Reslity from advaita's perspective

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Actually Shri Sangom, I tried to understand your theory but it does not seem to be making much headway.

I think what Shri.Vaagmi says is also a good suggestion to be peaceful and also develop our mind and get a good understanding of ourselves and everything around us. . Debating the difference between desire and objectives and other technicalities is less helpful as even if we do come to a conclusion, it is only a shallow understanding.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

Great, We are saying the same thing but using different terms. We are indeed going back to the original state by unveiling of ignorance. I am just calling the ignorance free state as a higher state.

Dear Sravna,

If you are also saying the same thing..then why don't you adopt the term Original State instead of using the term Higher State?

When there is a Higher there is also a Lower..so its still some amount of Duality that eventually leads to some form of attachment or even pride for reaching a Higher State.

When we use the word Original State..there is only One..cos in Original State there is no Duality.

Think about it.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

If you are also saying the same thing..then why don't you adopt the term Original State instead of using the term Higher State?

When there is a Higher there is also a Lower..so its still some amount of Duality that eventually leads to some form of attachment or even pride for reaching a Higher State.

When we use the word Original State..there is only One..cos in Original State there is no Duality.

Think about it.

Dear Renuka,

I do not mind different terminology as long as the understanding is the same . What you are saying is fine and better terminology

 

[sangom]

Actually Shri Sangom, I tried to understand your theory but it does not seem to be making much headway.

I think what Shri.Vaagmi says is also a good suggestion to be peaceful and also develop our mind and get a good understanding of ourselves and everything around us. . Debating the difference between desire and objectives and other technicalities is less helpful as even if we do come to a conclusion, it is only a shallow understanding.

What Shri Vaagmi says is definitely helpful for most of the Aam Aadmi especially till their advanced years because human beings require something to reassure themselves that their life will go on smoothly and no great tragedies will befall them.

But, speaking purely from the pov of an enquiry into the nature of REALITY, I feel it is always better not to start with "ourselves", because such a course will run into difficulty sooner or later because it is not able to shake off the "I-ness concept" or Ahamkaara. Looking into 'everything around us may be good but may not lead one to the true Reality.

Just my pov please.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

What I meant was with love being the emotion driving us, we can see the reality more in its true light and understand both the inner self and the external world better.

 

[sangom]

Dont waste time on analysing nirguna brahmam and saguna brahmam and their technical difference. That is dukhrinjkarane. And it "nahi nahi rakshathi". Yes certainly wont.LOL.

Whoever composed Bhajagovindam, the line "nahi nahi rakShati Dukrinjkarane" has come to be used to decry any enquiry on vedantic lines! Actually that aphorism is a simple aphorism from Panini which means that the form "kru" signifies doing (karane). In the legendary story one old brahmin was repeatedly reciting this line, at night, in order to cram it (mug it or make it by heart) and Adi sankara felt pity for the poor old brahmin trying to mug up grammar rules at such an advanced age. Hence, this line is not at all against logical enquiry but only recommends "bhaja" (=share) govindam (= the cow-keeper: cow here signifies the humans or all the living things, in its broadest sense, but, has somehow, been equated with Krishna, after the advent of Vishnu Cult.)

 

[sravna]

Whoever composed Bhajagovindam, the line "nahi nahi rakShati Dukrinjkarane" has come to be used to decry any enquiry on vedantic lines! Actually that aphorism is a simple aphorism from Panini which means that the form "kru" signifies doing (karane). In the legendary story one old brahmin was repeatedly reciting this line, at night, in order to cram it (mug it or make it by heart) and Adi sankara felt pity for the poor old brahmin trying to mug up grammar rules at such an advanced age. Hence, this line is not at all against logical enquiry but only recommends "bhaja" (=share) govindam (= the cow-keeper: cow here signifies the humans or all the living things, in its broadest sense, but, has somehow, been equated with Krishna, after the advent of Vishnu Cult.)

Dear Shri Sangom,

I have to agree with Shri.Vaagmi here. Two persons equally poficient in logic who see the same set of facts are most likely to draw different conclusions if one is spiritual and the other is not. This is because the pure logician just sees the facts and nothing else. For him 1+1=2. The spiritual person sees more than the sum of the parts and hence sees things differently.

So even in a logical enquiry, you need to possess the right mindset to understand the reality better. That is where cultivating the emotion of love immensely helps.

 

[auh]

The spiritual person sees more than the sum of the parts and hence sees things differently.

It is also referred to as delusion !

 

[sravna]

It is also referred to as delusion !

Yes Auh . Those who cannot see it call it as delusion.

 

[renuka]

. The spiritual person sees more than the sum of the parts and hence sees things differently.

.

Dear Sravna,

I do not know how true this is.

I somehow feel each person has his own view on matters dealing with day to day life and more.

Everyone has a perception that is oriented to time,place and state of mind.

A spiritual person might see things differently..a non spiritual person too might see things differently.

No one is entirely right or entirely wrong.

Its merely a perception.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I do not know how true this is.

I somehow feel each person has his own view on matters dealing with day to day life and more.

Everyone has a perception that is oriented to time,place and state of mind.

A spiritual person might see things differently..a non spiritual person too might see things differently.

No one is entirely right or entirely wrong.

Its merely a perception.

Dear Renuka,

Spiritual energy is about synergy because of synchronization of energies. So you get that extra bit of information that is not in the parts. In anything seen as a whole or holistically there is synergy.

Love is a holistic feeling because you include others.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Spiritual energy is about synergy because of synchronization of energies. So you get that extra bit of information that is not in the parts. In anything seen as a whole or holistically there is synergy.

Love is a holistic feeling because you include others.

Dear Sravna,

The basic normal bodily function is the same for all humans.

The extra bit of information you talk about is not due to spiritual energy but due to individual perception.

Love can be both a selfless feeling and also a selfish feeling..both have self as its substratum.

Its not holistic ..rather its a projection of personal needs and the need of others for survival of self.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

The basic normal bodily function is the same for all humans.

The extra bit of information you talk about is not due to spiritual energy but due to individual perception.

Love can be both a selfless feeling and also a selfish feeling..both have self as its substratum.

Its not holistic ..rather its a projection of personal needs and the need of others for survival of self.

Dear Renuka,

Synergy is the essence of spirituality. Not all get that synergy. Only those who see the whole and treat others as self only are called spiritual. Of course anyone can become spiritual.

 

[sangom]

Dear Renuka,

Synergy is the essence of spirituality. Not all get that synergy. Only those who see the whole and treat others as self only are called spiritual. Of course anyone can become spiritual.

My dear Sravna,

I get the impression that you have some kind of OCD in regard to certain matters like 'spiritual', 'spirituality', 'spiritual energy' and the like. But, frankly, if you are so certain, then you ought to be in a spiritual world (of your own creation, probably) and not in this material humdrum world! If what you ultimately mean by "spiritual" is the antithesis of 'material' then it becomes all the more necessary to detach from this world. To an ordinary person, all this blah blah about 'spiritual', 'spirituality', 'spiritual energy' will at best indicate that you are under some kind of self-induced delusion. So, why don't you try to market the 'spirituality' cargo in some other, more suitable forum?

I am sorry to be so blunt but I have found that you have not so far been able to lucidly explain what all these terms actually mean to an Aam Aadmi.

 

[sravna]

I am sorry to be so blunt but I have found that you have not so far been able to lucidly explain what all these terms actually mean to an Aam Aadmi.

Dear Shri Sangom,

That exactly is an objective. I know it is not easy to convince many people when they are so immersed in materialism. They are fine with the way things are going and so are not looking for any change in the status quo.

But I plan to try.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Synergy is the essence of spirituality. Not all get that synergy. Only those who see the whole and treat others as self only are called spiritual. Of course anyone can become spiritual.

Dear Sravna,

The very fact that you feel not all get the synergy shows that you do see differences among humans.

 

[auh]

One day... this thread will also be closed. That is reality.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

The very fact that you feel not all get the synergy shows that you do see differences among humans.

Dear Renuka,

Spirituality does not say differences are not perceived. The whole idea of maya is about that. But they are not real.

 

[sravna]

One day... this thread will also be closed. That is reality.

Let us hope before that at least some really benefit from it