To buy my book 𝑰𝑵𝑸𝑼𝑰𝑹𝒀: www.jijnasu.yoga/inquiry The book decrypts the basis of all the four streams of Yoga in a simple, non-jargonish language, and with direct insights, clears the clutter that often haunts a spiritual seeker. Get your copy today!
@Jijnasu Bought the book & just started. Thanks a ton. Absolutely true and it is a living reality to me, the constant substratum you point out here As you know, this truth is what described as Sakshi chaitanyam which is Nitya shudhdha, bodhaatmakam in Shaastraas. Further inquiry leads us to experience that, it is Nirguna, same in you & me, and everything. There is sense of vastness and hence Brahman... Further, to give a method to ordinary people, to deal with samsaara, Advaita defines this changeless one as Satyam & All changing ones as Mithyaa...and asks us to anchor ourselves on this changeless reality and play the changing painful samsaara as a game. Merely stating the facts and converting it as a practical tool to deal with daily life need not be admonished as conclusion. Isn't it? What else is the use of recognizing this continuum?
A conclusion is NOT possible. Claiming to have captured life with some kind of number or description is a fallacy. One cannot hold onto some description and say "this is the fact of life". The paradoxical statements of Upanishads is the testimony to this. If you say Advaita is the fact of life, there are others who say different. Both are unwilling to see the simple fact that this matter Cannot be resolved logically. A conclusion can never be a method. Method needs a state of question, not a state of answer. "Continuum" is itself a paradoxical word which cannot lead to a conclusion, but only attention. Once there is psychological investment into some Siddhanta, it is difficult to see this. The book deals with this in detail.
Thanks for caring to reply. Agree that merely taking sidhaanta as a bookish knowledge and passing-by, without striving to experience is, as you say Igknowrance. But Advaita admonishes that and asks one to do : 1 Mananam, a state of questioning and then 2. Nidhidhyasanam (contemplating, meditating and applying on every transaction & make it a living reality). That is the method prescribed. Not staying with conclusion. This my current level of progress. Not fully grasping the nuance you say that is different from Mananam & Nidhidhyasanam. I shall keep the ? alive & go through the book and inquiry 🙏
Exactly. Too many new-age acharyas and newcomers are trying to fit Vedanta as a "philosophy" at a purely mental realm. They are limiting it to the "Manomaya kosha", when the whole effort of spirituality is to go beyond Manomaya and come in contact with subtler realms like Pranamaya and the ones above it.
Tbh I have a disagreement with acharyas of the old also for establishing their sampradayas on Siddhantas or "conclusions". Not dismissing everything they did. But this one aspect. Schools should be based only on methods, and never a conclusion. Because it is not possible to capture life with any kind of conclusion, and holding onto some Siddhanta will be counter productive for a seeker. This is very difficult to make people understand now but I'll try in the future videos.
Any kind of conclusion in general is a problem. When 'God' is involved it will lead to more trouble and mischief, but even otherwise a conclusion creates a problem. Life cannot be captured as 'still' or 'moving', '1' or '2' or whatever else. Whatever attribute we take, if we go into it very logically, we will end up with "both and neither" kind of situations leading to a helplessness of the mental faculty, leaving one in a state of moment-to-moment attentiveness. This emphasis is what is evident in the Upanishads with their paradoxical statements. No philosophical conclusion can be 'proved' logically. Whatever is concluded can be challenged very easily, and turned into an inquiry instead. I intend to talk about this in future.
I have only gone through Tarka sangraha, and I do not see anything specific like that. This may not be a system as such, but what naturally happens when people inquire. Upanishads themselves obviously suggest that by repeatedly making paradoxical statements - either in one breath, or across different Upanishads.
To buy my book 𝑰𝑵𝑸𝑼𝑰𝑹𝒀: www.jijnasu.yoga/inquiry
The book decrypts the basis of all the four streams of Yoga in a simple, non-jargonish language, and with direct insights, clears the clutter that often haunts a spiritual seeker. Get your copy today!
@Jijnasu Bought the book & just started. Thanks a ton.
Absolutely true and it is a living reality to me, the constant substratum you point out here
As you know, this truth is what described as Sakshi chaitanyam which is Nitya shudhdha, bodhaatmakam in Shaastraas.
Further inquiry leads us to experience that, it is Nirguna, same in you & me, and everything. There is sense of vastness and hence Brahman...
Further, to give a method to ordinary people, to deal with samsaara, Advaita defines this changeless one as Satyam & All changing ones as Mithyaa...and asks us to anchor ourselves on this changeless reality and play the changing painful samsaara as a game.
Merely stating the facts and converting it as a practical tool to deal with daily life need not be admonished as conclusion. Isn't it? What else is the use of recognizing this continuum?
A conclusion is NOT possible. Claiming to have captured life with some kind of number or description is a fallacy. One cannot hold onto some description and say "this is the fact of life". The paradoxical statements of Upanishads is the testimony to this. If you say Advaita is the fact of life, there are others who say different. Both are unwilling to see the simple fact that this matter Cannot be resolved logically.
A conclusion can never be a method. Method needs a state of question, not a state of answer. "Continuum" is itself a paradoxical word which cannot lead to a conclusion, but only attention.
Once there is psychological investment into some Siddhanta, it is difficult to see this. The book deals with this in detail.
Thanks for caring to reply.
Agree that merely taking sidhaanta as a bookish knowledge and passing-by, without striving to experience is, as you say Igknowrance.
But Advaita admonishes that and asks one to do : 1 Mananam, a state of questioning and then 2. Nidhidhyasanam (contemplating, meditating and applying on every transaction & make it a living reality). That is the method prescribed. Not staying with conclusion.
This my current level of progress. Not fully grasping the nuance you say that is different from Mananam & Nidhidhyasanam.
I shall keep the ? alive & go through the book and inquiry 🙏
Exactly. Too many new-age acharyas and newcomers are trying to fit Vedanta as a "philosophy" at a purely mental realm. They are limiting it to the "Manomaya kosha", when the whole effort of spirituality is to go beyond Manomaya and come in contact with subtler realms like Pranamaya and the ones above it.
Tbh I have a disagreement with acharyas of the old also for establishing their sampradayas on Siddhantas or "conclusions". Not dismissing everything they did. But this one aspect. Schools should be based only on methods, and never a conclusion. Because it is not possible to capture life with any kind of conclusion, and holding onto some Siddhanta will be counter productive for a seeker. This is very difficult to make people understand now but I'll try in the future videos.
@@JijnasuI think those are more “Bhakti” inclined schools no? Or do you see it in Jnana Yoga schools too?
Any kind of conclusion in general is a problem. When 'God' is involved it will lead to more trouble and mischief, but even otherwise a conclusion creates a problem. Life cannot be captured as 'still' or 'moving', '1' or '2' or whatever else. Whatever attribute we take, if we go into it very logically, we will end up with "both and neither" kind of situations leading to a helplessness of the mental faculty, leaving one in a state of moment-to-moment attentiveness. This emphasis is what is evident in the Upanishads with their paradoxical statements.
No philosophical conclusion can be 'proved' logically. Whatever is concluded can be challenged very easily, and turned into an inquiry instead. I intend to talk about this in future.
@@Jijnasu👍🏿. Do you think there is any prior scholarly work in this direction of “logic” application? Nyaya or Tarka shastra perhaps?
I have only gone through Tarka sangraha, and I do not see anything specific like that. This may not be a system as such, but what naturally happens when people inquire. Upanishads themselves obviously suggest that by repeatedly making paradoxical statements - either in one breath, or across different Upanishads.