Who is delusional, really?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Wanted to respond to Sravna ji's initial post about the underlying reality. No doubt something exists, but it may be beyond our ability to fathom fully. To give an example, take the case of an electron.

Most of us in grade school learned that the electron is a negatively charged particle spinning around a positively charged nucleus. But that turns out to be only the beginning of the story. Schroedinger and Heisenberg showed that the electron is not in in one point in space but smeared all over. So is that it? An electron is not a particle but merely a probability distribution of charge in space?

The truth as usual, is somewhere in between.

Dear Shri Biswa,

Yes indeed, most of us cannot fathom reality fully as we are blinded by the physical reality. But there are enlightened ones who based on their penetrating insights into reality, have tried to make us understand reality. It is through the knowledge given by such enlightened souls that we need to understand reality and make progress ourselves.

 

[renuka]

Schroedinger and Heisenberg showed that the electron is not in in one point in space but smeared all over. So is that it? An electron is not a particle but merely a probability distribution of charge in space?

According to Paramahansa Yogananda..Prana are inherently intelligent electrons which he defines as Lifetrons.
It surely matches what you wrote above.

 

[biswa]

Dear Shri Biswa,

Yes indeed, most of us cannot fathom reality fully as we are blinded by the physical reality. But there are enlightened ones who based on their penetrating insights into reality, have tried to make us understand reality. It is through the knowledge given by such enlightened souls that we need to understand reality and make progress ourselves.

Very good, Sravna ji. I was thinking of another analogy here. Most of us have not seen the continent of Antarctica right? I think even now many of us cannot fathom the cold, the dark, the desolate nature of the continent. It is not something we encounter in our day-to-day life. Yet we would be quite delusional if we say I cannot imagine Antarctica, so it does not exist.

Instead we believe the stories and experiences of explorers who went to Antarctica, experienced it and came back to tell. Similarly, there are these explorers on the spiritual path who have scouted much ahead than most of us are able to venture. The wise would use their experiences to understand what may be out there. It is exactly as you said.

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Shri Biswa,

Yes indeed, most of us cannot fathom reality fully as we are blinded by the physical reality. But there are enlightened ones who based on their penetrating insights into reality, have tried to make us understand reality. It is through the knowledge given by such enlightened souls that we need to understand reality and make progress ourselves.

The truth is that none, repeat no one, has ever understood the REALITY so far and most probably no one will ever do in future also. This is because we all have been, and are experiencing this existence thanks to the kind courtesy of that very REALITY which manifests as LIFE in our bodies. The best that one will be able to do is to understand this LIFE and realize that what we see as the universe is a mere "show" being enacted by the mighty power of that LIFE. (Some rough idea may be gleaned from reading and understanding Adi Sankara's commentary of the word "viswam" in the Vishnusahasranama Bhashya.

Gradually, may be we will realize that we cannot at all realize the REALITY and that is the realization our vedanta is talking about.

Since anyway we are not going to realize the real REALITY our acharyas and sages thought it better to give us - the cattle-like intellects - some fodder to go on chewing and spend our time here without killing and each other and annihilating the humankind in our folly. Whether they succeded, we can't say.

 

[Yamaka]

Illusion, Delusion and Hallucination: Yamaka's View

The truth is that none, repeat no one, has ever understood the REALITY so far and most probably no one will ever do in future also. This is because we all have been, and are experiencing this existence thanks to the kind courtesy of that very REALITY which manifests as LIFE in our bodies. The best that one will be able to do is to understand this LIFE and realize that what we see as the universe is a mere "show" being enacted by the mighty power of that LIFE. (Some rough idea may be gleaned from reading and understanding Adi Sankara's commentary of the word "viswam" in the Vishnusahasranama Bhashya.

Gradually, may be we will realize that we cannot at all realize the REALITY and that is the realization our vedanta is talking about.

Since anyway we are not going to realize the real REALITY our acharyas and sages thought it better to give us - the cattle-like intellects - some fodder to go on chewing and spend our time here without killing and each other and annihilating the humankind in our folly. Whether they succeded, we can't say.

Dear ALL:

I was "picking the brain" of a Clinical Psychologist in our Medical Center.

He concedes that the terms Illusion, Delusion and Hallucination are the outcome of some "abnormality" of the brain... "some chemical imbalance, perhaps".

I asked him what's the psychologist's use of the terms?

He said, "Illusion = Delusion" which is if someone thinks there is a live snake, in fact it is only a simple rope at the corner". "Rope = Snake", a delusional person thinks.

"If the person sees a live snake, like Cobra, when in deed there is not even a rope at the corner, then he is hallucinating".

"Nothing = Cobra", a hallucinating person thinks.

Therefore, Yamaka, a self-proclaimed Atheist thinks that Believers of SNA, Spirit = Ghosts are all in fact hallucinating....Lol.

Not really delusional !! (Sorry, dear N )

Innum varum...

 

[Nara]

....Therefore, Yamaka, a self-proclaimed Atheist thinks

Dear Y, you referring to yourself in the third person reminds me of Jimmy from Seinfeld.

The Jimmy - YouTube

Politicians often do this, Doll used to do it and more recently Herman Cain. This tendency even has a name, "Illeism", just found out today LOL!

BTW, with just the two of us left from the camp of free-thinkers the level of hostility has gone up off late, we are not allowed to even share a personal tender moment. Let it be, here I dedicate a song to you and your dear wife, in all its melodramatic sapiness: Andrea Boccelli *~*Besame Mucho*~* - YouTube, guess what Tamil song was copied from it.....

Cheers!

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Biswa, you said:

Instead we believe the stories and experiences of explorers who went to Antarctica, experienced it and came back to tell. Similarly, there are these explorers on the spiritual path who have scouted much ahead than most of us are able to venture. The wise would use their experiences to understand what may be out there. It is exactly as you said.

I can believe depends on how much I trust the "person" relating the experience. If the article is in a questionable site, I may not believe it, but if it is in National Geographic then it is different matter.

Hope I am not intruding:

we are not allowed to even share a personal tender moment
post#56

 

[biswa]

Mr Prasad you are absolutely right. So let me ask, what is the difference between Antarctica and El Dorado? I personally have seen neither. But why do most of us believe in Antarctica and not El Dorado?

I think the answer lies in the accumulation of evidence and in the wisdom of crowds. If 2 people say contradictory things, it is hard to know who to believe. But over time there is corroborating evidence and shared experience. Sometimes there are evidential artifacts. Over time, most of us seem to converge on the "current version" of the truth.

 

[biswa]

The truth is that none, repeat no one, has ever understood the REALITY so far and most probably no one will ever do in future also. This is because we all have been, and are experiencing this existence thanks to the kind courtesy of that very REALITY which manifests as LIFE in our bodies. The best that one will be able to do is to understand this LIFE and realize that what we see as the universe is a mere "show" being enacted by the mighty power of that LIFE.

This is a very valid point, so let me share something from Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". He is talking about the Grand Unification Theory of Physics (the theory which explains every physical law) which could be variously interpreted as "God", or "Reality" or "The Ultimate Truth".

He argues that if there is a GUT which governs everything including our very behavior, then at this very moment it is in control of deciding whether it should allow us to understand itself (the GUT) or not. In other words, if we are a goldfish in a bowl, the bowl decides whether the goldfish is allowed to see outside or not. Otherwise unfortunately the reality for the goldfish is only what is inside the bowl.

Sounds like Hawking's ideas are quite similar to your description of Adi Sankara. After all truly great men think alike, whether they be from science or religion.

 

[sravna]

This is a very valid point, so let me share something from Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". He is talking about the Grand Unification Theory of Physics (the theory which explains every physical law) which could be variously interpreted as "God", or "Reality" or "The Ultimate Truth".

He argues that if there is a GUT which governs everything including our very behavior, then at this very moment it is in control of deciding whether it should allow us to understand itself (the GUT) or not. In other words, if we are a goldfish in a bowl, the bowl decides whether the goldfish is allowed to see outside or not. Otherwise unfortunately the reality for the goldfish is only what is inside the bowl.

Sounds like Hawking's ideas are quite similar to your description of Adi Sankara. After all truly great men think alike, whether they be from science or religion.

Dear Shri Biswa,

Frankly, I don't understand what Sri Sarma is trying to say. AFAIK, the realization our scriptures talk about is that when we become one with the reality.

Also IMO equating the understanding of the physical universe to the understanding of God or reality is not valid. Hawking may be an expert scientist but to compare him to Adi Sankara,I cannot accept. I honestly feel there is a big chasm.

 

[renuka]

Originally Posted by sarma-61
Gradually, may be we will realize that we cannot at all realize the REALITY and that is the realization our vedanta is talking about.

You are absolutely right..we can never ever realize Reality.
Thats what our scriptures are talking about.

Its like this..How can we say we have "realized" Reality(a.k.a Brahman) while remaining separate from it.
As long as we say we are realizing something that still shows a state of duality.

The simple analogy given for this is "a salt crystal wanted to know his origin and went to the sea to find out and when he merged into the ocean he was finally the ocean and not a salt crystal anymore"

I had written a poem once titled the Unknown and this is the last stanza.

When the journey ends,truth will dawn,
The Unknown, “you” will never ever know,
Cos’ “you” were never really “you”,
But all the while the Unknown too.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

The point is realizing reality is different from being separate from it. We are separate from it only in the sense we are constrained by our body. But if we are not affected by anything in the physical world and remain in a state of tranquility, then that is the reality. Our mere perception of the physical world doesn't mean we are in duality. In the realized state we are in essence one with brahman IMO.

You are absolutely right..we can never ever realize Reality.
Thats what our scriptures are talking about.

Its like this..How can we say we have "realized" Reality(a.k.a Brahman) while remaining separate from it.
As long as we say we are realizing something that still shows a state of duality.

The simple analogy given for this is "a salt crystal wanted to know his origin and went to the sea to find out and when he merged into the ocean he was finally the ocean and not a salt crystal anymore"

I had written a poem once titled the Unknown and this is the last stanza.

When the journey ends,truth will dawn,
The Unknown, “you” will never ever know,
Cos’ “you” were never really “you”,
But all the while the Unknown too.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

The point is realizing reality is different from being separate from it. We are separate from it only in the sense we are constrained by our body. But if we are not affected by anything in the physical world and remain in a state of tranquility, then that is the reality. Our mere perception of the physical world doesn't mean we are in duality. In the realized state we are in essence one with brahman IMO.

Dear Sravna,

Realization has also been described like this in scriptures;

Those who Know they know Not, those who do Not know they know

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

The following is also an interpretation of scriptures by Sankara,

IGNORANCE


Identification of the Self with the (physical human) body is avidya (ignorance).

Action cannot destroy ignorance, for it is not in conflict with ignorance. Knowledge (truth) alone destroys ignorance, as light alone destroys darkness.

It is only because of ignorance that the Self appears to be finite (limited). When ignorance (false identification) is destroyed, the Self which has no multiplicity (diversity) whatsoever truly reveals Itself by Itself, just like the sun when the cloud is removed.

The world is filled with attachments and aversions (raga-dvesa) and is like a dream. It appears to be real as long as one is asleep (ignorant) but becomes unreal when one is awake (aware of awareness).

The notion of "I am Brahman (awareness)" created by uninterrupted reflection destroys ignorance and its distractions as medicine destroys disease.


So, dear Renuka, scriptures need to be interpreted in the right way, for right understanding, right?

The one you quoted from scriptures IMO applies to one who is on the path to liberation but not to one who knows brahman.

Dear Sravna,

Realization has also been described like this in scriptures;

Those who Know they know Not, those who do Not know they know

 

[renuka]

The one you quoted from scriptures IMO applies to one who is on the path to liberation but not to one who knows brahman.

Dear Sravna,

I beg to differ in your conclusion cos what I qouted was from the Kenopanishad.

Not Knowing is Knowing

If you think that you know well in truth of Brahman, know that you know little. What you think to be Brahman in your self, or what you think to be Brahman in the gods--that is not Brahman. What is indeed the truth of Brahman you must therefore learn.


I cannot say that I know Brahman fully. Nor can I say that I know him not. He among us knows him best who understand the spirit of the words: "Nor do I know that I know not."


He truly knows Brahman who knows him as beyond knowledge; he who thinks that he knows knows not. The ignorant think that Brahman is known, but the wise know him to be beyond knowledge.


He who realizes the existence of Brahman behind every activity of his being--whether sensing, perceiving, or thinking--he alone gains immortality.


Through knowledge of Brahman comes power. Through knowledge of Brahman comes victory over death. Blessed is the man who while he yet lives realizes Brahman. The man who realizes him not suffers his greatest loss.


When they depart this life, the wise, who have realized Brahman as the Self in all beings, become immortal.
--Kena Upanishad:

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

IMO the epithets used for brahman such as "indescribable", ineffable" and "beyond knowledge and comprehension" should be understood from the reference of a limited mind, a mind limited by time. But when you are realized and become timeless yourself, your self essentially dissolves in brahman and you are brahman itself and so you do not have to to be bothered about knowing and not knowing. That is the spirit IMO in which the upanishad needs to be interpreted.

Dear Sravna,

I beg to differ in your conclusion cos what I qouted was from the Kenopanishad.

Not Knowing is Knowing

If you think that you know well in truth of Brahman, know that you know little. What you think to be Brahman in your self, or what you think to be Brahman in the gods--that is not Brahman. What is indeed the truth of Brahman you must therefore learn.


I cannot say that I know Brahman fully. Nor can I say that I know him not. He among us knows him best who understand the spirit of the words: "Nor do I know that I know not."


He truly knows Brahman who knows him as beyond knowledge; he who thinks that he knows knows not. The ignorant think that Brahman is known, but the wise know him to be beyond knowledge.


He who realizes the existence of Brahman behind every activity of his being--whether sensing, perceiving, or thinking--he alone gains immortality.


Through knowledge of Brahman comes power. Through knowledge of Brahman comes victory over death. Blessed is the man who while he yet lives realizes Brahman. The man who realizes him not suffers his greatest loss.


When they depart this life, the wise, who have realized Brahman as the Self in all beings, become immortal.
--Kena Upanishad:

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

IMO the epithets used for brahman such as "indescribable", ineffable" and "beyond knowledge and comprehension" should be understood from the reference of a limited mind, a mind limited by time. But when you are realized and become timeless yourself, your self essentially dissolves in brahman and you are brahman itself and so you do not have to to be bothered about knowing and not knowing. That is the spirit IMO in which the upanishad needs to be interpreted.

I still beg to differ..cos you have used the word Bothered here.
Do not have to be bothered is used when you are rejecting or denying something.
What is it you are rejecting or denying here Sravna?

 

[sravna]

Ok, sorry about that. I wanted to convey that the realized soul itself is beyond anything.

I still beg to differ..cos you have used the word Bothered here.
Do not have to be bothered is used when you are rejecting or denying something.
What is it you are rejecting or denying here Sravna?

 

[renuka]

Ok, sorry about that. I wanted to convey that the realized soul itself is beyond anything.

Ok Sravna..lets keep things simple..

Just say an orange wants to know about an apple..orange can only know about apple if he becomes an apple.

Ok just say orange does tapas for many years and asks Lord Brahma that he wants to know about apple.

Lord Brahma turns orange into an apple and Lo behold Orange has become Apple.

Ok what I am trying to say is did Orange actually know Apple?
No isnt it? Cos Orange is Apple now!! and Apple doesnt really need to know all about Apples.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

There's no orange in the first place. Realiizing that it is indeed only apple is the crux. That is the realization.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

There's no orange in the first place. Realiizing that it is indeed only apple is the crux. That is the realization.

Ok Sravna..in that case I have one question, do you(Sravna) exists?

 

[sravna]

Ok Sravna..in that case I have one question, do you(Sravna) exists?

Yes as a relative reality.

 

[renuka]

Yes as a relative reality.

Therefore Orange is also a relative reality.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Orange is a relative reality or it is a reality only as long as it doesn't realize its true identity.

 

[renuka]

Ok Sravna..from Orange and Apples lets discuss this:

Aparoksha Anubhuti of Adi Shankaracharya

Stanza 108/109

Who can describe That(i.e. Brahman) whence words turn away?(So silence is inevitable while describing Brahman).
Or if the phenomenal world were to be also described,even that is beyond words.
This, to give an alternate definition,may be also termed silence known among the sages as congenital.
The observance of silence by restraining speech, on the other hand, is ordained by the teachers of Brahman for the ignorant.