Reality is that which never changes; that which is the only existent, conscious ‘thing’, which lacks nothing and is limitless. Every, seeming ‘thing’ in creation is, on the other hand, transient and limited.
But this view of (pointer to) reality is not the only viable view, right? I mean viable in general, not within the Advaita worldview.
Couldn’t we say, instead, that reality is whatever happens to exist, in this moment, in the consciousness of the beholder? Reality as qualia, as subjective experience. In which case every seeming thing that exists in the moment is real (in the moment).
Or that reality is change, is transformation?
Or that reality is a concept that points to ___________ (the mystery)?
A question that is often asked of me is why YogavAsiShTa is not as popular as Bhagavad-Gita.
[Frankly, I am not sure if that is true and if so why it is so. I spell out a few of my thoughts to start a healthy discussion.]
In my own case, it was Bhagavad-Gita that I was first exposed to, even as a teenager, and it was much later in my life after my pate turned bald and the few hairs that remained acquired a silver gray hue, that I happened to study YogavAsiShTa. I can say with certitude that both books must have been equally present in my house when I was growing up with my parents. Could it be that my parents somehow conspired to see that I did not get access to read the YogavAsiShTa in my youth because of my mother’s apprehension or belief in an adage that was popular in those times that one who reads YogavAsiShTa would surely fling the family life and retire to a forest as a Sannyasi (renunciate)? Continue reading →
Answer: In Sanskrit a person who is ‘realized’ is called a jnani (someone who knows), or better yet, someone who has recognized that the truth of the individual self, and the truth of the entire world of name and form is one ‘thing’ alone.
One thing that is not a thing, not an object of cognition, yet intimately known as ‘I’—changeless, ever present, limitless, unaffected by the changing circumstances of duality, and at the same time, the underlying reality of all changing things. Continue reading →
Q: I’m struggling (a lot) with ‘believing in’ Brahman.
I realize the problems inherent in this struggle: (1) It’s probably futile in my early stage of Advaita studies; (2) Brahman is beyond mind, so any attempt to truly apprehend it is doomed to failure. And yet I persist. 😉
I can walk with Advaita Vedanta through all the Neti-ing – I/Truth am not this, not this – but when Advaita makes the leap to IS THIS … I shake my head and turn away. Brahman seems like an abstraction born of fear/uncertainty, like other similar abstractions such as Heaven, The Ground, The Truth, etc. (I am not saying I know that Brahman IS an abstraction born of fear, rather that it seems to me that it could be.)
So I keep looking for analogies, things I can/do or ‘believe in’ that might be similar enough to Brahman that I could relax into it a bit.
Today I thought: Perhaps Brahman is (quasi-)synonymous with Nature? Nature – ‘everything that is’ – is all-encompassing in a way that suggests Brahman to me. Science’s take on Nature is conceptual, but the essence of Nature is, I think, not conceptual.
So: ‘Everything that is’ + non-conceptual – this sounds Brahman-esque to me. Yes? No?Continue reading →
This November, attend a stage production like no other! Chinmaya Mission UK brings you…The Ramayana. Through dazzling drama, dance and music, discover the mysticism and significance of one of India’s greatest epics. There will be three shows.
Leicester – Peepul Centre: Saturday 4 November 2017, 3.30-6.30pm
Central London – Logan Hall: Friday 10 November 2017, 7-10pm
Harrow – Elliot Hall: Sunday 19 November 2017, 3.30-6.30pm
There is one desire which is considered to be benign, and that is the desire for moksha. A person who desires moksha wants something to change. He or she does not know what moksha is but that person has recognized ‘the problem.’ Continue reading →