Agony of the soul (?) etc
omkar at GIASDL01.VSNL.NET.IN
Sat Jan 11 05:02:13 CST 1997
Pain is universal, every human
> being (possibly every animal and plant) has experienced it. So far we
> haven't determined if meditation even exists. If we come across a
> person, how can we tell if he is meditating or if maybe he is drunk?
What I meant to say is, there are certain experiences you cannot gain by
reading and thinking about them, and that is the case with meditation, just
as with pain. There are many methods of meditation, and we may be very
in saying anything for or against them, without first trying them out with
the true intention of finding out, what they are adn where they lead. You
You have experienced it and it happens to be a universal experience. But
in case there was some being who does not know sleep, could he take your
word for it and know whether you were not just drunk? He has to experience
it himself to know what it is.
You will probably say, at least sleep can be proved and explained by
showing a person's brain waves during waking state and sleep. Well, so can
meditation, and it has been demonstrated in several experiments by those
who are scientifically oriented. Meditation may be described as a state of
concentration, or better one-pointedness, that with growing depth grows in
calmness of the brain. The crisscrossing thoughts are calmed down, as in
intellectual concentration, but meditation goes further in that it does not
an intellectual dwelling on a subject but becomes a silent observation,
with enough practise, results in what we call samadhi, a state where
brain-activity comes to a rest, but consciousness is not lost. On the
contrary, it is freed from the limitations of mediate experience and
into immediate perception of what has been its object of meditation, but
which now is one with the subject: The Subject, the object and meditation
If you ask me, how I can proof it to you, I have to say, the only proof is
the one you can give yourself by exercising and experiencing it.
> > > Actually I don't believe Brahman is ungraspable. Assuming I
> > > experienced something, how I know it was Brahman and not some
> > > delusion unless I knew in advance what Brahman is supposed to be?
As you can see from the above, I don't think Brahman is ungraspable either.
I only deny that the _intellect_ can grasp it. My definition of intellect
is that which analyzes things with the help of thought constructs, just as
Einstein or Hawking would analyze the nature of cosmic phenomena. Brahman
is beyond analysation. It has to be experienced in the union of subject,
object and experience, which is possible only by a contemplation that goes
beyond the limits of intellect. Of course initial contemplation by the
intellect is a great help to enter such a state, but can you tell me, where
the scriptures say, it cannot be entered by contemplation through e.g.
One thing more. You lay great importance on emphasizing, that nobody's word
can be taken for anything, nor an inner experience that cannot be tangibly
proved to everyone as genuine (which is impossible). I wonder what has led
you to the unshakable conviction that the Vedas, Shrutis and Shastras, etc.
are to be taken for their word? Seeing your all exclusive need for a
concrete proof I sometimes wonder, what makes you so sure. These scriptures
have been handed down to us over the centuries and it is believed they were
given on orally through many generations before they were written down. So
we do not have a proof -- the kind you demand -- that they have ever been
genuine, or if they were, that they have not been meddled with several
times over. Moreover these texts are not written in terms that are immune
to misinterpretation, as is clearly seen from the contradictions between
several great thinkers and scholars.
To me things work just in the opposite way. It is the practical life and
the radiance, the divinity of a living realized soul, the impact of even a
small saint, the intense feeling of the Divine presence, the answers and
glimpses bestowed in meditation, that convince me of the truth in the
scriptures, because they put these experiences into words, and because
those towering spiritual giants certify them, even when they talk of their
state without having ever read the scriptures.
Therefore I am really curious what, that could satisfy your demands, has
convinced you of their truth? If it is logic, then how can you know whether
tomorrow that logic may not proof false?
Greetings and Om,
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list