Sadhana

[Chandran, Nanda (NBC)]

Robert writes :

>Having the experience does not guarantee or necessarily even verify its
>meaning.
That would depend on what you consider it's meaning. For some people
it's Union with God, for others the cessation of suffering, for some
others the meaning of life etc It may be true that one's preconceptions
might influence the experience. But then if not for this experience do
you have other alternatives to find your 'meaning'? The shruti states
that if you know this, you'll know everything else. So it just *might*
have the answer you're looking for.

>Does this vivid experience necessarily mean that all these things have
>taken place as 'I' interpret them (presumably after the fact)?
If I either say "Yes" or "No", how would it matter? Even if Shankara
says so would you accept it on faith. No, you'd have to experience it
yourself and probably then all the answers will be obvious to you.

>It seems to me that it could be, particularly
>if I have undergone an intense course of study in advance on what the
>experience will mean if and when I finally do have it.
No, I think you're mistaken here. For all the philosophy expounded from
the standpoint of the Jivanmukta, very few actually try to describe the
experience itself. Infact most are unanimous that words fail to describe
the state. So at least in Advaitam, there is not much prior
conditioning.

>For these
>reasons, I am left unsatisfied by assurances that I will know the truth
>once I 'see' for myself.
As a rational person, you cannot say that. Finally you would have to
experience it, to refute it.

>The experience is one thing, ineffable and
>indescribable; the cause, significance, and meaning of the experience
is
>quite another thing, and it can't be supported only by the experience
>itself.
As I said before it would depend on what you're trying to achieve and
what other alternatives you have.

        Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
        the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.

>From  Thu May  7 17:19:16 1998
Message-Id: <THU.7.MAY.1998.171916.0500.>
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 17:19:16 -0500
Reply-To: niche at ameritech.net
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Parisi & Watson <niche at AMERITECH.NET>
Organization: Knitters Niche
Subject: Re: Sadhana
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chandran, Nanda (NBC) wrote:
>
> Robert writes :
>
> >Having the experience does not guarantee or necessarily even verify its
> >meaning.
> That would depend on what you consider it's meaning. For some people
> it's Union with God, for others the cessation of suffering, for some
> others the meaning of life etc It may be true that one's preconceptions
> might influence the experience. But then if not for this experience do
> you have other alternatives to find your 'meaning'? The shruti states
> that if you know this, you'll know everything else. So it just *might*
> have the answer you're looking for.

I really don't see that individual needs are relevant. Needs can be
misguided and misplaced, and we can seek to fulfill them in the wrong
places. If I can't find purpose and meaning in philosophy or religion,
maybe I should be looking somewhere else entirely, or maybe I should be
questioning the nature of the need itself. I might have to go for a time
without any sense of meaning at all in order to be properly motivated in
considering these questions. But please don't tell me that I should
accept something because it will fill a need for which I have no other
satisfaction, at least for now.

> >Does this vivid experience necessarily mean that all these things have
> >taken place as 'I' interpret them (presumably after the fact)?
> If I either say "Yes" or "No", how would it matter? Even if Shankara
> says so would you accept it on faith. No, you'd have to experience it
> yourself and probably then all the answers will be obvious to you.

I am attempting to throw legitimate doubt on the idea that an
experience, in and of itself, can provide all the answers. Usually an
experience opens up more questions.

> >It seems to me that it could be, particularly
> >if I have undergone an intense course of study in advance on what the
> >experience will mean if and when I finally do have it.
> No, I think you're mistaken here. For all the philosophy expounded from
> the standpoint of the Jivanmukta, very few actually try to describe the
> experience itself. Infact most are unanimous that words fail to describe
> the state. So at least in Advaitam, there is not much prior
> conditioning.

I didn't say that the course of study includes a description of the
experience. I said that it establishes a mind set about the meaning,
significance, and interpretation of the experience. Of this fact I don't
think there can be any doubt.

> >For these
> >reasons, I am left unsatisfied by assurances that I will know the truth
> >once I 'see' for myself.
> As a rational person, you cannot say that. Finally you would have to
> experience it, to refute it.

I'm not trying to refute it. I'm only trying to say that it can't be
self explanatory. Let me illustrate my point with a crude example. Let's
say that I go to a physician and report some strange disruption of my
field of vision... something like what epilepsy patients sometimes
report. I am not only the best, but also the sole authority on the
nature and description of my experience, and the doctor will have no
source for information about it other than my reports. But does this
privileged access to the experience also qualify me to say what caused
it, or what its significance is? Why would a similar question not apply
to what we call the experience of samadhi? Does not an intense course of
prior study predispose us to interpret it in a certain way? And does a
strong feeling of conviction, largely based on prior indoctrination,
really rule out entirely different interpretations, some of which might
be based on physiology? There is an obvious analogy with so-called near
death experiences, with which I won't bore you. Suffice to say that
person involved often interprets the experience in terms of life after
death, despite the fact that physiological causes have been shown to be
overwhelmingly probable.

> >The experience is one thing, ineffable and
> >indescribable; the cause, significance, and meaning of the experience
> is
> >quite another thing, and it can't be supported only by the experience
> >itself.
> As I said before it would depend on what you're trying to achieve and
> what other alternatives you have.

I would frame the question differently. I would ask whether the
experience really tells us something radical about the nature of
ourselves and reality as a whole, or whether it can possibly be
accounted for within the scheme of consensus reality as understood in
the West.

Robert.