[Advaita-l] Self-knowledge

[Aditya Varun Chadha]

Greetings,

On 2/1/06, Mahesh Ursekar <mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Can the intellect comprehend love? However subtle it may be, the term 'I
> understand love' is a invalid.  Infact, all feelings belong to this
> category. The intellect can only register feelings and act or them but
> cannot understand them. I am hungry makes the intellect search for food but
> it cannot express the feeling intelligebly in any way. So, is love as
> prosaic as hunger? I don't think so because most other feelings are
> localized (I am hungry, I am angry, etc). Sure, one can say 'I am in love'
> but interestingly, it is the only feeling that has a higher dimension - the
> statement "Love is" is a valid and correct statement. Infact, if you read
> Rumi, you will know that it is the ONLY valid statement.

all emotions are functions of the brain, including love, hunger,
anger, etc. and are limited to this body. When different chemicals act
on the nervous system, it reacts in corresponding ways, and these
reactions we give a name, example love. This is pratyaksha pramANa.
Please do not confuse jurisdictions of science and scriptures, it has
been done too many times on this community.

> 2. Lets take now, the case of two lovers who fall in love 'at first sight'.
> How is that possible? How can two individuals who know nothing about each
> other be connected in such a bond "like they were looking for each other all
> their lives"? It behoves the mind (intellect, I guess) to think that each
> individual separately had such overpowering feelings in their manas that
> attracted them to each other! There has to be some common factor that linked
> the two of them - that IMHO is the universal love that is all around but was
> reflected in the two intellects in such a way that they "found each other"!
> That is the only plausible explanation.

or the simple scientific explanation: the sense of sight triggered
specific hormones to act on the nervous system, and there occured a
configuration change in the structure of the brain. based on various
attributes and the extent of a match, this reaction can occur almost
instantaneously, or over a length of time. this new configuration is
called "being in love".

> In short, IMHO, when it comes to spirituality, the intellect is a feeble
> instrument (however subtle) since it can barely rise to the high levels
> required of true love a.k.a. realization!

there are simple scientific explanations for all these things (EXCEPT
the phenomenon of retention of memory across reincarnations).
Remember, Vedanta does not compete with science. Don't be offended if
science explains some of the phenomena that we THINK pertain to
spirituality, because Vedanta welcomes these explanations. Vedanta has
jurisdiction elsewhere, and that "elsewhere" (brahmanhood) may
provably be beyond science. but these simpler things (personal love,
emotions, and even enlightenment, ANY human experience for that
matter) are much more easily explained by science (these explanations
don't go against what Vedanta has to say).

Rumi is poetry. However much mysticism you may advocate, this only
gives pleasure to your Mind, maybe even changes your mind
configuration for extended periods of time. but it is all still
pertaining to the Mind.

about self realization, let me read more and THEN talk.

--
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com