The Vedas

[Miguel Angel Carrasco]

On 19 Jan 1998, Charles Wikner wrote:

>   >  I was quite shocked (but promised myself to count up to a million
.......

>So, a million times have you re-inforced your association with some notion
in the mind -- that was not very intelligent.

Dear Charles, I quite agree with you. However, I feel you have missed the
spirit (a touch of humour) of my posting. Surely you don^Òt suppose I
actually counted up to a million. That was a metaphor. What I meant is I
resisted the urge I felt to angrily answer to the famous statement, and
just sat back and waited to see how others would respond.

>"Women who have realised Brahman-Atman by the grace of the Guru are truly
men -- purushaah -- in spite of their outward womanly form, since they have
secured enlightenment worthy of a purusha. Those men who have not secured
Self-realisation are considered by the wise as women in spite of their male
appearance. [...]

I^Òm with you in your arithmetics: there is only One. And because there^Òs
but One, I don^Òt like any divisions, particularly artificial ones. The
division you allude to (Vidyaranya's) is for me as bad as the one it wants
to replace. So, now we have that purusha equals man, and unrealized equals
woman. I won^Òt take that. There^Òs only the One. All else is Shiva^Òs masked
ball. ^ÓWe^Ô (as plural) are only those masks, which do not even exist, just
appear in consciousness. Whatever is real in ^Óus^Ô (singular) is the One. So
what^Òs the need to make any distinction between man and woman? Why insult
women by associating them with avidya? Am I any different whether I wear a
angel^Òs mask or a frog^Òs? It^Òs all a funny masked ball. Why take it so
seriously?  Why get angry?  Why the terribly earnest disputes?

Nisargadatta Maharaj:

The world is but a show, glittering and empty. It is, and yet it is not. It
is there as long as I want to see it and take part in it. When I cease
caring, it dissolves. It has no cause and serves no purpose. It just
happens when we are absent-minded. It appears exactly as it looks, but
there is no depth in it, nor meaning. Only the onlooker is real, call him
Self or Atma. To the Self, the world is but a colourful show, which he
enjoys as long as it lasts and forgets when it is over. Whatever happens on
the stage makes him shudder in terror or roll with laughter, yet all the
time he is aware that it is but a show. Without desire or fear, he enjoys
it, as it happens.  (178-9)

If you stand aloof as obrserver only, you will not suffer. You will see the
world as a show, a most entertaining show indeed.  (380)

----------------------------

On the other hand, I hope that the present heated discussion about The
Vedas vs Women might teach us that religions, shrutis, etc are not the end,
but some of the means to see more clearly?  There is nothing sacred,
nothing holy, only Reality, the Absolute, all else is lila, maya. We
(singular) have no patrimony, no sacrosanct heritage. Nisargadatta used to
say that we (singular) are born with only one capital: consciousness.
Everything else is a burden, a superimposition, a mask.

Some time ago, I asked a question:  "Isn^Òt the essence of Advaita beyond
the Hindu culture? Is Vedanta necessarily based on the Vedas?"

There was only one answer, from Jaldhar H. Vyas, in the sense I didn't
expect (No to the former, Yes to the latter). Does it mean that the other
members agree to that? Not that I need an answer now. There are no more
questions.

--Miguel Angel