|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 5, 2013 23:24:08 GMT -6
Well, someday perhaps you can ask him. In the meantime, we have his works. It is great working on his Ujjvala-nilamani, which I consider his masterpiece. One really begins to get a feel for the author. The verses are delightful and one can almost perceive a mischievous smile on his face. One also gets a feel for the massiveness on the endeavor he undertook to write the book. There are 1400 and change verses in the text, most of them written by him. How did he do it sitting there in Vraja under a tree? Of course, we have to take into account the fact that Sri Jiva edited the book and often he mentions alternative versions of the verses in his commentary. But, still Jiva was also sitting under a tree or perhaps in a small hut under a tree. Most of this was done in their minds. Copying books was difficult and paper or palm leaves were not to be wasted. Anyway, it is a huge tribute to the power of the mind. My mind would not have been strong enough. This "mischievous smile" makes the thing, as for me. These days I've been thinking about this smile and how "human" and "divine" are interacted. Nitai dasji, perhaps God is not so important for those relishers-rasikas of Vraja... Maybe they wrote something about Bhagavan and Brahman just to be understood by religious people? Maybe Deity for them is not God or Brahman but their dear friend (and to hell all rational explanation why he stands moveless and silent)? I think you are on to something here. Ultimately, Krsna just becomes a friend, a son, a lover. The whole God-thing is a distraction, both for him and us. The God-creature relationship just can't be a healthy one for either party. I think Visvanatha is right: lila trumps siddhanta. It is just so durn clever. Many's the time when I slap the desk and let out a laugh when I realize what Rupa has Krsna and the gopis do and say. Other times it is just sweet, like the story of the least attractive gopi (chapter 6, I think). Rupa's portrayal of her humility melts the heart. Good idea. I guess one good source would be the Bhakta-mala of Nabhaji. What other sources do you have in mind? Were you the one who suggested cleaning up and organizing these threads when I was away? That would be another good thing. This board has become like a maze. Even I don't know everything that's here or where to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 16, 2013 12:44:27 GMT -6
Just a quick note. I am gradually going through all the memberships and close the accounts of those who have not visited for three years or more. If you have a membership and have not been around for a long time (two years or more) you might find that your account has disappeared. If you want to participate, you will have to apply for membership again.
I would like to try to rearrange some of the discussions so that they are more logical and better ordered. That will take some time. This symposium has been around a long time. Plus, I am just learning this new interface. It works quite differently from the old one. If anyone wants to help, let me know.
N
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 21, 2013 22:02:38 GMT -6
Here is a passage from chapter 22 of Trevor Leggett's The Chapter of the Self (151-2):
After Knowledge, the karma-already-in-operation, namely the undertakings and obligations and promises and so on which a manhas assumed in his present role in life, still produces likes and dislikes, though the objects are known to be illusory. The injunctions to meditate are to prevent these memories from reinforcing each other. When left alone they die out.
For instance, to Knowledge, the functioning of the world is a conscious movement, purposeful and beautiful. But memories of the materialist view may bring up the conviction that it is like an unconscious mechanism. 'If a ball is struck, it flies off; the movement can be predicted and calculated. Its flight is the result of blind forces - there is no need to suppose any conscious controller.' The Knower throws off that view of unconscious cause-and-effect sequence. The predictions can indeed be made, but because they are the same thing as predicting the next note of a tune that one knows. Each note is a conscious free expression of the universal Musician; the earlier notes do not cause the later ones, though there is a relation between them which may be partly known.
It may be said: 'What is the difference in practice between a mechanical cause-and-effect sequence and the notions of free expression on pre-determined lines?' It is the difference between a pianola and a master pianist. With the former, the notes are all played, in the sequence, but there is little beauty; they are all the same strength. With the musician, there are shades of intonation which give expression to the music. The musician has himself chosen the music freely; he does not now express his freedom by altering the notes, though of course he could do so. His freedom is in maintaining the sequence of the notes; contrary to the assumptions of the materialist, unless there were an intelligent controller, the surface order would lapse into chaos. Even the materialist assumptions, if carried to their logical conclusion, must predict ultimate chaos, because it is accepted that at the most fundamental level there is uncertainty. Suppose a simple wheel, mounted without friction so that it can turn freely around its axis, which passes through the centre of the wheel. If the wheel is set in movement by an initial turn, it will keep on moving indefinitely. Since there is always some uncertainty in the initial velocity, if we wait sufficiently long, the position of the wheel will be completely undetermined. This is one of the reasons why Shankara insists that there must be an intelligent controller of even the simplest movements of nature, like water flowing. He says that the control is exercised from within, by the Lord as the inner controller.
[This is one of the clearest expressions I have found of the difference between a spiritualist/theist worldview and materialistic worldview. It involves, essentially denying, on the part of the spiritualist, the reality of causality, which is the basis of science. It is not the cause that produces the effect. They are each, cause and effect, produced independently of each other by a third force, the inner controller, and really have no connection with each other. The sense that there is a regularity in the world is not the result of causality at all, but the result of the will of the inner controller who chooses to always produce things in a certain order, like a musician playing a certain set piece of music. He/she could change the order of the notes but chooses not to. Does anyone else find this denial of causality unsettling?]
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Apr 22, 2013 0:43:37 GMT -6
Trevor Leggett makes a point: causality cannot be proven. To extol the theistic view he tries to show the atheist view as meaningless. And for this he extends the argument of the atheist of the ultimate uncertainty. This is called 'jalpa' in the nyaya, I believe. I find the support of his view in the Mahabharata's statement that tarka (logic) is limited. After all, science depends on logic and music does not. To picture the Reality as a great artistic (musical) performance is always convincing, especially if such presentation sounds like music in itself. Hiromu Arakawa: 'It's a cruel and random world, but the chaos is all so beautiful.' To my personal taste the first notes of the Big Bang tune were those ones: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Apr 23, 2013 4:09:12 GMT -6
... But he refers to Sankara, and it would be nice to see the exact words of Sankara, what he says of causality (I believe, here would be some paramarthika/vyavaharika stuff involved).
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 24, 2013 15:11:14 GMT -6
Trevor Leggett makes a point: causality cannot be proven. To extol the theistic view he tries to show the atheist view as meaningless. And for this he extends the argument of the atheist of the ultimate uncertainty. This is called 'jalpa' in the nyaya, I believe. I find the support of his view in the Mahabharata's statement that tarka (logic) is limited. After all, science depends on logic and music does not. To picture the Reality as a great artistic (musical) performance is always convincing, especially if such presentation sounds like music in itself. Hiromu Arakawa: 'It's a cruel and random world, but the chaos is all so beautiful.' To my personal taste the first notes of the Big Bang tune were those ones: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o It is true that causality cannot be proven, but it also cannot be disproven. This is, of course, the great philosophical problem of Hume and Kant. Though it cannot be proven it always seems to work. I have good reason to believe that the keys I pound on this keyboard create little electronic impulses that are turned into letters on a computer screen that can be read and understood by others all around the world. So do you. It is hard to imagine each of the links in that chain of causes and effects being independently created by an Inner Controller (at least for me). That too is a kind of causation. So I guess causation is not being denied so much as differently conceived or analyzed. How does one make a science out of the acts of a capricious controller who can change his melody at any time? It is nice to think of oneself as part of a cosmic symphony, but pushed to its logical extreme (jalpa) it can become as frightening, as uncertain, and as meaningless as anything an atheist can come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 24, 2013 15:34:48 GMT -6
... But he refers to Sankara, and it would be nice to see the exact words of Sankara, what he says of causality (I believe, here would be some paramarthika/vyavaharika stuff involved). Leggett apparently knew Sankara's work well. He quotes him all the time, unfortunately not with references to specific passages. I would also like to know where and how Sankara said what Leggett claims he did.
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Apr 24, 2013 23:10:54 GMT -6
Nitai dasji, besides, Legget (or Sankara?) just plays well known tune Not even a blade of grass moves with some alteration, isn't it? I don't really get how his playing the theist's music can be frightening for an atheist. God, Controller, remains not proven, he should not frighten a non-believer.
Let me put some argument. Alright, the causality occupies our lifes, and it is difficult to deny. But isn't the idea of our being creatures programmed with instincts occupies our lifes too? Instincts are a kinda causes. Intelligence is often seen as a tool to overcome those instincts and to see some hidden causes and effects in life. But again, the atheist comes to a conclusion of his being a machine: if no brain, no body - then no life. The Intelligence comes up to be a tool to see unevitable. The causality in its logical extreme makes one a slave of a program. And that can be frightening.
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Apr 26, 2013 2:10:11 GMT -6
Some more thoughts on causality with reference to Sankara's teachings. Sankara speaks a lot on causality in his Gita-bhasya. There is one point he repeats over and over again: knowledge is freedom from a nightmare of doership. Action is superimposed on the Self. For instance, in 18.66 comm. prescribed karma is said to be like a fairy tale given to a child or a lunatic to make him take milk. Thus the real fruit of ritualistic karma is not in certain effects of action but in the desire to get knowledge of the Self. Nature of causes and effects (Prakriti) is defined as ignorance in itself in 13.22 comm. Nitai dasji, here I'd like to zoom in particular what I take as a 'purva-paksa'. It is hard to imagine each of the links in that chain of causes and effects being independently created by an Inner Controller (at least for me). That too is a kind of causation. So I guess causation is not being denied so much as differently conceived or analyzed. How does one make a science out of the acts of a capricious controller who can change his melody at any time? Well, another causality placed over comprehensive causality does not look good, I agree. But the idea of Leggett's, I think, can be taken as such that the Controller never change His melody; His being capricious or not capricious is all the same. Whatever the Great Musician plays is just His own expression and totally there is only one melody, that is Nature. And that 'play' of the Great Musician is just a metaphor since in reality Paramatma is free from action. It is more like His breath, if we go closer to the concept of creation in the sruti. There is a lengthly discussion in the Sankara's 18.48 comm. of how things, like a pot etc., at first are non-existant, then exist, and then cease to exist. He analyses and rejects different theories like Vaisesika, Sankhya etc. and makes a conclusion that there is only one thing at all in existance, that thing is called Sat. Variety of things in the world is a mere imagination; just like two moons in the sky are not two but they are seen as such by a person with a distorted vision. Then he answers to a question: so why actions should be meaningful at all (as the Gita's verse 18.48 suggests)? The conclusion of Sankara's: action is for less intelligent. And it is justified by previous verses of the Gita in the chapter 5 of karma-yoga and the like. I think these exerpts are good selection to mention in the matter of Sankara's opinion on causality. Being oneself a part of Cosmic Simphony is shown in Sankara's teaching as a futile idea, but complete absorbance in the personality of the Great Musician is welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 29, 2013 10:54:18 GMT -6
Some more thoughts on causality with reference to Sankara's teachings. Sankara speaks a lot on causality in his Gita-bhasya. There is one point he repeats over and over again: knowledge is freedom from a nightmare of doership. Action is superimposed on the Self. For instance, in 18.66 comm. prescribed karma is said to be like a fairy tale given to a child or a lunatic to make him take milk. Thus the real fruit of ritualistic karma is not in certain effects of action but in the desire to get knowledge of the Self. Nature of causes and effects (Prakriti) is defined as ignorance in itself in 13.22 comm. Nitai dasji, here I'd like to zoom in particular what I take as a 'purva-paksa'. It is hard to imagine each of the links in that chain of causes and effects being independently created by an Inner Controller (at least for me). That too is a kind of causation. So I guess causation is not being denied so much as differently conceived or analyzed. How does one make a science out of the acts of a capricious controller who can change his melody at any time? Well, another causality placed over comprehensive causality does not look good, I agree. But the idea of Leggett's, I think, can be taken as such that the Controller never change His melody; His being capricious or not capricious is all the same. Whatever the Great Musician plays is just His own expression and totally there is only one melody, that is Nature. And that 'play' of the Great Musician is just a metaphor since in reality Paramatma is free from action. It is more like His breath, if we go closer to the concept of creation in the sruti. There is a lengthly discussion in the Sankara's 18.48 comm. of how things, like a pot etc., at first are non-existant, then exist, and then cease to exist. He analyses and rejects different theories like Vaisesika, Sankhya etc. and makes a conclusion that there is only one thing at all in existance, that thing is called Sat. Variety of things in the world is a mere imagination; just like two moons in the sky are not two but they are seen as such by a person with a distorted vision. Then he answers to a question: so why actions should be meaningful at all (as the Gita's verse 18.48 suggests)? The conclusion of Sankara's: action is for less intelligent. And it is justified by previous verses of the Gita in the chapter 5 of karma-yoga and the like. I think these exerpts are good selection to mention in the matter of Sankara's opinion on causality. Being oneself a part of Cosmic Simphony is shown in Sankara's teaching as a futile idea, but complete absorbance in the personality of the Great Musician is welcomed. You make some good points here, kirtaniya. And thanks for pointing out those passages of Sankara's comm. I will look at those more closely. My question is this: if the Musician never changes his melody, how do we know he can? How do we even know a musician exists? It is in the irregularities that one is able to spot an outside hand. If there never are irregularities or if the irregularities turn out on closer inspection to be regularities of a new order, then there is no reason to imagine up a controller behind the scenes. Leggett's example of the pianola is not very convincing. Nowadays, programs can produce music with all kinds of variations in speed and loudness. One cannot tell the difference between such a program and a live musician. The thing that strikes me about Leggett's characterization is working from the same data, the world as we experience it, one can get two feasible worldviews which are completely opposed to each other, the atheist's and the theist's. The end result of both is actually pretty much the same. In the atheist's view causality rules and living beings are completely determined. In the theist's view causality is denied and every action is caused instead by the inner controller. The living being is similarly thus indetermined, one might even say non-existent. In other words, in both views the living being amounts to essentially nothing (a causally determined nothing or a inner controller indeterminate nothing).
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on May 2, 2013 7:02:59 GMT -6
Anybody touched any works of Meher Baba?
|
|
kalki
Full Member
Posts: 161
|
Post by kalki on May 5, 2013 13:59:31 GMT -6
I would like to try to rearrange some of the discussions so that they are more logical and better ordered. That will take some time. This symposium has been around a long time. Plus, I am just learning this new interface. It works quite differently from the old one. If anyone wants to help, let me know. N I sent you a message some time ago about wanting to help you rearrange some of the discussions. I noticed last year that some discussions could better be in a different place or when they go off into another direction, then perhaps mods or anyone with admin facility should split the discussion, re-title it, etc. So if the old mods here are bored or don't log in enough to do that stuff, I would help you. The amount of time I have to do that kind of stuff varies but I am sure that I could help to make some impact in organizing. Please let me know if you would like me to help.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 8, 2013 15:11:12 GMT -6
I would like to try to rearrange some of the discussions so that they are more logical and better ordered. That will take some time. This symposium has been around a long time. Plus, I am just learning this new interface. It works quite differently from the old one. If anyone wants to help, let me know. N I sent you a message some time ago about wanting to help you rearrange some of the discussions. I noticed last year that some discussions could better be in a different place or when they go off into another direction, then perhaps mods or anyone with admin facility should split the discussion, re-title it, etc. So if the old mods here are bored or don't log in enough to do that stuff, I would help you. The amount of time I have to do that kind of stuff varies but I am sure that I could help to make some impact in organizing. Please let me know if you would like me to help. Hi kalki, Yes, I noticed your message when I returned to the forum. I would love for you to help organize this forum. It has been growing like a cancer for years and now it is a maze from which one might never emerge. Yes, indeed conversations and disputes spring up all over the place in whatever thread happens to be convenient. I will make you a moderator so you can try to bring some order to it all. Thanks, bro.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 8, 2013 15:24:34 GMT -6
Anybody touched any works of Meher Baba? What? None of our learned scholars have anything to say about Meher Baba? I am afraid I know next to nothing about him, too. I do recall one saying attributed to him: Pour your drop into my ocean. I've carried this with me since I was young and have no idea when and where I picked it up. It looks like it might be up to you fiorafemere to educate us about him. What do you know about him? What books has he written or has someone simply collected some of his sayings and teachings together? I am reading a book by Nisargadatta Maharaja called I Am That. It was collected together by his disciples out of conversations and satsangas with him. He himself was illiterate. It is an interesting book, naturally expounding the advaita side of the acintya-bhedabheda enigma.
|
|
kalki
Full Member
Posts: 161
|
Post by kalki on May 9, 2013 10:32:30 GMT -6
Yes, indeed conversations and disputes spring up all over the place in whatever thread happens to be convenient. I will make you a moderator so you can try to bring some order to it all. Thanks, bro. Sure, bro...I will start this weekend with checking out the discussion that I was involved with to check if there is a way to organize portions of the thread into split topics. Though I have worked in moderating another discussion forum, I have never worked with a software that allows to split threads and so forth. I have only ever seen it done with the Invision Board software but never have done it myself. So it will all be very interesting and I will let you know how it is going.
|
|