False notions of Truth

[auh]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Question for you: Please define what is existence for you and show one thing that you think exists and explain how you reached conclusion that the said thing exists.

Existence is the state that is experienced through the sensory perceptions.

 

[auh]

Anyone unable to follow reasons in Post #32 (which does not require advanced degrees) does not understand how mathematical proofs are constructed. The following is a valid method.

"Use of reductio ad absurdum , in which the statement to be proved is denied as a premise, and then that premise is shown to lead to a contradiction. When it can be demonstrated that the negation of a statement leads to a contradiction, then the original statement is proved true."

I did not refute the logic. Had you cared to observe, I only said that the statement does not serve any purpose outside the realm of logic.

 

[auh]

Sri auh,
Your 'conclusions' about what I think or what people think are not relevant to the discussion here. If you think I am condescending, then please do not engage with my posts here. I have only been on message so far and have not made any comments about you other than express my inability to continue discussions with you. Providing a 'broken record' response without reading what is offered is easy but no response will satisfy you.

Shri tks, you made a general statement clarifying your stand and I offered a viewpoint. You can safely go over it without being disturbed.

I gave metaphors from high school mathematics and laymen level science because they attempt to describe reality at a fundamental level. Please answer.

1. Do you think imaginary numbers exist (imaginary number being square root of -1)?
2. We live in 3 dimensional space. How do you reconcile the notions of infinite dimensional constructs and 'laws' that work there?

Please define, in the real world, what is "absolute truth" instead of quizzing about metaphors.

It is hard to have a discussion if you confuse between a metaphor used to explain a point and the point itself. That is illogical. I did not say you need to know mathematics and science to understand the false notions of Truth that I was beginning to describe.

To differentiate between a false notion and a true notion, you have to have a known entity. Is this entity "absolute truth" a known entity?

All the best .. Let us talk about weather and places we want to visit in another thread another time

Sure... if the doctor allows you out of the room !!!

 

[tks]

I did not refute the logic. Had you cared to observe, I only said that the statement does not serve any purpose outside the realm of logic.

This Reminds me of a saying

குப்புற விழுந்தாகி விட்டது – ஆனால் மீசையில் மண் ஒட்டவில்லை !!

Usefulness and existence are orthogonal concepts. If usefulness is a metric - all these exchanges have served for good humor

 

[tks]

Getting back on track ...

The set of posts I intended to go over was about false notions regarding various 'schools of thoughts'. The false notions discussed are within the context of usage of words and possible notions loosely gathered from our knowledge scriptures.

Opening post had this line "Even when absolute Truth is possibly most natural to know it eludes a person due to false notions that a person has". Within ignorance (avidya) we are all caught up in, it is not possible to know this 'absolute Truth'. Therefore this thread is not about discussions of 'absolute truth' which is not possible. However, it is possible to overcome ignorance and the first step is a commitment to knowing truth in our context of space and time.

When someone demands proof even if they are not used to understanding what a proof entails, it demonstrates our human capacity to want to know the truth. When this commitment is associated with other characteristics such as Shraddha then it is possible to think and get past false notions we hold about whatever we have heard from our scriptures.

The teachings found in our knowledge scriptures (Upanishads, B.Gita, Brahma Sutra) are truly universal in scope and applicable to all beings. Loose usage, lack of qualified teachers (opening post has few of the characteristics of a qualified teacher in my view), superstitions, deification of teachers of the past leading to not questioning what they taught etc are stumbling blocks.

It is easy to go around saying 'shivoham' and अहं ब्रह्म अस्मि (Aham Bramhāsmi) without reflecting on what that statement means.

For example, if Brahman indeed is not expressible in words or imagined by any thoughts - repeating the saying would mean
"I am (the entity) that cannot be expressed in words and imagined by any thought"
Does the above statement make any sense ? What does it even convey?


More later ..

 

[auh]

This Reminds me of a saying

குப்புற விழுந்தாகி விட்டது – ஆனால் மீசையில் மண் ஒட்டவில்லை !!

Usefulness and existence are orthogonal concepts. If usefulness is a metric - all these exchanges have served for good humor

It is nice to see that you are humoured, though for no reason at all !

My observation still stands - 'the statement about absolute truth does not serve any purpose in reality'. Maybe you are afraid to state it and hence diverting the issue.

Knowing the truth, realizing, qualified teacher, etc., are all useless notions to hold, imo.

Besides, you are yet to define what 'absolute truth' is...

 

[tks]

---- moving on ---

The purpose of bringing up these misconception is to share what can make one think. With some, it could create interest to pursue the subject matter in a formal setting with properly qualified teachers.

I will continue to engage in responding to questions but my minimal expectation at this point is that any questions that come up has been made after expending effort to understand what is already stated, sometimes more than once. Also, I would like to stay within the scope of what this thread is about (as detailed in the opening two posts).

One of the next misconception I want to now discuss is the 'loose' use of a Mahavakya which occurs in Chandhogya Upanishad (Chapter 6)

Let me describe a context where this Mahavakya occurs since it will be easier to discuss false notions and interpretation by various schools of thoughts later. There is a difference between wrong notions and understanding within a school of thought. Then there are wrong interpretation within the school of thought itself. So far the examples have been in the former case.

The specific line where this Mahavakya occures is "सर्वं तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव"

The Mahavakya is 'Tatvamasi' is said to a student called Svetakethu.

A conversation supposedly took place when Svetaketu completed his studies from age 12 to 24 in a Gurukula setting and was feeling arrogant having mastered all the Vedas he was taught.

His father asked Svetaketu (and I am summarizing) - "Do you know that knowledge by which every other knowledge is known'.
Sveteketu did not know that such a knowledge even could exist and then the remaining conversation becomes the basis of teachings in this Upanishad.

The teaching sort of culminates in this Mahavakya Tat Tvam Asi - namely 'You are That'

How is it that the above Mahavakya is connected to the knowledge by which every other knowledge is known (Yes, every other knowledge will include knowledge about infinite dimensional space and imaginary numbers as well )

The intent of this thread is not to go into the teaching itself for which one must seek a qualified person in a teaching role.

You are that - could mean 'You are that Isvara (that you have been seeking)' I dont want to get into technically precise language here.

If Isvara is taken as all knowing, all powerful entity, how do we even reconcile the notion that I , the limited individual same as Isvara.

This Mahavakya is expressed an equation.

I am an entity is one side of the equation seemingly subject to space and time limitations.
On the other side of the equation is that reality which is unaffected by time and space.

How can an equation have dissimilar items.

We cannot equate an item that is of weight with that of length because dimensional nature of entities on both sides must match.

Even in Sanskrit grammar there is this notion of 'सामानाधिकरण्यम्'
which means in a sentence constructs appositional or syntactic relationship must be there with agreement in gender, number, etc.
With such a careful attention to details built into the very grammar how is it possible for a Mahavakya to contain two items of dissimilar nature at a fundamental level be equated.

Without understanding this basic issue how can we consider that we can relate to this Mahavakya.

 

[renuka]

Dear TKS ji,

Kindly transliterate the Sanskrit terminologies used for the benefit of those who might not know Sanskrit.

I have transliterated the terminologies used by you in the above post..but I hope you transliterate future posts so that members too can learn new terms.

सर्वं तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव"



sarvam tatsatya AtmA tatvamasi svetaketo iti bhuya eva.



सामानाधिकरण्यम्'


sAmAnAdhikaraNyam.

 

[auh]

The moment somebody opens their mouth about absolute truth, they enter into a world of controversy. Post #57 is a good example.

This is just to point out an example of a false notion about "false notions of truth"

 

[prasad1]

Brahman when has the power of Maya is called Eshwara or Saguna Brahman.
The Upanishads make it crystal clear that before creation there was only Brahman.
Three states of Brahman are
Eswara – the Causal form
Hiranyagarbha – the Subtle form
Virat – the Gross form.

As Chinmaya says “Vedanta is a subjective science” – most interpretations and concepts depend on the seeker alone.

The apparent form of Brahman (as Eswara) is the result of Avidya or Ignorance. A Form is attributed to Brahman only, to serve the needs of the Embodied Souls during the period of the embodiment.

In that respect, it is confusing to introduce Mahavakya and Eswara in this discussion.
Mahavakya, in my opinion, is only talking about Brahman and not Eswara.


Some help from http://www.saibaba.ws/vahini/jnanavahini/jnanavahini.htm
Mahavakya Tat Tvam Asi - namely 'You are That'. The "That" is Brahman and not Eswara.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

Kindly transliterate the Sanskrit terminologies used for the benefit of those who might not know Sanskrit.

I have transliterated the terminologies used by you in the above post..but I hope you transliterate future posts so that members too can learn new terms.

सर्वं तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव"



sarvam tatsatya AtmA tatvamasi svetaketo iti bhuya eva.



सामानाधिकरण्यम्'


sAmAnAdhikaraNyam.

Thanks . I need to revise more right after typing and hitting send.

 

[tks]

Brahman when has the power of Maya is called Eshwara or Saguna Brahman.
The Upanishads make it crystal clear that before creation there was only Brahman.
Three states of Brahman are
Eswara – the Causal form
Hiranyagarbha – the Subtle form
Virat – the Gross form.

As Chinmaya says “Vedanta is a subjective science” – most interpretations and concepts depend on the seeker alone.

The apparent form of Brahman (as Eswara) is the result of Avidya or Ignorance. A Form is attributed to Brahman only, to serve the needs of the Embodied Souls during the period of the embodiment.

In that respect, it is confusing to introduce Mahavakya and Eswara in this discussion.
Mahavakya, in my opinion, is only talking about Brahman and not Eswara.


Some help from http://www.saibaba.ws/vahini/jnanavahini/jnanavahini.htm
Mahavakya Tat Tvam Asi - namely 'You are That'. The "That" is Brahman and not Eswara.

We hear terms such as the one above and feel that we understand them by sheer repetition.

However if Brahman is an entity that cannot be described by words, cannot be visualized by thoughts and not accessible by any of the sense organs ( and I previously quoted a specific Upanisadic verse to support this statement).

How is it then possible to assert that this entity has three states. In fact states imply that it can undergo some kind of modification which will not make sense with the very definition of Brahman.

Maya is an entity that by its very name does not exist at all. More specifically it is considered to neither exist nor not exist.

If that is so, when it is said Brahman has the power of Maya is Isvara can be rewritten as an entity that cannot be described by words and cannot be visualized by thoughts and inaccessible to any of the sense organs has a power of an entity that neither exists nor not exists and with that power we have an almighty, all powerful, all knowing being !

There is nothing crystal clear about any of the above statements.

One can then create newer entities out of the above two.

The whole thing becomes one of the beliefs like any other religious beliefs which appear as true over time based on repetition.

There is nothing wrong with the way I used the Mahavakya. I noted in the same sentence that I did not want to be technically precise talking about entities that cannot be comprehended.

Isvara is understood as all powerful, all knowledge, etc. One can deny or agree on the existence of such an Isvara but at least they do so based on something they can understand.

 

[renuka]

There is nothing wrong with the way I used the Mahavakya. I noted in the same sentence that I did not want to be technically precise talking about entities that cannot be comprehended.

.

Dear TKS ji,

I beg to differ here.

By saying that you do not want to be technically precise you can not alter the meaning of the Mahavakya by linking it with Ishwara.

The Mahavakya meant Brahman...that I feel is crystal clear.

When it comes to Mahavakyas we understand better if our view is holistic and not see each Mahavakya separately.

As we know the Four Mahvakyas talk about the Ultimate State that is BRAHMAN.

1. Prajnanam Brahma (प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्मा)
2. Aham Brahma Asmi (अहम् ब्रह्म अस्मि)
3. Tat Tvam Asi (तत् त्वम् असि)
4. Ayam Atma Brahma (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म)

Logically all 4 echo Brahman.

So why should Tat Tvam Asi alone speak about Ishwara?

In fact 3 of the Mahavakyas clearly use the word Brahman but Tat Tvam Asi uses Tat.

What is Tat?

Tat is translated into English to mean That.

That is a Demonstrative.

In this case..it denotes Brahman becos for all practical purposes Brahman is beyond description and beyond comprehension but we still need to denote it ..hence best called That(Tat) as a Demonstrative.

Its pure Grammar here for the word Tat to be used.

But the fact remains that Tat is NOT Ishwara..cos if it was Ishwara then this Mahavakya would not make any sense if the other 3 Mahavakyas are specific about Brahman.

Why should 3 talk about Brahman and just 1 talk about Ishwara?

Does not make sense right?

Therefore it is not accurate to link Ishwara to Tat and cite that one does not want to go into technicalities.

 

[prasad1]

Dear TKS ji,

I beg to differ here.

By saying that you do not want to be technically precise you can not alter the meaning of the Mahavakya by linking it with Ishwara.

The Mahavakya meant Brahman...that I feel is crystal clear.

When it comes to Mahavakyas we understand better if our view is holistic and not see each Mahavakya separately.

As we know the Four Mahvakyas talk about the Ultimate State that is BRAHMAN.

1. Prajnanam Brahma (प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्मा)
2. Aham Brahma Asmi (अहम् ब्रह्म अस्मि)
3. Tat Tvam Asi (तत् त्वम् असि)
4. Ayam Atma Brahma (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म)

Logically all 4 echo Brahman.

So why should Tat Tvam Asi alone speak about Ishwara?

In fact 3 of the Mahavakyas clearly use the word Brahman but Tat Tvam Asi uses Tat.

What is Tat?

Tat is translated into English to mean That.

That is a Demonstrative.

In this case..it denotes Brahman becos for all practical purposes Brahman is beyond description and beyond comprehension but we still need to denote it ..hence best called That(Tat) as a Demonstrative.

Its pure Grammar here for the word Tat to be used.

But the fact remains that Tat is NOT Ishwara..cos if it was Ishwara then this Mahavakya would not make any sense if the other 3 Mahavakyas are specific about Brahman.

Why should 3 talk about Brahman and just 1 talk about Ishwara?

Does not make sense right?



Therefore it is not accurate to link Ishwara to Tat and cite that one does not want to go into technicalities.

Thank you, I was trying to say the same thing, but you explained it much better.
Then again none of really "KNOW" Brahman or Inswara for that matter.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

I beg to differ here.

By saying that you do not want to be technically precise you can not alter the meaning of the Mahavakya by linking it with Ishwara.

The Mahavakya meant Brahman...that I feel is crystal clear.

When it comes to Mahavakyas we understand better if our view is holistic and not see each Mahavakya separately.

As we know the Four Mahvakyas talk about the Ultimate State that is BRAHMAN.

1. Prajnanam Brahma (प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्मा)
2. Aham Brahma Asmi (अहम् ब्रह्म अस्मि)
3. Tat Tvam Asi (तत् त्वम् असि)
4. Ayam Atma Brahma (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म)

Logically all 4 echo Brahman.

So why should Tat Tvam Asi alone speak about Ishwara?

In fact 3 of the Mahavakyas clearly use the word Brahman but Tat Tvam Asi uses Tat.

What is Tat?

Tat is translated into English to mean That.

That is a Demonstrative.

In this case..it denotes Brahman becos for all practical purposes Brahman is beyond description and beyond comprehension but we still need to denote it ..hence best called That(Tat) as a Demonstrative.

Its pure Grammar here for the word Tat to be used.

But the fact remains that Tat is NOT Ishwara..cos if it was Ishwara then this Mahavakya would not make any sense if the other 3 Mahavakyas are specific about Brahman.

Why should 3 talk about Brahman and just 1 talk about Ishwara?

Does not make sense right?

Therefore it is not accurate to link Ishwara to Tat and cite that one does not want to go into technicalities.

The point of this thread and even the last message is different. It is about people thinking they understand the teachings but when one considers what the various words indicate it is not comprehensible. To keep that focus, I did not want to get technical but Tat as Iswara is accepted usage also.

In fact for many such expressions there are two meanings - a superficial translation referred to as Vachyartha and a core meaning referred to as Lakshyartha.

In the former usage Tat is equated to Isvara (and there are more technical reasons justifying this and I prefer not to get into that if I can) . But the essential meaning which is precise is usage of the word Brahman whatever that means.

These words are not like any other objects that can be related to at any level. The focus of this thread and prior post is that one can feel as if they 'know' these words and argue into specifics when in actuality all such notions are superficial.

So if I have to be providing the essential usage for the word Tat it would be Brahman. However, Vachyartha is not incorrect usage in a specific context (purposeful use of double negatives) and one can find this usage by some Mahatmas.

 

[renuka]

The point of this thread and even the last message is different. It is about people thinking they understand the teachings but when one considers what the various words indicate it is not comprehensible. To keep that focus, I did not want to get technical but Tat as Iswara is accepted usage also.

In fact for many such expressions there are two meanings - a superficial translation referred to as Vachyartha and a core meaning referred to as Lakshyartha.

In the former usage Tat is equated to Isvara (and there are more technical reasons justifying this and I prefer not to get into that if I can) . But the essential meaning which is precise is usage of the word Brahman whatever that means.

These words are not like any other objects that can be related to at any level. The focus of this thread and prior post is that one can feel as if they 'know' these words and argue into specifics when in actuality all such notions are superficial.

So if I have to be providing the essential usage for the word Tat it would be Brahman. However, Vachyartha is not incorrect usage in a specific context (purposeful use of double negatives) and one can find this usage by some Mahatmas.

Vachyartha....Verbal Meaning

Lakshyartha....Indicative/Implied Meaning.



Actually Tat is never really directly denoted to mean Ishwara.

Two words are used here.. Tat and Tvam and to ultimately reach to the understanding that Tat = Brahman...firstly a relationship of Jeeva has to be established with Iswara.

One needs to know how Jeeva is "related" to Iswara..this is when the Vachyartha (Verbal Meaning) is employed to aid understanding.

Before that we need to understand that the Microcosm(Pindanda) and the Macrocosm(Brahmanda) have corresponding counterparts.

The Jeeva is Tri-state though appearing to have 3 states in fact its just 3 aspects of the same Jeeva.

1)Viswa
2)Taijas
3)Prajna


In the Macrocsomic state..even Ishwara is Tri-state..appearing to have 3 states when in fact its just 3 aspects of the same Iswhara.

These 3 states are:

1)Virat
2)Hiranyagarbha
3)Ishwara

Its thru this comparison that Jeeva is thought to be complementary to Ishwara.

But does Tat refer to Ishwara?

Nope...that is just the beginning of the whole formula.

Now we have to take into consideration the effect of Avidya on Jeeva and the effect of Maya on Ishwara.

This is where we have to get all specific and Lakshyartha(Indicative/Implied Meaning) is applied.

When the effect of Avidya on Jeeva is nullified and effect of Maya on Ishwara is also nullified what remains?

Atma remains instead of Jeeva.

Brahman remains instead of Ishwara.

Hence we can now co-relate to the other Mahavakyas.. Aham Brahmaasmi,Ayam Atma Brahma.

Final Diagnosis: The actual meaning of Tvam is Atma and the actual meaning of Tat is Brahman.

 

[renuka]

The point of this thread and even the last message is different. It is about people thinking they understand the teachings but when one considers what the various words indicate it is not comprehensible. To keep that focus, I did not want to get technical but Tat as Iswara is accepted usage also.

The focus of this thread and prior post is that one can feel as if they 'know' these words and argue into specifics when in actuality all such notions are superficial.

.

LOL!

So this whole thread was started assuming others do not have an understanding and you are trying to keep things "simple" and less technical to make its "easy" for most people to understand but in that process you are omitting important points and to be frank its only going to be confusing and might qualify to be classified as The False Notion of Truth.

Tell me the truth...is there anyone of us here who can understand Maya,Ishwara and Brahman?

I can safely say everyone of us here are Makkus when it comes to Maya,Ishwara and Brahman!LOL

 

[auh]

LOL!

....LOL

That, is the absolute truth about this thread... and I have no false notions about it !

 

[tks]

Continuing from Post 62

B. Gita is said to embody the teachings of this Mahavakya Tatvam Asi.
Tvam - the person like you and I are addressed in Chapters 1 to 6
Tat - Isvara is addressed in Chapters 7- 12

The equation is revealed in Chapters 13-18.

Yet the Mahavakya as it stands has seemingly logical issues if one tries to comprehend the meaning, as articulated in earlier posts

The words in our scriptures do not have any parallel in anything that we see in the world or even imagine. As mentioned in post #62 many self proclaimed advaitins are completely comfortable with arguing about semantics in detail while the building block words (e.g., Maya, Brahman) are themselves beyond the reach of human intellect and cannot be grasped by the tweezers of the mind. This has nothing to do with how intelligent a person may be but the lack of ability to understand is spelled out by the very scriptures that have defined these terms.

Yet people are comfortable with statements like "An entity that cannot be described by words and cannot be visualized by thoughts and inaccessible to any of the sense organs has power of an entity that neither exists nor not exists and with that power it is (or it becomes?) an almighty, all powerful, all knowing being. But I am that which cannot be described by words and cannot visualized by thoughts or sense organs.

These points are not addressed as responses to any post here or about anyone here. In an open forum we have people that cannot understand these higher level points and message oriented statements.

Most people in the world have not heard of these teachings and could not care less about them. They have their religious viewpoints for most part. Then there are few that accept these Mahavakyas like a "Boom Boom Madu" saying Yes to everything

Atma - yes
Brahman - yes
Maya - Yes
Nirguna becomes Saguna with Maya - Yes

etc.

Essentially the words of some people in teacher role and internet blogs are believed as is without need to question why scriptures talk about words that the scripture itself says cannot be comprehended by human mind. If so, is there a role for the intellect in all these teachings?

 

[prasad1]

Swami Vivekananda said

There is one thing to be remembered: that the assertion—I am God—cannot be made with regard to the sense-world.

The Self when it appears behind the universe is called God. The same Self when it appears behind this little universe—the body—is the soul.

As body, mind, or soul, you are a dream; you really are Being, Consciousness, Bliss (satchidananda). You are the God of this universe.

The essence of Vedanta is that there is but one Being and that every soul is that Being in full, not a part of that Being.

 

[renuka]

Then there are few that accept these Mahavakyas like a "Boom Boom Madu" saying Yes to everything

Atma - yes
Brahman - yes
Maya - Yes
Nirguna becomes Saguna with Maya - Yes

etc.

sraddhavan labhate jnanam

 

[renuka]

These points are not addressed as responses to any post here or about anyone here. In an open forum we have people that cannot understand these higher level points and message oriented statements.


etc.

Its not about anyone not able to understand so called Higher level points....Its just that some explanations do not seem to jive with the actual most accepted understanding

God..I am so uncomfortable even typing such words..I personally dare not even think someone might not be capable of a higher understanding..just becos points of view differ that does not mean another does not posses the ability for a higher understanding.

There has been various well accepted schools of thoughts that did not even hold the Vedas as Pramanyam(Authority)..yet those school of thoughts showed a high level of analysis.

Anyway the word Ishwara has varied understandings in different philosophy.

Samkhya philosophy for eg does not even talk about Ishwara.
Patanjali Yoga Sutras denotes Ishwara in a more Metaphysical way and different from the Advaita concept.

I guess what we can all do as homework is to read up about Ishwara concept in various philosophies to be open enough to differing concepts before we jump to any conclusion that some are not endowed with higher thinking capability.

 

[tks]

Continuing from my previous post #69

Why do our scriptures use words that the scripture itself says cannot be comprehended by human mind. If so, is there a role for the intellect in all these teachings?

If it is all based on beliefs then all these teachings can only be called preaching. There is no knowledge or understanding involved in any beliefs which is why it makes no sense to debate with someone who is into a given religion.

Most people who call themselves Advaitins accept the statements as 'gospel' and believe them. In that sense they are no different than a person who is promoting a different belief system.

Yet our knowledge scriptures insist on understanding which is why Sri Krishna took 500+ verses in teaching Arjuna before asking him to do the right thing. He also ended the teaching with a description of people who are not eligible to be taught.

Why would Bhagavan who is the Lord of all beings describe people who are not eligible for this teaching? After all the very words one is supposed to realize itself is outside of senses, not describable by words or even imagined. In fact in this reference below there is a description of people that are deemed to be not eligible to have fulfilled the prerequisites.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=34809&p=371691#post371691

In the above post, there is a brief discussion and description of B.Gita verse 18.67.

Perhaps one way to understand why Sri Krishna says some people are not eligible is because every being is unique and not like another. Therefore all beings do not fulfill the prerequisites for the knowledge due to their past vasanas. It is possible to overcome the issues of the mind to become eligible but it is something that a person must choose to do using their free will experience.

Even in our own forum, the prerequisite to joining the forum is to have an established email ID and nothing more. There is no way to know what the motivations are when one posts or responds etc.

Reference: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=34809&p=371688#post371688

There is a saying that if one goes around with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

In other words, whatever we have in our mind we project onto the world we perceive. That is why over time I have chosen not to respond or engage with certain posts especially when one tries repeatedly to move the focus away from adding to the discussions into attacking a person with their worldview.

This mind is an impediment to understanding the truth and creates all kinds of false notions that appears like truth.

With words that have no parallel to our lives, our teachings paint a lofty vision of human life. One can make an analogy of the vision to a painting. While I am not an art buff, I know that to appreciate art I have to see it from a distance.

Imagine someone who has their nose next to a piece of art which is few 100 years old. It may not smell much, they will see strokes of paint missing and focus on what appears as blemishes. This is about missing the big picture and focusing on irrelevant details. Inability to see the vision or listen to the teaching is one of the kind of people described to be ineligible to the teaching (B.Gita 18.67).

However, anyone wanting to make the effort with Shraddha (initial faith to be ratified by understanding later) can make progress.

One way to make progress is to see if we can answer the seeming contradictions. In this thread so far, I have raised a group of questions. One can think if they have satisfactory answers to those questions.

Studying and clarifying false notions is one way to make progress. There is a struggle involved in the process which contributes to learning and provides firmness in one's understanding. If the misunderstandings are not cleared up they can form basis for rejection of the teaching itself. This is like a Boom Boom Madu always saying NO

So far I have raised sample questions and possible misconceptions (e.g., taking a core belief to be taken as understanding) about our knowledge scriptures. However, when one takes logic of some kind, and in some instances theological beliefs there emerges a systems of schools of thought. As stated earlier there are false notions within the teaching subject to logic itself and then there are false notions embedded within the schools of thought itself.

All schools of thought, other than truth includes beliefs as a basis which cannot be refuted by logic since beliefs cannot be reasoned with. But one thing that our schools of thought struggled with is to align with Upanishads and B.Gita in order to be accepted as valid.

In the next few posts I will share my understandings on the grammatical gymnastics they employed in fitting Tatvam Asi into their schools of thought.

 

[renuka]

If Lord Krihsna mentions about eligibility that is a total different scenario all together cos He is GOD....but

before a human decides others have no eligibility and higher thinking capacity he/she should ask himself/herself "Am I really eligible myself before I pronounce others unfit?"

If he/she has never asked himself/herself that question that denotes absence of introspective capability...I am just being very polite here!LOL

But a hall mark of a balanced person is one who is not judgmental cos he/she would know its next to impossible to assess even self..what more can be said about accessing others...the balanced person never PLAYS God.

Playing GOD is a total disorder by itself.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sri tksji,

74 posts and you have yet to state your case. I have a few suggestions. If you think they are unnecessarily riling you up please excuse me. But I am a member reading your posts and I have a right to tell you what occurs to me. Please take it easy. If it rings a bell somewhere I will be happy. You need not reply.

1. You use complex sentences frequently and they are a drag. Please state whatever you want to say in a few simple sentences. Presume that you are introducing the subject to someone who does not know it. That will help you use simple language avoiding excess verbiage.

2. Please avoid making "position statements" (தன் நிலை விளக்கம்) frequently. We are all matured enough here and so we are not interested in knowing what made you do a thing or not. Please forget the "I" and try to write about your view point. That will help remove an irritant.

4. While a little bit of positive sarcasm and banter makes the posts eminently readable, if they rile you up please refuse to recognize them and move. Dont get distracted/ambushed.

5. You have just come to the second point. You have a long distance to go, i believe. Please present what you have. Let us see.

Thank you.