Nature of Consciousness
Vaidya_Sundaram at I2.COM
Sat Jul 24 15:27:46 CDT 1999
> I respect that quality deeply. However I would respect even more deeply an
> admission that, while they may contribute greatly to the wisdom of mankind,
> the Vedas do not necessarily include all possible wisdom, and could even
> contain some errors. You have made it abundantly clear that this is asking
> too much.
I have done my best to follow the discussion on this thread. Surely several
interesting and important points have come out.
Now, however, as much as I hate to say this, the discussion has begun to digress
from the subject. Fundamentally, I am not in any way qualified to make
judgements on the correctness of your interpretation of your experiences
and the reasons you attribute to them. At the same time, without having a
full knowledge of the Vedas, it is impossible for any one else make a
statement that the Vedas cannot be the sum of knowledge. I quote below
from the Introduction of the vivekachUdAmani:
"Vedanta relates to the realm of the super-sensuous and we must rely on the
declaration of sruti which contains the revelation by those endowed with a
spiritual vision of these transcendental truths. It is not for us, who do
not NOW posses such vision, being caught up in the world of sense, to
question the validity of or the value of Sruti."
That said, I am sure you see the inherent bias I am bringing to this
1) I take to heart the very first line of Sri Shankara's VivekachUdAmani i.e.
nara janma durlabham ... it is difficult to attain birth as a human. I
dont intend spending time to prove for myself why the sruti is
indispensable and infallible. To paraphrase Sri Anantharama Dikshidhar,
the guy handling the signals for a train, only shows a flag .. he does not
actually stand in front of the train and say "DONT" ... so also with the
sruti teachings. they only "flag" you ... they dont drag you by the hand
... as much as I may wish it would !
2) I am not against the concept of a revelation that points me the right
direction to find "that by which every thing else is known" for the
finding is still mine.
Besides, I am still not clear of one thing. I hope you (or other members) could
sort this for me please ... you are taking observations made by the
senses, in the material realm and using reasoning learned by using the
same senses. Can you realistically expect to use **only** these
observations and using **only** these reasonings to make predictions of
some thing which by default is outside the system. Its like saying the
three dimensional world is a three dimensional shadow of a four
dimensional world because the three dimensional world ... blah blah ...
you can only go so far. I think the same holds true of the arguments of
trying to explain "consciousness" using our observations we make now ...
you can only go so far.
I hope the list member(s) realise that there is no "admission" to be made on the
bhava shankara desikama sharaNam
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list