Sharing from my notes - Root cause of human bondage

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

[h=2]Root cause of human bondage[/h]

Thinking there is actually a root to start with.

 

[tks]

Thinking there is actually a root to start with.

That statement "thinking that there is actually a root to start with (being the issue for bondage)" itself is a statement of assigning cause!

There is no basis for that statement.


Thinking there is a cause (and hence a root cause) for a given phenomena and pursuing that line of thinking to understand what that 'root' might be *within a given context* has given rise to all the scientific discoveries and the associated benefits (including the field of medicine).

Thoughts come and thoughts go in our mind. It is all part of being a living organism. Even animals make deductions and react to not just an effect but a cause. Root cause idea is simply going though a set of logical steps t until a phenomenon is understood *within a given context*

If one is doing forensic investigation of a cybercrime, the root cause analysis stops when an 'actionable' cause is found. The analysis does not go into cause of a human mind as to why they committed a crime. That is what I meant by root cause within a context.

My use of the phrase " root cause" is to reach a cause where concrete action can be taken to address a given issue.

Thinking has never been an issue since it is a natural trait for all beings including human beings. Thoughts come and thoughts go in our mind. It is part of natural process and is not the source of issues. Elimination of thought (that 'there is actually a root cause to start with") is not knowledge except in a cult environment. Even if a given thought like this is wrong prescribing that we remove that thought is itself a problem since that is not doable. In other words it is not actionable.

You are welcome to hold onto your beliefs though ...

 

[renuka]

Dear TKS ji,

There is actually no root but yet there are branches..how can a branch exists when there is no root?

The root is bondage..the branch is freedom.

But then the next question..why should there even be a branch?

The branch is the synapse to reaches out..to get the feel of the infinite.

Where does the branch go?

Is there a direction?

Where?? Where?

Then the branch searches itself..it dives within..like how Lord Brahma dived into the stalk of Lotus to search His origin.

At first He too looked around searching for something..something He was not even sure of..that was the Branch state.

When the Branch starts to dive withing its stalk..it realizes that its merely a seed..a seed that held the secret of the rootless tree.

Diving within the seed he yet sees nothing..the Nothingness that gave rise to Everything..in that Nothingness even he ceases to exists..there is no branch anymore..and there was never a root to start with.

 

[renuka]

I feel the word "Root" gives a rather narrow outlook.

Its tries to actually assign only one possible reason when a situation could actually be multifactorial.

So the usage of the word "Underlying Causative Factors" might actually lend a broader outlook.

The Underlying Causative Factors of Bondage sounds better.

 

[renuka]

Q&A format continues

- 1. What is your response to the last two posts?

Actually not much to say at this time. There are assumptions and understanding built in that I do not want to address right now.

I can only use a metaphor to talk about why I am skipping these posts over. Let us say there was an auto accident and there are minor injuries with a few people bleeding. The question would be to ascertain the nature of injuries, and ensure help is available to treat them right away. Questions asked will be - where are you hurt, are you able to move your neck, arms etc, where are you bleeding from etc

If someone asks the question - what brand name T-shirt are you wearing to the victim , is it expensive because the stains may not go away etc what response can one give other than - 'let us wait to address these later'


- 2. Kathopanishad has a metaphor about trees and roots, and Chapter 15 of B.Gita also has a similar metaphor with roots of a tree being in the space and branches all over including going underground. Freedom is talked about in this context via detachment. Are you referring to any of these in the use of the word root in the subject line?

NO!


- 3. Can you explain the phrase "root cause within a context" again?

If one has a question about say designing a rubber band based mouse trap car that can go farthest there will be a need to understand few simple laws of Physics. If the car is not going far enough there will be a need to understand the cause, and its cause etc until the problem can be fixed. It will be inappropriate to start with the root cause as the world of Science understands and start to say - "well it all began 13.6 billion years ago when there was a event called Big Bang". In addition to this being irrelevant it is also useless to solve the problem at hand

4. Can you provide a more Vedantic example since the topic of bondage comes up under that subject?

OK, Imagine a friend of yours has had a fight with her spouse and is coming to you to share her sadness about how she feels disrespected.
If you start by quoting Sri Sankara that " Brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah" and say that all you see is an illusion , there is only Brahman. Will this be helpful??

In fact in our daily experience, what we sense is a world of diversity, opposites, good-bad-and-ugly, and countless number of animate and inanimate objects. There is no way anyone can relate all their experience to one Brahman. Even if it is true - whatever that means - my response would be 'who cares' in the context of this example

In fact bringing such topics inappropriately is actually detrimental to learning anything properly.

If someone told me all this without the right context I would want to reject the entire statement and Vedanta as sheer nonsense.

5. So what is your outline and what is this verse you have referred to from Srimad Bhagavatham?

My intent to talk a bit about Devotion to a God (Bhakthi) vs Knowledge (Jnana) as part of introducing this verse
Then the idea is to pick a few phrases in the verse and connect to the term Bondage
After that I want to relate these bondage areas to a root cause within this context so that one can address them via concrete action.
There will be no discussions of dry Vednatam topics here (வறட்டு வேதாந்தம் will be absent)

Since this post has become longer than what I had planned, let me address these topics in the next post

dear TKS ji,

Who are you talking to?

 

[tks]

dear TKS ji,

Who are you talking to?

It is just a format for the series of posts ..
Helps to provide context for various sections

 

[renuka]

Answers in blue

I can only use a metaphor to talk about why I am skipping these posts over. Let us say there was an auto accident and there are minor injuries with a few people bleeding. The question would be to ascertain the nature of injuries, and ensure help is available to treat them right away. Questions asked will be - where are you hurt, are you able to move your neck, arms etc, where are you bleeding from etc

It depends where the accident victim is..these question wont hold good in the morgue!

So time,place and person is important.

If someone asks the question - what brand name T-shirt are you wearing to the victim , is it expensive because the stains may not go away etc what response can one give other than - 'let us wait to address these later'

If the patient says 'hey you bloody fool..I am injured here and you are asking me about my T shirt?"

that means the patient is stable and fit to be discharged!LOL

Sometimes Goundamani style questions reveal more truth than Swami ji style.


- 2. Kathopanishad has a metaphor about trees and roots, and Chapter 15 of B.Gita also has a similar metaphor with roots of a tree being in the space and branches all over including going underground. Freedom is talked about in this context via detachment. Are you referring to any of these in the use of the word root in the subject line?

NO!


Refer to post no #4..its all about roots and branches and trees.

- 3. Can you explain the phrase "root cause within a context" again?

There is NO root..read post #4.

"well it all began 13.6 billion years ago when there was a event called Big Bang". In addition to this being irrelevant it is also useless to solve the problem at hand.


There is nothing that is useless..the Big Bang might be irrelevant but hearing the word Bang someone might get reminded of how She Bangs!

4. Can you provide a more Vedantic example since the topic of bondage comes up under that subject?

OK, Imagine a friend of yours has had a fight with her spouse and is coming to you to share her sadness about how she feels disrespected.
If you start by quoting Sri Sankara that " Brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah" and say that all you see is an illusion , there is only Brahman. Will this be helpful??

Off course..you can also add this 'Everything is an illusion..if I say that your husband is also my husband that is also an illusion"

Then watch your friend get mad and shout "how dare you say my husband is your husband"..then the next moment she is back on her feet. No more crying. You solved her problem.Illusion works in many ways.




If someone told me all this without the right context I would want to reject the entire statement and Vedanta as sheer nonsense.

No No..its not nonsense..its an eye opener.

5. So what is your outline and what is this verse you have referred to from Srimad Bhagavatham?

My intent to talk a bit about Devotion to a God (Bhakthi) vs Knowledge (Jnana) as part of introducing this verse
Then the idea is to pick a few phrases in the verse and connect to the term Bondage
After that I want to relate these bondage areas to a root cause within this context so that one can address them via concrete action.
There will be no discussions of dry Vednatam topics here (வறட்டு வேதாந்தம் will be absent)

How sad..you feel Vedanta is dry? You talk about roots and trees..so that means there has to be water for the roots yet its dry? Its moist yaar..where are the tears of Bhakti?

Since this post has become longer than what I had planned, let me address these topics in the next post

 

[renuka]

Answers in blue

.

2. Is there a difference between Bhakti of say Hare Krishna people and that of Siva Bhaktas or the Bhakti of devout Muslims?


No there is no difference....all are in prison.
Only the cells differs!
One is in a Hindu Cell and the other is in a Non Hindu Cell.




3. Are there then multiple paths to reach heaven or reach God in Hindu thinking?

There is only the Pathless Path.

The over emphasis on Paths have contaminated religion and made it a Pathology.

Devotion without right knowledge can be dangerous.

Life itself is dangerous illusion..only the brave dare take the risk to know the Truth.

4. Why is it dangerous and by the way how are you going to tie all these to the original topic of this thread?

Actually even danger is an illusion..you thought its the snake and hence you felt danger but when you knew its the rope there is no danger. When you look even closer there wasn't even a rope to start with..so where does the question of tying arise?



So Bhakti without knowledge is dangerous.

Refer to above.

5. For a person focused on Janana/Knowledge in Hinduism how do they deal with the emotional aspects of Bhakti?

Just sing out Loud.. A Song is a Fusion of Bhakti and Knowledge..so be a Kamalhassan and sing out loud:

Kallai Mattum Kandal Kadavul Theriyathu,
Kadavul Mattum Kandal Kalladi Theriyathu

Actually all true Jnanis are true Bhaktas of Isvara (I am not using the word God on purpose since the word Isvara has a specific meaning). The basic human heart knows devotion often translated as LOVE. This is not like any love which has its opposite called hate. This is Love that has no opposite and is the essential nature of our being. That Love is also synonymous with the nature of Isvara. It is this understanding as a result of knowledge that makes a Jnani a true Bhakta.

Love is one without a second.Some call it Brahman.

There are other practical reasons for bhakti to be considered significant in our lives. One does not have to be a theist for this since the definition of Isvara for a theist is often very different from the understanding of a true Jnani.

Bhakti is being true to one's self.

Besides it is not possible to realize this Love without an understanding of what Isvara means. That is how Janana and Bhakti becomes one and the same. Even in ordinary love it is not possible to love something (or even hate something) without knowing what it is or who it is that we love (or hate)!


When we fall in love..we dont know what hit us..we just fall in love.If we have to know love that means that is NOT love.Love is the absence of the mind.



6. What are the other practical reasons for Bhakti to play a role in our lives?

We need to preach! Hence we need Bhakti!LOL

We get things done by our intellect and our body (hands, legs etc.). What transforms any Karma (work) to Karma Yoga or any knowledge (jnanam) to Jnana Yoga is our attitude. This attitude has its seed in our heart.

No its not our attitude..attitude is still a purposeful action. Only surrender transforms.

Bhakti is all about attitude and comes from our heart .. This topic is very big and I will return to the main topic area of the thread in the next post (perhaps tomorrow)


Bhakti is not an attitude..Bhakti is a Bhava.

தொடரும்

 

[renuka]

For example, in this forum itself someone may want to say something or the other in almost every post every day. This need for constantly seeking attention, and inability to listen or read what is there is but one expression of Shoka.
.

How true O' Ashoka!LOL

 

[renuka]

I feel this thread has great scope for discussion.Members should not waste this opportunity and should engage in discussion.

I am sure TKS ji will be able to give answers to all queries.He seems to have done a good job in sharing his thoughts in the forms of notes.

 

[renuka]

Continuing content from Post #9 in a conversation style Q&A format:


1. Say something more about this Love that has no opposite

It is a capacity that one has which transcends the mind but it has to be discovered.
Our teachings provide a framework for this discovery. The love (small letter for convention here) that the mind and ego feels is often confused with the other Love.

All human beings are capable of sensing their true nature with this Love of heart .
When it is directed to an understanding of Isvara it is called Bhakti.

Dear TKS ji,

Love is a vast topic. The word Love itself is from the Sanskrit root word lubh...meaning: to bewilder,to covet, to long for..to desire.

I will just shoot off 1 question for now.

You say that love has no opposite..that way I can also say that hate has no opposite too.

Would you agree?

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

Love is a vast topic. The word Love itself is from the Sanskrit root word lubh...meaning: to bewilder,to covet, to long for..to desire.

I will just shoot off 1 question for now.

You say that love has no opposite..that way I can also say that hate has no opposite too.

Would you agree?

We deal with limitations of language in expressing something that is understood but cannot be easily expressed.

Almost all love that we feel happens in our mind as an emotion. It has an opposite.

There is a word for universal and unconditional devotion (even devotion does not convey this correctly) that we are capable of realizing but cannot use words to express it. That devotion to an *understanding* of Isvara is Bhakti.

Now you could call this inexpressible entity as hate also or use some other word all of which will not adequately describe it but it is understood by all human beings under the right conditions.

The vast topic of love is not what I was referring to here.

 

[renuka]

We deal with limitations of language in expressing something that is understood but cannot be easily expressed.

Almost all love that we feel happens in our mind as an emotion. It has an opposite.

There is a word for universal and unconditional devotion (even devotion does not convey this correctly) that we are capable of realizing but cannot use words to express it. That devotion to an *understanding* of Isvara is Bhakti.

Now you could call this inexpressible entity as hate also or use some other word all of which will not adequately describe it but it is understood by all human beings under the right conditions.

The vast topic of love is not what I was referring to here.

So now you are admitting that LOVE has its limitation,it's emotional based and it has opposites.

So LOVE would not be the accurate choice here to describe the inexpressible sans opposite phenomenon you intend to talk about here.

Then what word would you choose to use in order to make us understand your notes?

 

[tks]

So now you are admitting that LOVE has its limitation,it's emotional based and it has opposites.

So LOVE would not be the accurate choice here to describe the inexpressible sans opposite phenomenon you intend to talk about here.

Then what word would you choose to use in order to make us understand your notes?

The question is meaningless.

It is not about any admission or notes - that is not a sincere effort to understand.

When I said there are no words to describe this including in Sanskrit, what is not clear about that statement ?
I used a word with some capital letter to convey a point.

Every human being is capable of realizing our nature which is what I am conveying but there is a process which our teachings teach.

Word play will not help achieve this because as I said a long time ago the process of understanding involves 'unlearning' many things .

Now you just have to process what I wrote .. There is nothing more that can be said with words. All I tried to provide is a pointer or an indicator

PS: Also there is no us vs me .. it is just you and me for this transaction

 

[renuka]

The question is meaningless.

It is not about any admission or notes - that is not a sincere effort to understand.

When I said there are no words to describe this including in Sanskrit, what is not clear about that statement ?
I used a word with some capital letter to convey a point.

Every human being is capable of realizing our nature which is what I am conveying but there is a process which our teachings teach.

Word play will not help achieve this because as I said a long time ago the process of understanding involves 'unlearning' many things .

Now you just have to process what I wrote .. There is nothing more that can be said with words. All I tried to provide is a pointer or an indicator

PS: Also there is no us vs me .. it is just you and me for this transaction

Back to square one as usual....you play the reverse game when you have no answers.


My question is not meaningless.

Its simple...with your own words at 1st you said Love has no opposite..then you say Love has opposites.

So the word LOVE itself has been proved to not stand the test of the ultimate in your own admission.

So the next question is "what will be the accurate word to describe a sans opposite phenomenon?"

Is there really such a word? This is what should come to our mind.It will make us think and not just shoot of a question as meaningless.

Almost all expressions of LOVE has to be humanized in order to be understood..that is why we humans actually use the word LOVE to even describe the Ultimate..some say Anbe Sivam.

We say LOVE is God and God is LOVE.

The reason? This is the closests a human can go in trying to decipher the Ultimate.

But are we right? We would not know.

How does the Ultimate feel like? We would not know becos it has to be beyond the perception of the mind as your yourself said in your post.

Something that is beyond the mind is hard to decipher..impossible to decipher.

Its like how AUM is sometimes called the Soundless Sound.

Its hard to imagine a Soundless Sound...but yet it hums in the Universe and in our very own being.

So whats the word now?

Mahavakyas dont speak about Love..its very techincal.

Its "Tat Tvam Asi"(Thou Art That)

It talks about "That".

The reason is becos "That" can never actually be described. "That" is just a word to make a person understand the text.

Love is humanizing. ..its still very primary.

That as in "Tat" is to the point...just a point that has all the answers but yet can never be described.

 

[renuka]

One of the reasons why some make statements like Love has No Opposites its becos one wants to go beyond duality without really understanding how.

Lets take a look at the Isha Upanishad for a moment.

The Self is one. Ever still, the Self is
Swifter than thought, swifter than the senses.
Though motionless, he outruns all pursuit.
Without the Self, never could life exist.

The Self seems to move, but is ever still.
He seems far away, but is ever near.
He is within all, and he transcends all.

The Self ever still..yet swifter than thought.
Though motionless..out runs all pursue..
The Self seems to move..yet ever still
Seems far but ever near.


Each of these seem to be self contradictory but yet it makes perfect sense.
It contains the pairs of opposites yet there is no actual opposite.

Becos for anything that is WHOLE is needs to contain both sides of the same coin.

The way to look at this is not the deny the pairs of opposite but to embrace the paradox.

Isha upanishad does not deny the opposites but rather it goes beyond it finally.

A person who only sees the sides of a coin does not realize its value.The one who sees the coin as a WHOLE knows it value.

So going by that..opposites of any kind exists not to contradict each other but to complement each other.

With this understanding in mind it would be much easier to understand religious texts.

 

[tks]

One of the reasons why some make statements like Love has No Opposites its becos one wants to go beyond duality without really understanding how.

Lets take a look at the Isha Upanishad for a moment.





The Self ever still..yet swifter than thought.
Though motionless..out runs all pursue..
The Self seems to move..yet ever still
Seems far but ever near.


Each of these seem to be self contradictory but yet it makes perfect sense.
It contains the pairs of opposites yet there is no actual opposite.

Becos for anything that is WHOLE is needs to contain both sides of the same coin.

The way to look at this is not the deny the pairs of opposite but to embrace the paradox.

Isha upanishad does not deny the opposites but rather it goes beyond it finally.

A person who only sees the sides of a coin does not realize its value.The one who sees the coin as a WHOLE knows it value.

So going by that..opposites of any kind exists not to contradict each other but to complement each other.

With this understanding in mind it would be much easier to understand religious texts.

Since you commented in this thread and though it is not part of the focus of the thread let me share my understanding.

Actually contradictions are not resolved by accepting two opposing ideas. They get fully and categorically resolved with proper understanding. There are verses in B.Gita which are next to each other that say the exact opposite. When this higher level infrastructure of understanding exists only then they make sense.

My approach is never to accept any text - religious or otherwise unless the reasoning is categoric without any apology and not requiring me to forcefit my understanding to fit what a text may say.

While you can reject what I have to say, the role of a proper teacher is to help interpret such teachings.

But prior to that there is a lot of preparation needed including enormous Shraddha.

In this thread what I wanted to share was concrete and actionable items with some basis for that based on that one verse.

Though I do not feel qualified to be a teacher of any kind I have gone out of my way in my life if I sense someone has enormous shraddha and the right attitude to learn (and I do not mean in topics like this but other areas as well). I have not taught anything to my children unless they demonstrated Shraddha by willing to do what it takes to learn something.

This is only explaining myself ...

 

[renuka]

Dear TKS ji,

I also sharing my opinions with you here....I am not rejecting neither am I adhering but I would like to imbibe the 'notes' shared here without being judgmental.

Some few days back I was reading a Dwaita text which seemed totally different in my opinion..I did not reject it nor did I adhere to it..I dived in and enjoyed the taste of it.

I like to view things as a spectator..its not "Neti Neti" for me..its 'Give me more..Give me more" without adhering.

When we choose to reject we do not see..when we choose to accept we also do not see..when we choose to embrace then we feel the flavors of life.

Truth is Orgasmic..It cannot be described.

 

[renuka]

While you can reject what I have to say, the role of a proper teacher is to help interpret such teachings.

Dear TKS ji,

What ever gave you the feeling that I rejected what you said?

What you wrote made me think..for example when you said LOVE has no opposite it made me think..does hate have an opposite?

Then my mind went into searching mode and I remember reading the Isha Upanishad about the pairs of opposite and decided to type it here in Forum.

So your statement was a catalyst to make me think about the pairs of opposite and hence my reply.

If I had rejected what you said as "meaningless" for example!(LOL)...would I have looked up the Isha Upanishad?

So you see it seemed like an apparent rejection but in reality it was a driving force to know more.

I choose to see your thread the same way.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

What ever gave you the feeling that I rejected what you said?

What you wrote made me think..for example when you said LOVE has no opposite it made me think..does hate have an opposite?

Then my mind went into searching mode and I remember reading the Isha Upanishad about the pairs of opposite and decided to type it here in Forum.

So your statement was a catalyst to make me think about the pairs of opposite and hence my reply.

If I had rejected what you said as "meaningless" for example!(LOL)...would I have looked up the Isha Upanishad?

So you see it seemed like an apparent rejection but in reality it was a driving force to know more.

I choose to see your thread the same way.

Well in the past when I mentioned the importance of teachers in getting this knowledge I remember mockery (of course it is not personal).

Also there are times I may have said things in perhaps riddles - it is not that I was being evasive but I am speaking from my infrastructure.

Lastly I do not write on serious topics often but when I do I take a lot of time to ensure the right information is presented and that it is useful to a reader. I may or may not have succeeded and that is besides the point. I may be careless with some items of minimal significance in the form in the interest of time. But I am not careless with the content or choice of expression or consistency. The consistency is assured due to the information arising from the same infrastructure of understanding.

So if I write a long answer to your query in the past it was a with a view to be helpful because there are thousand other ways I can spend my Quadrant 4 time! But if I get a response that shows quick reaction then it tantamount to rejection without understanding in my view.
At that point there is no desire to spend time trying to explain anything!

By the way this thread ended with the need to engage in Sravanam .. It is often mistaken as hearing some verses and hearing some lectures. The emphasis is actually in listening which is lot harder. To listen from the Shastra's perspective takes a lot of infrastructure. As a physician I am sure you know the difference between hearing a patient and listening to a patient.

If you are in the right frame of mind to know how pairs of apparent opposites may be resolved with higher level infrastructure I can give an example - but tomorrow .. Time for me to hit the bed now !

After Oct 3rd I hope to wean myself from a mild addiction to this site

 

[renuka]

Answers in blue

Well in the past when I mentioned the importance of teachers in getting this knowledge I remember mockery (of course it is not personal).

Why stay in the past..always be in the present..the future never comes..when it comes its verily the present too.

Also there are times I may have said things in perhaps riddles - it is not that I was being evasive but I am speaking from my infrastructure.

Riddles or Giggles..both stem from mental infrastructure.

Lastly I do not write on serious topics often but when I do I take a lot of time to ensure the right information is presented and that it is useful to a reader. I may or may not have succeeded and that is besides the point. I may be careless with some items of minimal significance in the form in the interest of time. But I am not careless with the content or choice of expression or consistency. The consistency is assured due to the information arising from the same infrastructure of understanding.

That I know that you are NOT careless but at times I wonder why you dont mind calling the queries of others meaningless. May be that is the not so serious side of you!LOL

So if I write a long answer to your query in the past it was a with a view to be helpful because there are thousand other ways I can spend my Quadrant 4 time! But if I get a response that shows quick reaction then it tantamount to rejection without understanding in my view.
At that point there is no desire to spend time trying to explain anything!

I respond very fast to anything..I was known as Dr ASAP(As soon as possible) when I was in the hospital.

I think fast..I talk fast..I act fast..I remember fast..That is not rejection. I have engaged validly with you in this thread.

By the way this thread ended with the need to engage in Sravanam .. It is often mistaken as hearing some verses and hearing some lectures. The emphasis is actually in listening which is lot harder. To listen from the Shastra's perspective takes a lot of infrastructure. As a physician I am sure you know the difference between hearing a patient and listening to a patient.

You are having expectations.You spoke and lets others decide to listen.You want others to hear the song your have in your mind.I have heard and listened to you but may be the tune in my mind would differ.



If you are in the right frame of mind to know how pairs of apparent opposites may be resolved with higher level infrastructure I can give an example - but tomorrow .. Time for me to hit the bed now !

It is hard to know even our own mind..so I dont know which frame I would be in tomorrow.
BTW Good nite dont let the bed bugs bite!


After Oct 3rd I hope to wean myself from a mild addiction to this site

Why plan for Oct 3rd? dont delay..do it right now if you wish so.It should be Now or Never.

A gentle reminder: Its very hard to wean off Forum..I am sure even members who had left before are still reading silently!LOL

 

[tks]

Answers in blue

1. Oct 3 - I mentioned the reasons earlier in the thread. Besides spending less or no time here is not really a big thing for me. I am more interested in the welfare of the people I interact here than their postings.
2. Why dwell on the past? - I was only answering your question in my response
3.Response about why called something meaningless.

Let me explain more of my value system and my expectations. I do not seek agreement on my views.

If there are discussions about hard sciences or about topics such as B.Gita or Upanishad I expect depth of analysis on the part of a poster based on due diligence done. This is about showing respect and shraddha towards an established area of knowledge. Just like many of us are raised to never step over even a piece of paper or a book (since it symbolizes the Goddess of knowledge for us ) I think loose talk about Vedanta or citations of Mahavakyas willy-nilly is a sign of disrespect and lack of maturity.

The schools of thoughts need not be aligned with what I know but I do expect Shraddha for the subject demonstrated if I have to take the writing here seriously.

If someone wants to provide a fresh perspective then it is important that they have understood the basics. Otherwise it is a form of showing disrespect to a well established discipline.


I do not see movies except flip channels sometimes. There was a movie called 50 first dates ..In that movie a woman has this syndrome whereby she forgets all the short term memory completely when she sleeps. It will be hard to have meaningful discussion with such a person since their span of memory and processing is limited to just the immediate message. I do not like to engage with such people.

If there was a glib comments on serious topics that then I will call that so . I may be hard on the issue but not on the person (in my mind). In other words I do not write anyone off but their writing goes down in my mental book.

If someone repeatedly exhibits narrow minded views in an open forum then I will call that out. But I do not write off the person . I just know they are ill informed and their behaviour is due to the bondage of Shoka or Moha or Bhaya. I can see my own fallibility in the other person and hence I am not hard on the person.

If someone brings a reference that is flawed all they have managed to do is to fall in my book .

If the topics are about light subjects, subjective analysis of politics and other topics of light nature I am all game for any kind of discussions.

I do not expect to be posting once I get engaged in some Quadrant 2 activities and hence all these statements are just as FYI

 

[renuka]

I seem to be the sole participant here.Good ..at least I kept TKS's ji thread active.

There is even action in my apparent inaction.

BTW TKS ji..if one wants to preach..one has to answer.

Imagine if you had addressed a crowd and someone asked you any question..you cant find fault with the person asking the question.

You seem to lash out when faced with a situation not to your liking but at the same time you love labeling others as ignorant..meaningless....not informed..confused..without a guru.

You also found fault with some article written sometime back where a comparison of Advaita and Quantum physics was done.

It seems to me you feel your are Enlightened and everyone else is a fool.

But the truth is everyone in this world is a Fool and you are no exception.

I can see the Shoka in you O' Ashoka..a paradox yet true.

For you everyone is flawed except yourself.

Grow up dude!

 

[krish44]

It would be a good idea to close this thread since it is reduced to name calling.

If people cannot engage in civilised discussion and take every comment personally , they better not post

we are not looking for enlightened Buddhas in this forum.

nor appreciate those throwing stones on people who challenge their post. and do not agree with them

these should shred their notes and throw them into garbage.

In india modi is launching garbage clearance campaign today .

It seems it is relevant abroad also

 

[a-TB]

Barring a few misleading comments by some there seem to be valuable information in this thread. I am not an expert in the area and new to the forum. I am intrigued by such topics and information
Is it possible to have more substantive discussion?