What makes one a Tamil Brahmin these days?

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Agreed. Everything is a manifestation of brahman, Isvara being a manifestation with perfect qualities. Each manifestation has its own perception of reality depending on its own level of reality.

Why these different levels of reality? It shows the basis of the being and the blissful experience of brahman

The word perfect is from a stand point. Isvara is not manifestation with what we perceive as only perfect qualities. For example the terrorists / suicide bombers, serial killers, human traffickers , to name a few are also manifestation of the same Brahman and you would not call any of these people as 'perfect'. How is this acceptable? Our tradition of learning demands that these ideas be not accepted as a belief system. Also how do we understand (and not accept blindly) the Mahavakya Tatvam Asi? It says you already are what you are seeking unconditionally. It does not say you will become and this has nothing to do with where you are in life or what you do..

Anyone that teaches/preaches Brahman as a blissful experience is misguided - I would search for a different teacher. Every experience is Brahman .. How is this all possible?

Answering the above along with many such questions is what Upanishads do as well as teach a methodology of learning and there is no way a forum such as this can help enlighten anyone in my view. If that is possible Moksha could become a weekend experience!

After 15+ years of effort I am beginning to scratch the surface and be able to reconcile many these notions. I do not feel I can do justice to these legitimate questions on 'reality' in a email like response though this response may appear as an evasive answer

However, let me say what Ramana Maharishi used to say when confronted with such questions such as 'why (apparently) different levels of reality though Brahman is the only reality there is' is to respond with another question - "who really wants to know" .. which will lead to further enquiries like 'who are you' and how do you go about learning the truth about your true self being that Brahman etc.

Elsewhere I did share my understanding as to how all religious traditions including the traditions of Hindu religions only deal with two pursuits - Artha and Kama. Every pursuit is reduced to these two. Period.

So why Dharma should even be a pursuit and what does pursuing Dharma mean - it certainly does not mean Manu's writing. Is it possible for a person who has never been exposed to any of the Upanishads etc be able to realize Dharma as a purushartha though they may use different words to describe this ? The answer is resounding Yes! Learning these foundational areas serve as a good starting point in my view from my limited experience before getting to learning the more involved areas.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Nara,

The journey of soul through various stages of being is indeed a fundamental concept in Hinduism. Again the goal of any soul is to merge in brahman which being totally balanced and complete in nature. A progress to a totally balanced state implies that all the physical entities are totally unbalanced to start with and finally make themselves complete in all the aspects. There are major milestones it passes through from lifeless matter to life to a mental being and finally becomes spiritual.

Let me try an interpretation.

At the start of universe, presumably only pure physical energy existed. By pure physical energy I mean pure energy which is maximally limited in space with respect to its influence. Pure energy is not localized in space. If I am not wrong for anything to be existing in space or occupying space it cannot carry the same energy everywhere in it. Matter is probably made of coming together of pure energies. Matter thus emerge out of the first combinations of pure energies and represents something localized in space. It also represents the beginning of formation of order in the physical world. Life associated with self awareness represents higher order and also the beginnings of formation of lower purpose of existence being that of survival. With the development into a mental entity the purpose of the soul evolves until it becomes one of moksha.

Thus from being maximally bound in space the soul extends its influence and experience until it breaks free of the restraints of both space and time resulting in an unbounded existence

 

[sravna]

The word perfect is from a stand point. Isvara is not manifestation with what we perceive as only perfect qualities. For example the terrorists / suicide bombers, serial killers, human traffickers , to name a few are also manifestation of the same Brahman and you would not call any of these people as 'perfect'. How is this acceptable? Our tradition of learning demands that these ideas be not accepted as a belief system. Also how do we understand (and not accept blindly) the Mahavakya Tatvam Asi? It says you already are what you are seeking unconditionally. It does not say you will become and this has nothing to do with where you are in life or what you do..

Anyone that teaches/preaches Brahman as a blissful experience is misguided - I would search for a different teacher. Every experience is Brahman .. How is this all possible?

Answering the above along with many such questions is what Upanishads do as well as teach a methodology of learning and there is no way a forum such as this can help enlighten anyone in my view. If that is possible Moksha could become a weekend experience!

After 15+ years of effort I am beginning to scratch the surface and be able to reconcile many these notions. I do not feel I can do justice to these legitimate questions on 'reality' in a email like response though this response may appear as an evasive answer

However, let me say what Ramana Maharishi used to say when confronted with such questions such as 'why (apparently) different levels of reality though Brahman is the only reality there is' is to respond with another question - "who really wants to know" .. which will lead to further enquiries like 'who are you' and how do you go about learning the truth about your true self being that Brahman etc.

Elsewhere I did share my understanding as to how all religious traditions including the traditions of Hindu religions only deal with two pursuits - Artha and Kama. Every pursuit is reduced to these two. Period.

So why Dharma should even be a pursuit and what does pursuing Dharma mean - it certainly does not mean Manu's writing. Is it possible for a person who has never been exposed to any of the Upanishads etc be able to realize Dharma as a purushartha though they may use different words to describe this ? The answer is resounding Yes! Learning these foundational areas serve as a good starting point in my view from my limited experience before getting to learning the more involved areas.

Cheers!

Shri TKS,

In advaita which I follow, Ishvara is synonymous with saguna brahman and is one who is associated with perfection. The lesser manifestations should not be confused with Ishvara though they too are manifestations of brahman. Why are they not perfect is something that should be seen with reference to the purpose of the physical world.

And Brahman is indeed pure bliss at least according to advaita. Though everything is brahman the expereinces are not the same because of differeing realities.

Also, these discussions I am sure are not meant to teach the attainment of moksha or any such thing but are just mental interactions which are part of self learning.

 

[Nara]

.....Let me try an interpretation.

sravna, thanks for your interpretation. But you have not addressed my main point, namely, on what authority are you giving this interpretation? With this question I am not simply asking you to name the authority, but show verifiable evidence of it. For instance, if you say Vedas are your authority, then, cite the Vedic verses on which you base this interpretation. If it is Sankara Bhashya of Brhmma Sutra you are using, then cite the verses, or at least relevant portions of a gloss or some other text written based on established and widely accepted texts.

On the other hand, if you are basing your interpretation purely on your own intuition, please let me know why it should not be taken as mere delusions of a confused mind? In other words, why should anyone trust your intuition?

There is of course one other possibility, and that is, you are founding a new religious doctrine, like Gautama Buddha did, based on his own reflections.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, thanks for your interpretation. But you have not addressed my main point, namely, on what authority are you giving this interpretation? With this question I am not simply asking you to name the authority, but show verifiable evidence of it. For instance, if you say Vedas are your authority, then, cite the Vedic verses on which you base this interpretation. If it is Sankara Bhashya of Brhmma Sutra you are using, then cite the verses, or at least relevant portions of a gloss or some other text written based on established and widely accepted texts.

On the other hand, if you are basing your interpretation purely on your own intuition, please let me know why it should not be taken as mere delusions of a confused mind? In other words, why should anyone trust your intuition?

There is of course one other possibility, and that is, you are founding a new religious doctrine, like Gautama Buddha did, based on his own reflections.

Cheers!

Nara,

I thought we could engage in a meaningful argument. Looks like you are not prepared for it.

 

[sangom]

sravna,

There is of course one other possibility, and that is, you are founding a new religious doctrine, like Gautama Buddha did, based on his own reflections.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

If Sravna finds any sarcasm in this post of mine, let me say it is deliberate. If, as you surmise, Shri Sravna is indeed founding a new religion out of his int (del)utions, I am sure the followers will be few, followers who understand his pov will be rare and so, consequently, the next generation of disciples will most likely be ignorant

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

If Sravna finds any sarcasm in this post of mine, let me say it is deliberate. If, as you surmise, Shri Sravna is indeed founding a new religion out of his int (del)utions, I am sure the followers will be few, followers who understand his pov will be rare and so, consequently, the next generation of disciples will most likely be ignorant

This is funny. The ways people resort to when for some reason won't address the issue directly.

 

[Nara]

...I thought we could engage in a meaningful argument. Looks like you are not prepared for it.

sravna, what makes you say this?

To have a meaningful argument we need to first establish some basic ground rules. Among them is what would be authoritative knowledge. In an argument between two SVs, citing Azhvar's verses would be accepted as sufficient authority, but that wouldn't do in argument between an SV and Shaiva. In an argument between A and VA, Prastana Traiyam would be accepted as sufficient authority, but not with between a Brahminist and a Buddist or Jaina. So, I am only asking you to expressly state on what authority you make your arguments.

Perhaps you are offended by the phrase, "why it should not be taken as mere delusions of a confused mind?" I was careless and clumsy and for that, I apologize. Let me explain, all I am trying to say is, arguments based on one's own intuition as the authority, whether made by you, me or anyone else, may reasonably be viewed as delusions of a confused mind. I am not saying you have a confused mind.

With this, sravna, please cite as precisely as you can, the authority for your arguments.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

This is funny. The ways people resort to when for some reason won't address the issue directly.

Shri Sravna,

Your philosophy is only now (lately) becoming at least superficially clear to dull brains like mine. Still, I do not feel competent (I have yet to get a hang of your philosophy of spiritualism, materialistic, brahman, bliss, etc.) and so I do not feel I can directly engage in a discussion on those subjects with you. That was when I found Shri Nara hazarding the pronouncement of a new religion by you a la Buddha . So I thought of telling him, as also the forum at large, that your philosophy is so abstruse that you will be the only one to understand it.

I do not think there is anything funny in this. And now I have told you why I am unable to
"address the issue directly" with you.

But in view of your above comments let me try to dismantle your philosophy to the best of my understanding and ability.Let me hasten to add that I don't intend any sarcasm and, in case you find its presence here, then that is completely unintentional.

According to your belief system —

1. All physical things, which I think includes human bodies too, are imbalanced (do I see a bit of Ayurveda here?).

2. Perfect "balance" (of whatever nature it may be, zero of everything, or equal of each component, not clear) is possible only in the purely spiritual; you have not been clear as to whether it is a realm or it is the "divine" state as some of your statements seem to imply.

3. The unbalanced physical things all move inexorably (or do you postulate a voluntary effort here? not clear) towards the finely balanced spiritual/divine state of existence.

4. During this "pilgrim's progress" of physical things they tend to combine with complementarily imbalanced counterparts so that a state of temporary better balanced state is achieved. The finer details of the components, how imbalance arises to start with, etc., are not spelt out.

5. Physical entities come under 4 categories of successive evolutionary advancement in terms of the "balance" referred to above — nonliving, living , intelligent and the divine. (I presume that your theory is non-living physical matter gets better balanced and then becomes living, gets further "finely-balanced" in course of time and becomes intelligent life and then ultimately becomes perfectly balanced divine, spiritual entity which is the end of its evolutionary journey. More spiritual means also "being more and more in sync with supreme brahman or the ultimate reality." What signifies or comes under "living but not intelligent" has not been made clear.

Please point out if there is any mistake in the above derivations. Assuming these to be correct, for the time being, I do not find anything wrong or impossible in the reality of this hypothesis.



But the problem, to my mind is about purely materialistic, physical things without "life" being impelled towards complementarily imbalanced similar inanimate matter. How is this brought about? How they recognise other physical matter which is having imbalance of a complementary nature of its own?


It looks to me as though you have been deeply (but slightly erroneously) influenced by advaita and the (misplaced) concept that brahman as per advaitha is not only the one and only reality, but is also the one and only perfect thing. But AdiSankara does not seem to have talked about perfection of Brahman IMHO. That is exactly why Shri Nara (though he is an avowed agnostic, I will daresay he knows more about philosophy and advaitha in particular than most of us here) asked you for citing the exact sruthi/vedic verse, Sankara's bhashya or its gloss/es with chapter and verse details.


In case you reply to Shri Nara's post #283 here with relevant citations, perhaps I also will be able to address the issue directly. Hope you now understand why I did not do that so far.

 

[tks]

Shri TKS,

In advaita which I follow, Ishvara is synonymous with saguna brahman and is one who is associated with perfection. The lesser manifestations should not be confused with Ishvara though they too are manifestations of brahman. Why are they not perfect is something that should be seen with reference to the purpose of the physical world.

And Brahman is indeed pure bliss at least according to advaita. Though everything is brahman the expereinces are not the same because of differeing realities.

Also, these discussions I am sure are not meant to teach the attainment of moksha or any such thing but are just mental interactions which are part of self learning.

Sravana-ji - I will not debate anymore on this topic since our assumptions and preconditions to learning these topics seem different.

Words and phrases like 'pure bliss', perfection etc do not have any meaning though I have seen usage of such terms. To me with least number of axiomatic items which are very clear and stated upfront, no usage of terms that have subjective meaning and without contradicting objective evidence (of science) the vision of veda has to be made clear. When such a vision is described with least number of technical terms it is even better for understanding.

Your description of Isvara being Saguna Brhman does not translate to define the word 'perfection' in my mind since such a term has no meaning when there is only one reality. You also have to reconcile these defintions with the so called 'Nirguna Brhman' definition (consistent with descriptions in Nasadiya Suktham).

There are models and beliefs in vedic descriptions (e.g., whole forumation of Karma and Dharma). But these cannot contradict any known laws (that is reasonable) and useful.

Any other descriptions become part of a unique belief system - which becomes outside the purview of reason. There are formal religions that are entirely based on faith and belief systems. Many people tend to create their own belief systems as well in order to reconcile various things that are taught and this seems to be true especially with Hindus in my experience.

I did enjoy interacting with you

Regards

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara,

Your point is well taken. My interpretation is based not on specific verses or some parts of a work but on my general understanding of Advaita. Let me put things in perspective by giving my understanding of advaita. I also make some interpretations based strictly on logic.

My understanding of advaita

The cornerstone concept of advaita is the existence of one ultimate reality called brahman. All other existences are also said to be in essence brahman. The apparent relationship of these to brahman is one of lower realities to a higher reality. From the point of view of brahman there is no plurality in existence as all the lower realities are transient in nature and eventually merge in brahman. Brahman in its pure nature has only the unified experience. From the point of view of the lower realities they are under illusion when they perceive plurality which they ultimately realize.

What is the importance of lower realities? From the wordly perspective it forms the physical half or the substance of brahman. From the point of view of brahman they are the basis of the experience that brahman enjoys.

The above is my basic understanding of advaita. The stuff I wrote tried to explain the physical nitty gritties of this high level spiritual concept.

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna,

Your philosophy is only now (lately) becoming at least superficially clear to dull brains like mine. Still, I do not feel competent (I have yet to get a hang of your philosophy of spiritualism, materialistic, brahman, bliss, etc.) and so I do not feel I can directly engage in a discussion on those subjects with you. That was when I found Shri Nara hazarding the pronouncement of a new religion by you a la Buddha . So I thought of telling him, as also the forum at large, that your philosophy is so abstruse that you will be the only one to understand it.

I do not think there is anything funny in this. And now I have told you why I am unable to
"address the issue directly" with you.

But in view of your above comments let me try to dismantle your philosophy to the best of my understanding and ability.Let me hasten to add that I don't intend any sarcasm and, in case you find its presence here, then that is completely unintentional.

According to your belief system —

1. All physical things, which I think includes human bodies too, are imbalanced (do I see a bit of Ayurveda here?).

2. Perfect "balance" (of whatever nature it may be, zero of everything, or equal of each component, not clear) is possible only in the purely spiritual; you have not been clear as to whether it is a realm or it is the "divine" state as some of your statements seem to imply.

3. The unbalanced physical things all move inexorably (or do you postulate a voluntary effort here? not clear) towards the finely balanced spiritual/divine state of existence.

4. During this "pilgrim's progress" of physical things they tend to combine with complementarily imbalanced counterparts so that a state of temporary better balanced state is achieved. The finer details of the components, how imbalance arises to start with, etc., are not spelt out.

5. Physical entities come under 4 categories of successive evolutionary advancement in terms of the "balance" referred to above — nonliving, living , intelligent and the divine. (I presume that your theory is non-living physical matter gets better balanced and then becomes living, gets further "finely-balanced" in course of time and becomes intelligent life and then ultimately becomes perfectly balanced divine, spiritual entity which is the end of its evolutionary journey. More spiritual means also "being more and more in sync with supreme brahman or the ultimate reality." What signifies or comes under "living but not intelligent" has not been made clear.

Please point out if there is any mistake in the above derivations. Assuming these to be correct, for the time being, I do not find anything wrong or impossible in the reality of this hypothesis.



But the problem, to my mind is about purely materialistic, physical things without "life" being impelled towards complementarily imbalanced similar inanimate matter. How is this brought about? How they recognise other physical matter which is having imbalance of a complementary nature of its own?


It looks to me as though you have been deeply (but slightly erroneously) influenced by advaita and the (misplaced) concept that brahman as per advaitha is not only the one and only reality, but is also the one and only perfect thing. But AdiSankara does not seem to have talked about perfection of Brahman IMHO. That is exactly why Shri Nara (though he is an avowed agnostic, I will daresay he knows more about philosophy and advaitha in particular than most of us here) asked you for citing the exact sruthi/vedic verse, Sankara's bhashya or its gloss/es with chapter and verse details.


In case you reply to Shri Nara's post #283 here with relevant citations, perhaps I also will be able to address the issue directly. Hope you now understand why I did not do that so far.

Shri Sangom,

I appreciate your clarification.

 

[sravna]

Sravana-ji - I will not debate anymore on this topic since our assumptions and preconditions to learning these topics seem different.

Words and phrases like 'pure bliss', perfection etc do not have any meaning though I have seen usage of such terms. To me with least number of axiomatic items which are very clear and stated upfront, no usage of terms that have subjective meaning and without contradicting objective evidence (of science) the vision of veda has to be made clear. When such a vision is described with least number of technical terms it is even better for understanding.

Your description of Isvara being Saguna Brhman does not translate to define the word 'perfection' in my mind since such a term has no meaning when there is only one reality. You also have to reconcile these defintions with the so called 'Nirguna Brhman' definition (consistent with descriptions in Nasadiya Suktham).

There are models and beliefs in vedic descriptions (e.g., whole forumation of Karma and Dharma). But these cannot contradict any known laws (that is reasonable) and useful.

Any other descriptions become part of a unique belief system - which becomes outside the purview of reason. There are formal religions that are entirely based on faith and belief systems. Many people tend to create their own belief systems as well in order to reconcile various things that are taught and this seems to be true especially with Hindus in my experience.

I did enjoy interacting with you

Regards

Shri TKS,

I too enjoyed the interaction

 

[Nara]

...My interpretation is based not on specific verses or some parts of a work but on my general understanding of Advaita. Let me put things in perspective by giving my understanding of advaita. I also make some interpretations based strictly on logic.

sravna, this is the crux of the problem. For a meaningful exchange there must be an agreed upon scope for what is authoritative knowledge. How do you expect me to accept your general understanding of advaitam and your interpretations based strictly on what you consider logical, as authoritative? No argument can proceed on this basis.

IMO, Advaitam is completely untenable based on the three sources of knowledge vaideekas accept, namely pratyaksham, anumanam and shruti. See the thread Advaita and Its Fallacies for the arguments, the questions that were raised remain unanswered.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

Shri TKS,

I too enjoyed the interaction

Sravana-ji -
Thanks ..

One comment I want to share is my perception of information found at this great forum with all newcomers to the forum.

There is a lot of wonderful resources, engaging discussions, and interesting bloggers with diversity of opinions.

When it comes to discussions on the topic of Vedanta and Advita (in other threads and topic areas) I find unfortunately a lot of ignorant statements passed off as analysis with many buzz words thrown in good measure which may make a post sound respectful. Some even proclaim expertise !! I guess a forum of any kind has to accommodate all such posts. I did enjoy reading some of these postings because they are sort of humorous.

With that said we are privileged indeed to have a forum of this kind

Regards

 

[kunjuppu]

tks,

with utmost respect, while we enjoy your presence and also (hopefully) your determination to stay and contribute here, and thus enriching all of us, please may i beg to differ on a couple of points brought out by you. hope you don't mind.

pray let me parse your statements, and even though i slice and dice it, i hope, i respect the continuum of your thought and do not dissect them to my advantage. i will abide by your opinion re fairness here.

When it comes to discussions on the topic of Vedanta and Advita (in other threads and topic areas) I find unfortunately a lot of ignorant statements passed off as analysis with many buzz words thrown in good measure which may make a post sound respectful

sir, tks, ignorance is a powerful statement to make. you are taking a lot of onus as possessor of KNOWLEDGE to term fellow members 'ignorant'. whether it be vedanta, advaita, it does not matter. what matters is that, you feel comfortable that you know everything that there is to be learned re vedanta, advaita, such that you found per se, the members here, ignorant. i would imagine these be those, who disagree with your pov. kindly correct me here.

some even proclaim expertise

sir, maybe you would like to point out those particular members or those quotes which directly or indirectly implied 'expertise'. but prior to that, perhaps, you might want to enlighten us, as to what you mean by 'expertise', how is it measured, and above all, how/who judges it. by your above statement, i understand, that you feel you possess enough knowledge, to evaluate an individual's expertise. if you so agree to this, i bow before you, with all humility that an ignoramus does before a wise man.

I guess a forum of any kind has to accommodate all such posts. I did enjoy reading some of these postings because they are sort of humorous


tks sir, i only know a few forums. i have been, sad to say, kicked out another brahmin forum, and some hindu forums. with that track record, i am very grateful to praveen, for not only letting folks of my coloration, be present here, but thrive. i have found a sense of fairness here, and i confess, that there has been more than one occassion, when i have pushed far enough, to test how extreme a viewpoint could be tolerated, without expulsion.

i confess i failed. the owners/moderators have a strong foundation, that they do not feel threatened by winds from all directions, whether they be of the gentle but different kind, or storms or hurricanes. we have had our share of all of them, dealt with them, caroused as well as scuffled them. but we did enjoy every minute of it.

welcome to the forum and please find your place here among friends. all of us hope to be one.

thank you.

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara,

I prefer taking the big picture and my knowledge is restricted to a general understanding. If you do not agree with my understanding of advaita tell me why?

 

[tks]

tks,

with utmost respect, while we enjoy your presence and also (hopefully) your determination to stay and contribute here, and thus enriching all of us, please may i beg to differ on a couple of points brought out by you. hope you don't mind.

pray let me parse your statements, and even though i slice and dice it, i hope, i respect the continuum of your thought and do not dissect them to my advantage. i will abide by your opinion re fairness here.

When it comes to discussions on the topic of Vedanta and Advita (in other threads and topic areas) I find unfortunately a lot of ignorant statements passed off as analysis with many buzz words thrown in good measure which may make a post sound respectful

sir, tks, ignorance is a powerful statement to make. you are taking a lot of onus as possessor of KNOWLEDGE to term fellow members 'ignorant'. whether it be vedanta, advaita, it does not matter. what matters is that, you feel comfortable that you know everything that there is to be learned re vedanta, advaita, such that you found per se, the members here, ignorant. i would imagine these be those, who disagree with your pov. kindly correct me here.

some even proclaim expertise

sir, maybe you would like to point out those particular members or those quotes which directly or indirectly implied 'expertise'. but prior to that, perhaps, you might want to enlighten us, as to what you mean by 'expertise', how is it measured, and above all, how/who judges it. by your above statement, i understand, that you feel you possess enough knowledge, to evaluate an individual's expertise. if you so agree to this, i bow before you, with all humility that an ignoramus does before a wise man.

I guess a forum of any kind has to accommodate all such posts. I did enjoy reading some of these postings because they are sort of humorous


tks sir, i only know a few forums. i have been, sad to say, kicked out another brahmin forum, and some hindu forums. with that track record, i am very grateful to praveen, for not only letting folks of my coloration, be present here, but thrive. i have found a sense of fairness here, and i confess, that there has been more than one occassion, when i have pushed far enough, to test how extreme a viewpoint could be tolerated, without expulsion.

i confess i failed. the owners/moderators have a strong foundation, that they do not feel threatened by winds from all directions, whether they be of the gentle but different kind, or storms or hurricanes. we have had our share of all of them, dealt with them, caroused as well as scuffled them. but we did enjoy every minute of it.

welcome to the forum and please find your place here among friends. all of us hope to be one.

thank you.

Kunjappu-ji-
I started my note with “One comment Iwant to share is my perception of information found at this great forum withall newcomers to the forum.” I excluded ‘veterans’ on purpose in directing mycomments J

Your dissection is fair in my view but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Let me explain.

It was addressed to new visitors that may be sincere in their quest for self-growth and looking for information. Though most of the bandwidth in posting is seemingly consumed by relatively a small number of people there seem to be lot more people viewing and reading but not contributing. I am sure there are many that are not members but are able to browse and leave. If there are newcomers like that my comment was addressed to them. I started engaging in this forum in late April of this month. So it is my perspective that I was sharing.

It is my experience that it is hard to find good teachers that have earned the rights to teach (Adhikara). Web resources in my view are even worse since many people – especially those with Tamil Brahmin heritage - tend to make things up and post it with assumed authority J.

This site is no different in my view in select areas I have mentioned.

My comment is directed at the content I read and not on a person that may have generated the content. I really have no desire to prove anyone is right or wrong. Let me explain my reasoning on when I tend to engage.

I think part of the problem I see in this forum is that some people are more than willing to take a comment on an issue and interpret those as directed at them (like you did in interpreting that I called fellow members ignorant which I did not). This is a huge distinction in my mind. Your interpretation, in my view, could lead to pointless arguments leading to the kind of issues posted in the sticky thread in this section. I am sure you are a reasonable person but if you ‘be hard on the issues but easy on the person’ you will not be ‘kicked out of any forum’ to borrow your phrase, that has reasonable leadership. If people are threatened by opposing views (I assume those that let you leave) then those forums are not worth your time in my view.

My comment stands as is – I cannot for being ‘politically correct’, not express my perception that people truly wanting to learn should look for other resources in these areas rather than here. I have seen in my limited browsing that some posting tend to reflect ‘same old same old’ recycled ideas which tend to dominate the discussion and leading to endless and aimless arguments. Also anyone aspiring to enlightenment is unlikely to take time to post here in my view especially after seeing how some issues have been debated.

You are welcome to draw any conclusion about me and I am not at all offended! I will name posters whose reasoning I am able to resonate with when I come across such postings. This applies even if I do not agree with their stated position.

Those that I disagree I will engage if I think their approach to debate is reasonable which includes a perceived desire to listen reflected in the response. Understanding is not same as agreement but to understand one has to listen including the context. In this thread I did checkoff the ‘like’ marker on some postings for example.

I have respect for opposing points because they make me think. I would like to think that I go out of my way in my professional and personal life to seek opposing views. Even my approach to learning to grow on these subject areas (Vedanta) was always by looking to show that the reasoning may be flawed and debating the other side until I can grasp something that is reasonable. The learning can bring out humility or courage (which could be interpreted as arrogance).

People are welcome to take my general comment as a ‘caution’or ignore saying that it does not apply. It is their choice.

Peace,

 

[sangom]

It was addressed to new visitors that may be sincere in their quest for self-growth and looking for information. Though most of the bandwidth in posting is seemingly consumed by relatively a small number of people there seem to be lot more people viewing and reading but not contributing. I am sure there are many that are not members but are able to browse and leave. If there are newcomers like that my comment was addressed to them. I started engaging in this forum in late April of this month. So it is my perspective that I was sharing.

...
It is my experience that it is hard to find good teachers that have earned the rights to teach (Adhikara). Web resources in my view are even worse since many people – especially those with Tamil Brahmin heritage - tend to make things up and post it with assumed authority J. This site is no different in my view in select areas I have mentioned.

...

My comment stands as is – I cannot for being ‘politically correct’, not express my perception that people truly wanting to learn should look for other resources in these areas rather than here.

Also anyone aspiring to enlightenment is unlikely to take time to post here in my view especially after seeing how some issues have been debated.

Shri TKS,

I have read the exchange between Shri Kunjuppu and yourself and was impelled to write my views/doubts. I have selected certain portions from your post #293 and quoted those above. To my extremely "unenlightened" mind, there seem to be certain points requiring further elucidation here. I list them below.

1. Does anyone with the "adhikāra to teach" recommend internet forums as a medium for securing such enlightenment? Not at all, as you yourself state in these words, "Also anyone aspiring to enlightenment is unlikely to take time to post here in my view especially after seeing how some issues have been debated." If aspirants themselves will find this forum unsuitable, what about adepts with adhikāra to teach?This gives me the feeling that perhaps you might have by now identified some other forums which facilitate "enlightenment" (whatever it may mean, I am not sure); if that be the case, kindly share those names also here so that newcomers as also veterans trying to get " enlightenment " will be very much benefited.

2. The motto of this forum as spelt out by the Forum owner is "Brahmin Community spread across the entire globe"; it does not claim any expertise in any area, like "enlightenment". I therefore feel that newcomers will not be misled into believing that this forum is for gaining enlightenment. (I just now googled "enlightenment and got 23,100,000 answers and this forum does not figure within the first hundred even!)

2. Late April to May 14th. is but one "paksha", at the most. May be it has been sufficient time for an intellect like yours to judge the forum completely, but to me, I have not yet gone through even 10% of the archives in the last nearly one year of my association with this forum. I am therefore not at all in a position to pronounce any opinion, let alone any verdict, about the forum or its suitability to any particular purpose.

But during this one-year period I feel I could interact with a real cross-section of people, mostly tamil brahmins of different hues, and could learn a lot. "enlightenment " if it may be taken to mean knowledge accumulation, was also, therefore, possible.

3. You have said "many people – especially those with Tamil Brahmin heritage - tend to make things up and post it with assumed authority". Does this mean that in other forums frequented by non-Tamil Brahmins, posters do not claim any authority? Or is it that you want to pinpoint people ineligible for any "authority", assume it falsely and with such a facade, make pronouncements on even very weighty matters?

However, to my mind it looks as though people with Tamil Brahmin pretension are somewhat obsessed with that elusive idea of enlightenment which has not been grasped by me till now. They also tend to make pronouncements as if they have acquired all the adhikāra to do so, even if there is no system as such to judge and grant such adhikāra. This makes the forum (may be other forums too) as a drum left on the wayside which every passerby is free to beat and make noise

4. Since you have obviously covered most of the discussions here already, you will also probably agree that this word enlightenment is somewhat crucial to some posters in this forum. You will be doing signal service by spelling out your ideas, as a new-comer, of what this so-called enlightenment, according to you, is, IMHO. Hope you will kindly oblige.

 

[suraju06]

Kunjappu-ji-
I started my note with “One comment Iwant to share is my perception of information found at this great forum withall newcomers to the forum.” I excluded ‘veterans’ on purpose in directing mycomments J

Your dissection is fair in my view but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Let me explain.

It was addressed to new visitors that may be sincere in their quest for self-growth and looking for information. Though most of the bandwidth in posting is seemingly consumed by relatively a small number of people there seem to be lot more people viewing and reading but not contributing. I am sure there are many that are not members but are able to browse and leave. If there are newcomers like that my comment was addressed to them. I started engaging in this forum in late April of this month. So it is my perspective that I was sharing.

It is my experience that it is hard to find good teachers that have earned the rights to teach (Adhikara). Web resources in my view are even worse since many people – especially those with Tamil Brahmin heritage - tend to make things up and post it with assumed authority J.

This site is no different in my view in select areas I have mentioned.

My comment is directed at the content I read and not on a person that may have generated the content. I really have no desire to prove anyone is right or wrong. Let me explain my reasoning on when I tend to engage.

I think part of the problem I see in this forum is that some people are more than willing to take a comment on an issue and interpret those as directed at them (like you did in interpreting that I called fellow members ignorant which I did not). This is a huge distinction in my mind. Your interpretation, in my view, could lead to pointless arguments leading to the kind of issues posted in the sticky thread in this section. I am sure you are a reasonable person but if you ‘be hard on the issues but easy on the person’ you will not be ‘kicked out of any forum’ to borrow your phrase, that has reasonable leadership. If people are threatened by opposing views (I assume those that let you leave) then those forums are not worth your time in my view.

My comment stands as is – I cannot for being ‘politically correct’, not express my perception that people truly wanting to learn should look for other resources in these areas rather than here. I have seen in my limited browsing that some posting tend to reflect ‘same old same old’ recycled ideas which tend to dominate the discussion and leading to endless and aimless arguments. Also anyone aspiring to enlightenment is unlikely to take time to post here in my view especially after seeing how some issues have been debated.

You are welcome to draw any conclusion about me and I am not at all offended! I will name posters whose reasoning I am able to resonate with when I come across such postings. This applies even if I do not agree with their stated position.

Those that I disagree I will engage if I think their approach to debate is reasonable which includes a perceived desire to listen reflected in the response. Understanding is not same as agreement but to understand one has to listen including the context. In this thread I did checkoff the ‘like’ marker on some postings for example.

I have respect for opposing points because they make me think. I would like to think that I go out of my way in my professional and personal life to seek opposing views. Even my approach to learning to grow on these subject areas (Vedanta) was always by looking to show that the reasoning may be flawed and debating the other side until I can grasp something that is reasonable. The learning can bring out humility or courage (which could be interpreted as arrogance).

People are welcome to take my general comment as a ‘caution’or ignore saying that it does not apply. It is their choice.

Peace,

Dear tks,

From my experience in this forum I can tell you this. If you find it useful take it: otherwise leave it.

I used to sincerely believe that when I come here and criticise ideas I am just doing that without showing any disrespect to the owners of these ideas. But I found that people are not that simple. They are complicated bundles of expectations and ego. So I follow a simple formula nowadays. I type out my views and then edit to remove all second person singulars/plurals like you, your etc., and replace them with more sublime and nebulous we, our, my etc. though I make it a point to address the posting to the intended person with a "dear.........". I think i have successfully avoided treading on the egos of people here.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sravna,
This what Sangom Sir has presented as the gist of your views as understood by him:

According to your belief system —

1. All physical things, which I think includes human bodies too, are imbalanced (do I see a bit of Ayurveda here?).

2. Perfect "balance" (of whatever nature it may be, zero of everything, or equal of each component, not clear) is possible only in the purely spiritual; you have not been clear as to whether it is a realm or it is the "divine" state as some of your statements seem to imply.

3. The unbalanced physical things all move inexorably (or do you postulate a voluntary effort here? not clear) towards the finely balanced spiritual/divine state of existence.

4. During this "pilgrim's progress" of physical things they tend to combine with complementarily imbalanced counterparts so that a state of temporary better balanced state is achieved. The finer details of the components, how imbalance arises to start with, etc., are not spelt out.

5. Physical entities come under 4 categories of successive evolutionary advancement in terms of the "balance" referred to above — nonliving, living , intelligent and the divine. (I presume that your theory is non-living physical matter gets better balanced and then becomes living, gets further "finely-balanced" in course of time and becomes intelligent life and then ultimately becomes perfectly balanced divine, spiritual entity which is the end of its evolutionary journey. More spiritual means also "being more and more in sync with supreme brahman or the ultimate reality." What signifies or comes under "living but not intelligent" has not been made clear.

Your hypothesis has remarkable similarities with the philosophy of Jainism. Only important detail in which it perhaps differs is with respect to the principle of God. The theological concepts of Jainism are rational. Jainism regards a liberated soul(arhat) which has attained its inherent qualities of perfect knowledge, bliss etc., as God. To go into details of the nine principles of realities like Jiva, Ajiva, Asrava, Samvara, Nirjara, Bandha, Moksa, Punya, and Papa or to go into the intricacies of the Ratnatraya or Dravya Karma and Bhava Karma are not within the scope of this posting as they are separate subjects on which there is a lot of info available in Jain religious literatures.
Because your description of the progress of the soul made a bulb glow in my memory I am putting this here. You can study the Jain philosophy to understand more of it and you may be able to strike a clear path to your search.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri TKS,

This forum has been a great platform for me to air my views and get to know a number of alternate views. In general, I have found the exchanges useful. The problem with engaging in serious discussions is that the focus of the discussions tend to move away from the topic to the persons. If the focus is kept on the topic very fruitful discussions I think are possible.

Also the forum needs to see a greater influx of newcomers in discussions and as you rightly say after a period the discussions have very little to offer in terms of fresh perspectives.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,
This what Sangom Sir has presented as the gist of your views as understood by him:



Your hypothesis has remarkable similarities with the philosophy of Jainism. Only important detail in which it perhaps differs is with respect to the principle of God. The theological concepts of Jainism are rational. Jainism regards a liberated soul(arhat) which has attained its inherent qualities of perfect knowledge, bliss etc., as God. To go into details of the nine principles of realities like Jiva, Ajiva, Asrava, Samvara, Nirjara, Bandha, Moksa, Punya, and Papa or to go into the intricacies of the Ratnatraya or Dravya Karma and Bhava Karma are not within the scope of this posting as they are separate subjects on which there is a lot of info available in Jain religious literatures.
Because your description of the progress of the soul made a bulb glow in my memory I am putting this here. You can study the Jain philosophy to understand more of it and you may be able to strike a clear path to your search.

Dear Suraju,

There are a number of similarities among indian based religions. I am of the view that their philosophies are grounded in realities and can be explained in a logical way. To regard them as empty is to give up access to invaluable knowledge.

 

[gopaindu]

I feel that the language Sanskrit is much older than English. I am sure that certain terms like karma, Dharma, Dhyana, Papa & Punya, manas, buddhi, atma, etc. can not be explained in English. No doubt karma may be taken as action, dharma as correct/good, dhyana as meditation, papa is sin, punya is merit, buddhi is intellect, atma as soul. But these words do not convey the same meaning is my point of view. In English there may not be any distinction between Papa and Adharma whereas in Sanskrit, there is definitely a distinction. So, Hindu philosopy or vedanta cannot be discussed only knowing English or only knowing Sanskrit or who knows both. Hindu philosophy is such vast that even if an individual's opinion is not having any follower or others are unable to comprehend, still it is philosophy and one can definitely find such opinion some where in Hindu philosophy provided one has time, patience and energy. To cite an example, I had formed certain opinons without reading any book but those opinions were found in some books much later. This may be due to the continuation of knowlege atained in my previous birth. I find people believe scientific explanation just becasue it is written in English and accessible whereas Hindu Philosophy is not so. I want to know, how many people in this forum, beleive in the cylcle of births and deaths and also that even inanimate things have atman or soul. One can not exactly locate the soul and mind in the whole human body. SIvananda's explanation to Patanjali's yogasutra read by me in Tamil says that even inanimate things have souls. Similarly quality and Guna are not the same. One similariity between these two is that both can not be described in words.raja48

 

[Nara]

.....I prefer taking the big picture and my knowledge is restricted to a general understanding. If you do not agree with my understanding of advaita tell me why?

I have presented my arguments in the other thread I have cited. Please go through that, you will find out there why I think Advaitam as generally presented by traditional advaitins is untenable.

Coming to your understanding of advaitam, to evaluate it we need some frame of reference that is external to either of us. Since the authority for your understanding is your understanding itself, there is no scope for meaningful discussion.

Cheers!