'attained', because what can be attained can be lost also.

"We are told in fables, comparable to the fables of Aesop, that a lion cub was living in a herd of sheep. It started bleating like a sheep inasmuch as it was living with the sheep for years together, and it never knew that it was a lion cub. It could not roar like a lion; it only bleated like a lamb. This went on for years together, and one day it so happened, it seems, a lion saw its own kin moving in the midst of sheep, bleating like a lamb. It couldnâ€™t understand what had happened to this lion that it was bleating like a lamb. So it called the cub aside and said, â€œWhat is the matter? You are not roaring like me. Who are you?â€ The cub said, â€œI am a lamb.â€ The lion said, â€œYou are not a lamb. You are a lion.â€ â€œOh, is it so?â€ the cub said, because it could not see its own face. How can a lion see its own face? It thought that it was a sheep because it was brought up in the midst of sheep, so it could only make a sound like a lamb. It could not roar like a lion. The lion said, â€œYou are not a sheep. Look at the sheep. Do you see the sheep?â€ â€œYes, I see the sheep, and I am also like that,â€ said the cub. â€œNo, you are not like that. You are like me,â€ insisted the lion. â€œI am like you?â€ the cub said. â€œHow can I be like you? You have a very terrific face.â€ â€œBut you are like that,â€ the lion said. â€œNo. How can I know that?â€ asked the cub. The lion replied, â€œCome.â€ He took the cub to a pond of water and said, â€œDo you see my face reflected?â€ â€œYes, I see,â€ said the cub. â€œDo you see your face?â€ asked the lion. â€œYes,â€ the cub said, â€œI am also like you.â€ â€œNow roar!â€ urged the lion. The lion roared and said, â€œYou also roar as I roar!â€ â€œI see. Very good,â€ the cub said. Then it started roaring. It had forgotten that it was lion, and now it was shown that it was a lion because it could see its own face in the water, as pointed out by its master."

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/patan ... a_105.html

This transformation - if we want to call it so - is, in my understanding 'mOksha'. Nothing materially changes. It is only understanding of one's true nature. Further, 'mOksha' is not something that is should be possible at a distant time. It should be possible now - at this very moment - sadyO-mukti - and then, there is no looking back - as in the case of lion-cub which cannot bleat even if it wanted to.

ashTAvakra continues -

na pRthvI na jalaM nAgnir-na vAyur-dyaur-na vA bhavAn |
EshAM sAkshiNam-AtmAnaM cid-rUpaM viddhi muktayE || 1.2 ||

You are neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor space. In order to attain liberation, know the Self as the witness of all these and as Conscience itself. (SN)

You do not consist of the elements - earth, water, fire, air or even ether. To be liberated, know yourself as consisting of consciousness, the witness of these (JR)

yadi dEhaM pRthak-kRtya citi viSrAmya tishThasi |
adhunaiva sukhI SAntO bandha-muktO bhavishyasi || 1.3 ||

If You detach yourself from the body and rest in Consciousness, you will at once be happy, peaceful and free from bondage (SN)

If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself as distinct from the body, then even now you will be happy, peaceful and free from bonds. (JR)

PS : There is a typo - "when there is no ego-I there is freedom, when there is no ego-I there is bondage."

02 Dec 2010

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 02 Dec 2010, 20:29

"Since you have put this word (death) in quotes, it is clear that you do not mean 'death of the body'" - IMO moksha starts with liberation from all wants and desires bodily, spiritually and emotionally including ego and I.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 03 Dec 2010, 02:06

Chinmayananda interprets the (1.3) as addressing Jeevan Mukti as against the vedantic concept of videha Mukti (liberation after bodily death). Suka, Ramakrishna etc and in our own times Ramana are examples of Jeevan Muktas. Do you like to explore these ideas now?

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 03 Dec 2010, 20:28

What is referred in 1.3 is indeed 'jIvan mukti'. In my post, I had mentioned this as 'sadyO mukti'.

I have not understood the purport of your query. If your intent is to discuss 'jIvan mukti' now, you may kindly refer to Sankara's 'jIvan muktAnanda lahari' which gives insight into the mind of a 'jIvanmukta'.- http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok23.htm. This, if you agree, may be taken as a reference material.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 03 Dec 2010, 21:46

VGV
Thanks for the reference.
There is an elaborate group discussion on this subject at the Gita Talk Group which also incorporates the ideas of Ashtavakra..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gita-talk/message/2693
Let us keep our discussions simple and straight forward so that others can also participate.
My question is:
What is the difference between videha mukti and jivan mukti?
Which one should a person strive for and why?
Ashtavakra opts for jivan mukti (I am not sure..) whereas Patanjali reecommends videha mukti (kaivalya). Does Gita express a preference?

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 06 Dec 2010, 23:11

What is the difference between videha mukti and jivan mukti?
Which one should a person strive for and why?
Ashtavakra opts for jivan mukti (I am not sure..) whereas Patanjali reecommends videha mukti (kaivalya).
Does Gita express a preference?

These questions can be answered only by a 'mukta'. I am not one. Answering the questions based on intellectual comprehension would amount to blasphemy. In any case, I have certain tentative opinions on the subject - tentative because these are to be validated or rejected based on actual experience.

In Devi Bhagavatam, there is story about 'jaDa bharata'. He was abducted for being made a 'bali'; he did not take notice. dEvi rescued him; yet he did not notice.

'sudAmA' would not stoop to beg from kRshNa; when the latter, voluntarily, gave him opulence, he did not feel elated.

Adi Sankara was to be given 'bali' by a kApAlika; he went to the place of kApAlika voluntarily at the appointed time - only to be saved by his disciple.

Ramana Maharishi underwent (throat?) operation without anaesthesia. Similar is the case with Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

What I see the commonality in all these, is irrelevance or insignificance or even absence of 'body' consciousness. This is what probably ashTAvakra calls 'dEhaM pRthak-kRtya' (1.3). I am not very sure whether ashTAvakra prescribes even jIvan mukti. He says 'layaM vraja' (5th chapter). Please consider these verses -

kva bandhaH kva ca vA mOkshaH svarUpasya kva rUpitA ||20.3||
kva prArabdhAni karmANi jIvan-muktir-api kva vA |
kva tad-vidEha-kaivalyaM nir-viSEshasya sarvadA || 20.4||

While explaining mandUkya upanishad, kAnchi paramAcArya explians the origin of the word 'mandukya' - like a frog taking a giant leap. Similarly, ashTAvakra wants us to take giant leap from this material existence.

Regarding vidEha mukti, dIkshitar, in his sAranga rAga kRti 'tyAgarAjE' says 'tyAgarAjE kRtyAkRtyaM arpayAmi; vidEha kaivalyaM yAmi'. How can someone forecast his 'vidEha' mukti and unless he is jIvan mukta while declaring so?

What happens when one becomes mukta. IMHO, the body-mind-intellect-ego complex simply becomes dead for all practical purposes. Probably, this is what you called 'death'. Probably this is what meant by your statement 'understanding the secret of our consciousness'. Probably this is what prompted Ramakrishna Paramahamsa to eat faeces. Aren't there worms living on faeces - in what way a human consciousness is more worthy than that of the worm?

According to Indian philosophy body is the outgrowth of consciousness (cit), whereas Western philosophers and scientists feel the other way round. This is what probably you mean by 'know the creator'. Whereas ashTAvakra begins the other way around - says 'You are the One and Only - be happy' - in other words - 'You are the creator'. Nay, he does not even reckon creation - kva sRshTi kva ca saMhAraH - 20.7. Does it sound blasphemous? Yes, we seem to behave like that bleating lion-cub. He says 'mA gamaH kshudra cittatAM' - don't be small minded.

na tvam viprAdikO varNO nASramI nAksha-gOcaraH |
asangO(a)si nirAkArO viSva-sAkshi sukhI bhava || 1.5||

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa describes the state of jIvan mukta as 'one standing at the threshold'. He can move in or out at his will.

Taking the case of tyAgarAja, he took 'Apat-saMnyAsa'. saMnyAsa per-se is not mukti (excepting as described in gItA 5.26 - see below). He has described the different methods of 'attaining' 'mOksha' is in his SankarAbharaNa rAga kRti 'svara rAga sudhA' as under -

mUlAdhAraja nAdamu eruguTE mudamagu mOkSamurA;
kOlAhala sapta svara gRhamula gurutE mOkSamurA;
bahu janmamulaku paini jnAniyai paraguTa mOkSamurA;
sahaja bhaktitO rAga jnAna sahituDu muktuDurA;

kAma-krOdha viyuktAnAM yatInAM yata-cEtasAM |
abhitO brahma-nirvANaM vartatE viditAtmanAM || gItA 5.26 ||

Released from lust and anger, the heart controlled, the Self realised, absolute freedom is for such saMnyAsins, both here and hereafter.
(Translation by Swami Swarupananda)

This gItA quote also partly answers your query about 'preference expressed in gItA.

It is very difficult for me to say anything about vidEha mukti unless I am able to 'know' what happens after death - which is the greatest secret of this universe. It is probably more difficult than 'knowing' the secret of our consciousness - as you put it. The celestials (dEvas) are called 'vidEha'. Probably it migt refer to this stage. But celestials are very much prone to temptations, which 'mukta' is expected to have overcome once and for all.

The question of preference of either (jIvan - vidEha mukti) can arise only when we clearly define the differences, which is not possible without 'knowing' as to what happens to us after death.

mukti should give us 'comfort', 'contentment' and not dvandva 'happiness' - but then, without body-mind-intellect-ego complex, who is to feel happiness or comfort? Do atoms feel contentment? Do trees feel contentment - who knows?

I was going thru mandUkya upanishad - probably shortest of all. There, your question about 'secret of consciousness' seems to have been answered. The 'fourth' and all encompassing 'turiya' state which is a witness to three states of 'waking', 'dream' and 'deep sleep' is indeed penetration of consciousness - some call it 'super consciousness'. The existence of such a state is proved therein by deduction - 'I had a nice sleep'.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 08 Dec 2010, 20:57

Why does bhaang and other intoxicating stuff OK to take in the spiritual quest - this is prevalent in certain parts of India among hindus; does our purANAs recommend taking intoxicating stuffs.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 14 Dec 2010, 11:09

vkr,
Here is a reference about bhAng - http://real-gaia.angelfire.com/charas.html.

Even in SrI-vidya (practised by such eminent people like MD), there is a concept of panca 'ma' - of which one is 'madhu'. In SrI vidya, there are three stages of upAsaka - paSu, vIra and dEva. Those who are at 'paSu' stage actually use 'madhu'. People at higher levels use 'honey' in place of 'madhu'. Still higher levels, the pUja is totally 'mAnasa'. Therefore, Hindu religious practices believe in elevating people stage by stage.

While there is no need for those who consider themselves 'evolved' to look down others, it is also not necessary that we should be disturbed by such ideas which are rudimentary. May I also humbly submit that such queries puts one off from serious discussion of the subject.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 14 Dec 2010, 21:20

I learnt something from your explanation. Sorry such querries puts off from serious discussion of "spiritual quest"

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 27 Dec 2010, 19:08

"Who is it that attains salvation? The Kutastha chaitanya, the pure Atman inside which is Universal in its nature, need not have to strive for liberation. The physical body does not attain liberation, and not even the mind which gets dissolved in liberation. The five sheaths are also cast off. After the five sheaths we have only the Atman, pure and simple. There is nothing in between.

If the moksha that is spoken of in such glorious terms is not what is attained by the Kutastha Universal consciousness and not by the five sheaths, who attains it? Is there anything called attainment? "It is the jiva that attains it" is a tentative answer; but what do we mean by the jiva? It is a makeshift arrangement between the five sheaths on one side and the Atman consciousness, Kutastha, on the other side. There is no such thing as jiva independently by itself. It is apparently there as a kind of reflection of the Kutastha Atman in the intellect, which is the purified form of the five sheaths."
(Swami Krishnananda)

Source - http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch ... hadasi.pdf (Chapter 7)

Happy Reading.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 09 Jan 2011, 06:59

After so much academic discussion, and acrimony to boot, are we any closer to the truth? No, not because we dont know the truth, but because we refuse to accept the simplicity of it.

I am copying below a posting from one of the better known posters. Ponder over the truth in it. Dont throw darts at me. Your questions/doubts do not matter. Question the real identity of the person who has the doubts. (Answer: There is no identity as a person). You are already the truth and poornam. Nothing can be added to you to make you poornam. You are not the limited person that you have always assumed yourself to be. You never did a thing in your life. So on and so on.

P. S. I do not want any response to this posting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your expectation in coming to know what you are? What form will it take? What sort of experience will it be?

Will it be a light, a bright light shining? Will it be a feeling, a sensation? Will it be a thought? Will it be a vision of God?

If any of these come, they will come to you, to be known by you, appearing to YOU. Still YOU remain undiscovered, still only the subject to these objective experiences.

What we are looking for is the subject, the Self. So by what means can we come to know the subject? Can we turn around and look? If we see it, it's still objective. The Self remains subjective. Maybe we can spin around really quick and get a fleeting glimpse?

We are concerned only with knowing what we are. Yet we are already familiar with it. You are present and aware. Do you not already know this?

That's it. And is that presence which is present and aware something other than what appears? Is that presence of awareness somehow divided from what appears?

Aren't they the same thing? Aren't they actually the very same reality, the same IS-ness, this present "happening"?

Without knowing anything else, it is clear that reality is already whole and you are THAT.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 09 Jan 2011, 21:35

On a different wavelength, here is an objective scientific study which claims ESP is real.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Critic ... story.html
This is not strange for those of us whetted in Eastern philosophy. I remember my younger days when a close neighbour of mine - a malayala Tantrist who could make almost exact predictions on lost objects (individuals and animals too!) (மை போட்டு பார்க்கிறது). Folks used to flock to his place whenever they lost something and most often his predictions were true! He never charged anything for his services. Do others have any similar experience?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 09 Jan 2011, 21:43

I could do just that when I was a child! My biggest success was finding a farmer's watch in a field. I said where to go, and my father spotted the watch.

Like music, these things require continuous practice :$

But... from many other experiences, both of my own and knowing of others, I have no need of science to tell me that such things are real!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 09 Jan 2011, 21:51

Really Nick! You are one among the top 0.5% who can do it!
Can you still do it - for example predicting the colour of the card chosen (black or red).
Try it 50 times and report your success rate....