Feeling God-Vs-Seeing God
Theism is hijacked by religion. God is basically abstract. In fact what we
see with our eyes is just 00.35% of the totality, the remaining being the
invisible, which can be felt and languaged only in abstract nouns. But the
very reach of the abstract nouns is very small and infinitesimal, compared
to the infinity or the Universe, and we can coin abstract nouns only from
our earth, which just is very tiny compared to the universe. Our Sages have
been trying to feel the gigantic universe, by first shutting their eyes and
then by making the mind blank. But Languaging the tiny insights they might
have experienced from our tiny earth, is almost impossible, as most
languages are tied to the visible spectrum. They experience overwhelming
and brilliant flashes of revelations, for which there are no words. They
depend on trying to make others feel their feeling of revelations, often
without words.
God is in the realm of abstract feelings. To feel God, one needs free, lush
and thick nature, where one enters the basic and elementary language of
nature, in the shape of musics and songs. The music and song take one into
the realm of the abstract storm of exhilaration, the surreal world of real
reality. But they are the flows of inspirations that induct the power of
nature enabling the teaming up with nature. Teaming up with nature means
totally forgetting everything and feeling nature rapturously.
Raja ram Sir, has just sent his post on the moment of death, I have to read
it and as all his posts are, they demand a lot of contemplation. It is good
he has taken to give his own contributions, instead of merely responding to
the posts of others.
But at the moment of death one must feel the gigantic infinity, making
one’s brief existence in life tiny and taking one to the ultimate bliss of
peace. Compared to the space-time of the universe, one’s space-time as life
is just a tiny or nano speck.
The Universe is the gigantic arena of feeling of God, not amenable to the
feelings-less machines. Machines, say telescopes etc cannot locate feelings
and ideas.
We need nature, but as the worst lunatics, we are destroying nature, and
are making mathematics and mechanics out of the destruction, called
economics.
YM
KR Kandavar vindilar vindavar kandilar; means one who spoke about GOD
had not seen HIM; and one who had seen HIM are not aLIVE TO SAY ABOUT IT.
>From my old blogger
KANDAVAR VINDILAR,VINDAVAR KANDILAR
I happen to go thru certain finer blog on
Vedic scriptures and found that some comments of the people who made them,
were real thinking, but required counter comments and accordingly made
those comments as “KR”. My knowledge is poor yet they may be the
productive sense. Welcome.
Therefore the saying "The knower of
Brahman is (becomes) Brahman" -- Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati! The
understanding of Brahman (i.e the absolute) must also be absolute, the
person who understands must also be absolute, and the means of
understanding must similarly be absolute. Since this is not possible, we
can infer that Brahman cannot be understood in the relative sense.
The following verse (attributed to Krishna in Bhagavad Gita) describes the
same thing within the metaphor of a Vedic yajna: "The sacrifice is to
Brahman, the sacrificial act itself is Brahman, the performer is Brahman,
the offering made in the sacrifice is also Brahman, and the object of doing
the sacrifice is similarly Brahman".
brahmārpaṇaṃ brahma havir brahmāgnau brahmaṇā hutam
brahmaiva tena gantavyaṃ brahma karma samādhinā (Bhagavad Gita 4.24)
The above verse is based on the allegorical meaning contained in the Puruṣa
sūkta (Rigveda 10.90), it will take a long time to explain that.
However please also note that no one can understand Brahman because one can
only understand things by discriminating/differentiating the subject from
other object. Brahman does not fit into the subject or object mould and
cannot be differentiated from or compared with anything else, since
non-duality does not allow comparison or contrast; there is nothing else to
compare with because brahman is nirvisesha (undifferentiated).
*** Yājñavalkya: Just as
you cannot see the seer of the seeing, hear the hearer of the hearing, or
understand the understander of the understanding, or experience the
experiencer of the experience, one cannot "know" the Atman, since it is the
substratum of all that is knowable. It is not an object like a cow or a
horse; hence it cannot be defined or understood. It is the absolute
reality, apart from which everything else is just stupidity and
uselessness. It cannot be reduced to "an understanding"
It may take a few days, or several years (30 years is the average, I
found). But then, at the end of it, you realize that you are chasing your
own tail. That there is no person associated with the “I thought”. That the
identification with a name and a person is itself the Ego. That this ego or
Jeevatma is a non-existent phantom that one has closely identified with by
a gross mistake.
And now that you know that you don’t exist as a separate person, the ego
falls away. And you wonder who was doing the self-enquiry. You dance in joy
having found the ultimate truth, and want to propagate the good news to the
ignoramuses of the world who are suffering unnecessarily. And then it hits
you (that the ego is trying to assert itself in this process), and you
laugh at the situation.
My comment:KR Is not revealing the experience is an unattached action
without any expectation or fruition?
There is NO THING and it appears are EVERYTHING, including one's own body,
mind, ideas, self-identification, other things in the so-called world, etc.
YOU ARE THAT NOTHING-EVERYTHING.
My comment KR : nothing everything is a wrong nomenclature; If brahmam is
truth and others are maya , then there exists a truth and cant sya
everything is nothing; on the contrary after an ordeal of realizing that
virtually there is nothing and therefore nothing in everything, then you
have nothing to disclose; then its falsity cheating the ignorant.
This is what Srikrishna says in the very first part of Gita Chapter 2. We
all suffer because we identify with a personality and a consequent doer
ship/enjoyment ship where none exists. We want to improve ourselves, solve
problems from the ego point of status. And that is the root of all problems.
My comment KR: This is what Buddha thought as right and started a religion
different from sanathana dharma; it’s erroneous to say that there is “no
doer”; “Doer is “Paramatma”; “doing” is “action”; “executor- doer)” is
“Jeevatma”. When the executor doer does not expect the fruition, and acts
on behalf of the doer, action do not bring misery or sufferings.
Personality, ego, Id sub-ego all do exists, along with the Athma, Mind,
manas, yet refraining away from the action. “NA MAMA” is the key word to
stay away from the actions of Karma as well as on site sufferings.
So relax, and start doing the Drik-Drishya vivechanam
: i.e., classify/ identify everything that you encounter as the Subject
(Self) or the Object. You will find that you are ever the subject, and
cannot be objectified. And this subject has no identity, no properties, no
shape, and no limits. It is the Brahman that is talked about.
MY COMMENT KR : ( ?)
At the end of it all, don’t expect to have attained any special powers
(siddhis), or have a special halo around your head. Enlightenment is really
very mundane, and cannot ever be attained by any person (individual
entity). It is the erasure or effacement of the personality that is called
enlightenment.
MY COMMENT KR: (THEN BUDDAH AND MAHAVEER ARE NOT ENLIGHTENED?)
One more word: enlightenment happens for no reason, not because of any
efforts. Because there is no person doing anything. Conceptually it is said
that Athma Sakshatkara (Enlightenment) is obtained by Guru's grace. But
that again is untrue, since once you know that you are no person, the guru
also is seen to be no person, and a non-doer.
(My comment KR: Again wrong. Gita as well as Upanishads, say guru takes
your hand nearer to upasana.)
#1
An enlightened person cannot carry on with his life as before, because he
"the person" does not exist anymore, so unless he has perfected the art of
fooling himself, he can never continue as before just with the conviction
that he is not a person, for a person keeps himself convinced that he is
not a person. Then he is not enlightened in the first place.
MY COMMENT: kr MISUNDERSTANDING. 2ND 4TH 18TH CHAPTERS GITA, “EVEN ONE
WHO REACHED STATUS BRAHMAM HAS TO ACT CONTINUOSLY AND TO ACT
PERSONIFICATION IS REQUIRED VIZ YOU PLAY WITH THE CHILD, IN CHILDISH
MANNER, KNOWING FULLY WELL YOU ARE NO CHILD.
#3
All is one? You have now entered the realm of mathematics by your use of
numbers by claiming all is one. So it should make mathematical sense. Is
All = one mathematically? I don’t think so. Even if it is, what is the big
deal? What you think of as "one" is thought of by others as "all", and if
the all is one, and one is all, enlightenment is a waste. One doesn’t need
to get realized to claim all is one. Enlightenment is not an assertion of
facts. It is unknowable and cannot be reduced to such equations as all = 1.
MY COMMENT KR ENLIGHTMENT MAKES YOU SEE “ATHMA IN EVERY SPECIES AND ITS NOT
DISTINGUISHABLE.”
#6
if Brahman is really the one and all of us is non-persons, and then it's
Brahman who needs to get enlightened, for Brahman didn’t get non-dual
realization. It therefore follows that Brahman is not the one, Brahman is
not singular, and Brahman is not even countable, and all cannot be one.
This is one of the cardinal delusions that self-proclaimed advaitins get
into, by claiming that All = Brahman = One, so all = Brahman, Brahman =
one, and one = all. Advaita is not about the unity of all things, nor is it
about identifying everything or anything with Brahman.
MY COMMENT KR: I FIND DELUSION HERE. ADVAITHAM IS TWO, OR TWO IN ONE OR ONE
AND THE SAME,TILL THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCESS OF THE REALIZATION. HAVE
YOU SEEN THE PAINTING OF LEONOR DE VINCE, TWO HANDS SO CLOSE YET TOO FAR?
PARAMATHMA AND JEEVATHMA ARE INSIDE US, IN ALL SPECIES, AND THE VEIL HAS O
BE PIERCED TO BECOME ONE. ADVAITHA INCLUDES IN ITSELF ,VISIHTADVAITHAM AS
WELLAS DVAITHAM. AHAM BRAMASMI WILL BY CONTINUOUS ACTION WILL ENTAIL YOU TO
ADVAITHAM WHICH IS ULTIMAE.TIRUMOOLAR SAID THAT “MARATHIL MARAINDADU MAMADA
YANAI, MARATHAI MARAITHATHU MAMADA YANAI, ‘”. YOU LOOK AT IT ANY WAY AND
WHEN ONE KNOWS BOTH MARAM AND YANAI ARE ONE AND THE SAME, ADVAITHAM EXPOSES
THE REALISATION.
Brahman (and the real I) is beyond concepts, and cannot be grasped by the
mind. Enlightenment consists is doing all the enquiries (yes, average 30
years for all spiritual seekers who were following Nisargadatta), the mind
losing its battle, understanding its own limitation, and just slumping and
surrendering. The sense of ego just drops at that point, saranagathi
happens, and nothing is the same ever after. All this is difficult to put
in concepts that the mind can understand, and unless one goes through the
process of enquiry, the mind will always try to understand, compare,
conceptualize, grasp, etc. *that* something in which the mind itself is an
appearance.
MY COMMENT KR :( GOING TOWARDS MADWA AND RAMANUJA, NOT ADI SANKARA)
MOM EKAM SARANAM VRAJA, IS REALISATION OF ONE AND ONLY TRUTH; THAT BRIGHT
LIGHT, PARA BRAHMAM, BEYOND THE BRAHMAM; INACTIVE BRAHMAM HAS TO BE RE
BORN; (CHANDOKYA UPANISHAD—TWO PATHS ARE CHOSEN, ONE COMIN BACK AND THE
OTHER, “NO ONE HAD RETURNED BACK”) IMMATURED COMMENTATORS SAY KRISHNA IS
SUPREME AND ONE HAS TO SURRENDER, LIKE THE SAYINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN
PRECHERS. IT’S SPOKEN OUT OF POSSESSIVE ATTITUDE, ITS GOOD BUT NOT THE BEST.
No you, no world, no God, nothing. Know you, know world, and know God
MY COMMEN KR : HENCE PERHAPS FOR FEAR OF WRONG CONCEPTION OF SPREAD OF
ATHIESM, KANDAVAR VINDILAR
Krishna Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or what
have you, are all trips in the wrong direction: they are all within the
field of time.
( VIDE MY COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT MOM EKAM )
The timeless can never be experienced, can never be grasped, contained,
much less given expression to, by any man.
( MY COMMENT KR: QUANTUM THEORY OR THEORY OF RELATIVITY )
Once one advances by doing drik/drishya analysis and neti-neti, of negating
oneself as not the body, not the mind, and not the person, there still
remains the act of seeing, hearing, and so on. Now, this perception is done
by the NOTHING, the beingness, or Brahman.
This could be termed Atmasakshatkara.
MY COMMENT KR: SO NOTHING IS ANY THINK-END OF THINKING SAT CIT ANANDA
But this is not the end of it. It is relatively easy to accept one's own
absence, but very difficult to see that everything else is similarly the
NOTHING that he himself is. This is the ultimate realization if there is
one. And then one understands the statement Vaasudeva idam sarvam.This is
true advaitic understanding.
MY COMMENT KR: AGAIN WRONG MENTIONING VASUDEVAM;IT IS INDECRIBABLE POORNAM.
POORNAMIDAM SARVAM
Atma cannot be communicated, nor known directly, because, again, it remains
the subject that cognizes thing, and never the other way
1. Deep misunderstanding. All subjects are ipso-facto objects. If there is
one subject, then there is ipso-facto at least one object (like if there is
night, there definitely is day; if there is joy, there is definitely
sorrow; and so forth), which is called duality or relativity (dvaita). So
you are advocating dvaita in the guise of Advaita, and not surprisingly, it
has logical fallacies.
2. Cognition needs a cognizer (i.e a mind). Since atman is not a mind, it
cannot cognize anything.
3. All cognizers can cognize themselves, because of the law of general
relativity. Atman cannot cognize itself since it does not have the means of
cognition. Further, the subject cannot be multiple; it should be one, only
then is cognition of an object possible. Therefore atman can neither be a
subject nor an object.
MY COMMENT KR : IT IS SUBJECTIVE OBJECT OR THE OBJECTIVE SUBJECT;THE
PERCIEVER IS THE PERCIEVED; DRIK-DRISHYA VEDANTHAM
-------------KR IRS
27123
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 17:35, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*Feeling God-Vs-Seeing God
>
>
>
> Theism is hijacked by religion. God is basically abstract. In fact what we
> see with our eyes is just 00.35% of the totality, the remaining being the
> invisible, which can be felt and languaged only in abstract nouns. But the
> very reach of the abstract nouns is very small and infinitesimal, compared
> to the infinity or the Universe, and we can coin abstract nouns only from
> our earth, which just is very tiny compared to the universe. Our Sages have
> been trying to feel the gigantic universe, by first shutting their eyes and
> then by making the mind blank. But Languaging the tiny insights they might
> have experienced from our tiny earth, is almost impossible, as most
> languages are tied to the visible spectrum. They experience overwhelming
> and brilliant flashes of revelations, for which there are no words. They
> depend on trying to make others feel their feeling of revelations, often
> without words.
>
> God is in the realm of abstract feelings. To feel God, one needs free,
> lush and thick nature, where one enters the basic and elementary language
> of nature, in the shape of musics and songs. The music and song take one
> into the realm of the abstract storm of exhilaration, the surreal world of
> real reality. But they are the flows of inspirations that induct the power
> of nature enabling the teaming up with nature. Teaming up with nature means
> totally forgetting everything and feeling nature rapturously.
>
> Raja ram Sir, has just sent his post on the moment of death, I have to
> read it and as all his posts are, they demand a lot of contemplation. It is
> good he has taken to give his own contributions, instead of merely
> responding to the posts of others.
>
> But at the moment of death one must feel the gigantic infinity, making
> one’s brief existence in life tiny and taking one to the ultimate bliss of
> peace. Compared to the space-time of the universe, one’s space-time as life
> is just a tiny or nano speck.
>
> The Universe is the gigantic arena of feeling of God, not amenable to the
> feelings-less machines. Machines, say telescopes etc cannot locate feelings
> and ideas.
>
> We need nature, but as the worst lunatics, we are destroying nature, and
> are making mathematics and mechanics out of the destruction, called
> economics.
>
> YM
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorBMfcL0m4NvXYp1DjWDRHJ0F%3Db8H123mV3qcGun4antg%40mail.gmail.com.
