A common misinterpretation of Unity Consciousness

[refer to previous week's post that started this Feb 2012 discussion, where a teacher of Hinduism and Buddhism made sincere and well-intentioned comments on the natural human tendency to seek sameness that failed to address some key points in BD. Rajiv Malhotra reiterates some critical points from BD on the relationship between multiplicity and oneness in Dharmic thought systems. This post covers the followup in depth. Although bulk of the discussion is around Chapter 3 (Synthetic Unity of West versus Integral Unity of Dharmic Civilization), arguments cover other key topics like 'non-translatables in Sanskrit, Chapter 4 - Order and Chaos, etc.]

A common misinterpretation of Unity Consciousness
Ellen's recent thread illustrates the common notion that non-duality is escapist from the mundane world on multiplicity. This became the handle with which Vedanta got thrashed as:

1) not progressive in the real world
2) causing dependency upon foreign Mother Teresa's to help the poor because Vedanta escapes responsibility
3) causing complicity with social irresponsibility.

Many colonial era writers made a big deal of this point and many Hindus ended up supplying them the fodder.

Today, Ken Wilber's reduction of dharma into what he calls "Advaita Hinduism" is used by him to claim that he has superseded the states of consciousness of Sri Aurobindo, and moved past the problems that dharma suffers from.

All this is a trap and many Vedantist teachers are unaware of the way their teachings get distorted.

Ramanuja and Sri Jiva Goswami (cited in BD) are very clear and explicit that  non-dualism does not mean that multiplicity is false. It means that multiplicity is dependent upon Oneness, and in the case of Sri Jiva all multiplicity is a form of the one, just as a smile is a form of the face and cannot be independent of it. The blueness of the blue lotus cannot exist separately from the lotus - a common example given in that tradition. This is the nature of the relationship between One and Many.

Another metaphor to understand the multiplicity is as lila, divine play.

Multiplicity is not false, be it seen as form of Brahman (Saguna Brahman) or as lila.  If the face is real then its smile and all its forms are real as well.

The above misinterpretation of multiplicity has led many dharma scholars to criticize my notion of difference. They think its a bad idea, because they feel it takes us away from oneness. Shouldn't we be seeing only oneness, they ask? I refer to this notion as pop Vedanta; it is also called Neo-Vedanta. Interestingly, Sri Aurobindo also lashed out against this kind of misinterpretation of Vedanta.

So I have on many occasions asked Swami Dayananda Saraswati, considered the most prominent authority on Vedanta philosophy today. I asked directly: If the world is unreal then whats the basis for dharma, karma, worrying about what evangelists do, curing diseases, helping those in need, etc? ... I must say that he gives very clear explanations to the effect that: we must deal with the differences in the world we live in, as part of dharma, karma, etc. The Gita's message is also this. Arjuna gave the escapist argument at first, to justify his inaction, and it takes Sri Krishna 18 chapters to explain why action in the world is necessary - without attachment to the results and without even the sense of being the doer.

Therefore, the dharma/Christian difference is as real for our lives as the dharma/adharma or deva/asura or tamas/sattva differences. Dharma is not moral relativism, though it is often attacked for being so.

Asserting differences is not a negation of Oneness. It is the insight into the richness of Oneness as including the differences as aspects within it.

Your posture towards difference should depends upon where you stand in terms of state of consciousness. If you are the rishi rooted in unity consciousness as your state (not some words you can parrot), then by all means you should act in the world in spontaneity - the One leads your actions amidst all the diversity. But if you are not there yet, you must make a conscious effort to understand right from wrong, what is what in the world - while at the same time reminding yourself that this relative level is a manifestation of one substratum.

One of the sutras in my Moron Smriti is about this moronic notion that "everything is same". According to such moronic minds, medicine can be substituted with poison because both as Brahman only;.... you need not obey any laws because these are man-made in the world of illusions, and so forth. In other words, the misunderstanding I refer to is very dangerous as it has produced a large population of morons who are simply dysfunctional.

Such a people are the product of colonialism as its easy to rule over morons.

Rampersad asks: ""Dharma is not moral relativism: Please explain the above when we say that Dharma is determined by desh, kaal aur paristithi. Or for example that killing a person is acceptable in line of duty but not otherwise. Duties and responsibilities as Dharma are not absolute but relative, some say.Please enlighten on this."

Rajiv's response:
Important question. Please read "contextual Ethics" section in chapter 4 of BD. It is only 12 pages and summarizes what was earlier a whole chapter of 100 pages. Basically, it goes as follows: Western normative ethics is deterministic, absolute like Ten Commandments. No ifs, ands, buts. "Thou shalt not kill" would never make it into Manu as he would ask things like: whether one can kill in war, kill a plant, kill bacteria that has diseased you, kill an animal if he is non-vegetarian, etc. Such ethics is called normative. The West is so afraid of "chaos" (as explained in chpt 4, that there is obsession to maintain control through "order" and this means that there was heavy policing of normative ethics throughout the Christian era. (Now in Islam.) The opposite of normative ethics was seen as moral relativism, which means "anything goes", or a chaotic place, an anarchy in which you do whatever you want to.
Thus, normative versus moral relativism are two opposite poles. But in the middle of these lies what is called contextual ethics and thats where dharma is. It is neither normative nor moral relativism....."


Surya comments:
"Sounds like Dharma then fall under the classification of moral universalism which allows for situation dependency but applies to all people in a given situation.  Moral universalism does fall in between moral nihilism/relativism and moral absolutism and also recognizes that morality is not always black and white (value pluralism).  Value pluralism is crucial in many common moral dilemmas and comfort with not excluding middle is a necessary mindset.

Catholic Church has struggled with its pro-life moral absolutist position taken since Thomas Aquinas and in recent times introduced what is called the "doctrine of double effect" which is situation specific morality. This doctrine is also used in wars where soldiers have to accept the fact that there could be unexpected civilian casualties.

Morality is rarely as clear cut as absolutism suggests. Morality is frequently situation specific and can have multiple valid but conflicting choices."

Koti posts a clarification (Rajiv: excellent post):
"...It was Gita that astutely harmonized conflicting schools of thought and ways of worship. It even made redundant post death rites which our acharyas were preoccupied with and which even to this date our orthodoxy swears on. [...]Obviously, they honoured Krishna but stayed with Arjuna of chapter 1.
FIVE BLUNDERS were done to Gita as a result to Vedanta itself, because Vedanta is part of Gita, although Gita is more than Vedanta....
1. Preached Gita solely as Moksha shastra, ignoring fully the jeevana dharma of it. Thus pushed it to last stages of life!
2. Force-fitted it to their dogma of Advaita, dvaita or anything in-between; Gita itself never used those terminologies. Basically narrowed it down through  interpolation and interpretation.
3. Misunderstood sva-dharma as one's religious sect/caste
4. Misunderstood VarNa. Even discovered a fifth varNa (outcaste). Thus killed the soul of millions without touching their body. In a way disproved Gita that soul can not be killed! Now we bend over backwards to tell that caste and dalits were products of colonial period.
5. Insisted on post death rites for liberation of ancestors on the same lines as Arjuna of Gita chapter 1."


Nagaraja strongly disagrees with certain aspects of Koti's clarification:
"With reference to the posting by ... Koti..., I strongly disapprove the posting for two reasons –

1.       Pitting one part of the vedic culture against another instead of treating it as an integrated whole (last rites v/s perceived essence of Gita,  perceived correct understanding of Gita v/s Acharyas’ schools of thought etc.) is a dangerous trend and should be discouraged.

Rajiv's comment: I agree with much of this post by Nagaraja. However, we cannot assume that there was no advancement in our tradition. In other words, to interpret one text as superseding another is not a sign of inferiority but a sign of the flow of knowledge over time. Smritis are intended to evolve with each time and context, and thats not seen as a contradiction. Also, to say that Arjuna in the early portion of Gita was confused compared to later in the text is not undermining the tradition. Our exemplars from Arjuna to Swami Vivekananda have challenged the authorities and learned in the process. Thats why so many texts are Q A and debate style. This does not denigrate the acharyas but shows free spirited argumentation.

2.       Making unsubstantiated, sweeping, derogatory remarks against the Acharyas (“Acharyas failed to understand Gita”, “They wasted their scholarship”, “what they did is circus” etc.) is another dangerous trend that can cause a nose dive of our serious efforts to understand the subject objectively...

 If the Acharyas did not do what they did, we would not be sitting and discussing Gita today.....

1.       What aspect of Dharma is upheld when and how depends on the social need at that time.  Even among the Avatars, Rama and Krishna did completely different set of things based on the needs of the society at that time....Please go through sections of Dharma Shasthras, Artha Shasthras and Kama Shasthras to understand why Gita is considered a Moksha Shasthra.
...
3.       ... The Jati/varna Dharma is indeed a part of svadharma.

5.       Contempt for rituals is a serious drawback of some of the people who want to stand up for Hinduism but don’t practice it themselves.  I suspect that the remark against last rites is one such case and is grossly incorrect.  Lord Rama himself carries out (even though at a distance) last rites for Dasharatha and encourages Vibhishana to do the last rites of Ravana with full honor. ...What is there to be blamed in this regard and how Acharyas are to be blamed if at all something is to be blamed?


The common misinterpretation of Advaita that is used to negate differences can be easily countered by resorting to correct interpretation of Advaita rather than by attacking the Acharyas arbitrarily.... "

Srinivas comments:
"As Ellen points out, science today wants to find out how matter became consciousness and Advaita is about how one consciousness became diverse matter. Science accepts the diversity in this world but is striving towards sameness concept via "everything is matter". Advaita / Achintya Bedha-Abheda says "everything is one consciousness" and is striving to explain the diversity. While both respect differences, fundamentally they do it because they believe in the sameness or reduction of all into either matter or one consciousness. ... Its like saying "I respect you because both of us are essentially the same"....While identity was restricted to a community, now it is taken to the level of universe/consciousness.
.....
In the context of this discussion it should be pointed out that there are other philosophical traditions in India that do not accept non dual consciousness i.e. reducing the universe to a single consciousness. Madhva's Tatvavada is one such and makes its case on 5 fundamental differences in the world. Briefly the 5 differences are explained with the basis that matter (jada) and consciousness (atma) are fundamentally different....

The 3 main points of Being Different can be explained without resorting to non-dual consciousness.

1. Embodied Knowing
If there is non dual consciousness, who is the Know-er and what is to be known? If everything is consciousness, how did ignorance arise and who is ignorant? God? Instead embodied, knowing is simply explained by the nature of atman (as BD does) as Sat, Chit and Ananda while still keeping many different atmans.

2. Integral Unity
BD justification for Integral unity is by denying dual consciousness. So if there is no "two", the question of Unity or Integration becomes a non starter. Instead the Indian concept to explain Integral unity is by way of different tatvas like Prana, Mahattatva, Chitta, Chetana, Ahankara, etc.

3. Comfort with Chaos
Again if there no "two" then there is no need to answer the question about chaos. A common Indian is comfortable with chaos not because she experiences non-dual consciousness but probably because she believes in Karma and Re-birth theory.

As a conclusion I would like to emphasize that non duality is not the only Indian tradition and is not fundamental to the main differences pointed out in BD. There are well developed vedic and theistic traditions which believe in the fundamental nature of differences in reality and consciousness."


Rajiv comment: I went through great length not to rely upon nondualism in explaining Integral Unity or Embodied Knowing or comfort with chaos. Had I wanted to equate Integral unity = Nondualism, I would not have had to work so hard to coin the new term and explain it. It would have been just another work on nondualism. I will explain this in a separate thread.

Desh adds:
"I disagree with Ellen and Srinivas that Science wants to find "How matter became consciousness".  For that never happens.

When we look at the classic issue in Quantum Mechanics and the entire question of Wave Collapse, we find that the question before BOTH Science and Spirituality is the SAME - 

How does the Infinite manifest as Finite?

If you look closely at the Copenhagen Interpretation, you will find Scientists grappling with exactly the question and issue that the Dualists and Non-Dualists grapple with.  There is no fight.  When one gives way, and goes by the way of the infinite - one experiences Non-dualism; if one "Is" there then dualism keeps on.

[...]

The question that Ellen is asking comes from a mind drenched in Newtonian Science.  It is in the Newtonian zone and looks at the new world of consciousness and asks the question...."

Rajiv Malhotra posts:
"BD's idea of dharma is not dependent upon advaita
In a popular version of advaita, all difference is illusory, hence reality is context free. This has led to the problems of other worldliness as alleged and explained earlier in this thread. Sri Aurobindo was one of many who criticized this harshly. So did Ramanuja, Sri Jiva and many others.

Integrality is oneness plus all built in diversity that is part and parcel of it and inseparable from it. The diversity is not unreal but has no separate existence. I keep repeating the separateness as the key issue throughout BD. This way I also bring in Madhyamika Buddhism as Integral: pratita-samutpada does not use unity consciousness as a positive entity, and rather it negates the existence of any "separate" entity from what I have described as Indra's Net. Implication: The argument against dharma as being world negating is rejected.

So Integrality = absence of separateness. Nondual consciousness is one way of having integrality. Pratita-samutpada is another way. Achinta-bheda-abheda is another. Sri Aurobindo's Integrality is another.

... My book's purpose is served so long as the common ground is different than the west.

Hence, the notion of synthetic is the big "aha" claim in the book. I go to great length to argue the synthetic nature of the West - both its history and its major philosophical/theological systems. The nature of dharma as Integral Unity is used as the foil against which to reverse the gaze on the West. Thats all its meant to serve. The book is not about dharma but about the West as seen by the dharmic gaze."
 
Raghu comments on the wrong usage of 'illusion' for 'Maya': 
"...Shankara talks of Vyaavahaarika prathyaksha as the first stage, leading to praathibhaasikam and then to paramaarthikam. The first stage is to have a clear understanding of the transactional world. Transaction is between two separate entities. When one has a deep understanding of this reality, one comes to its edge and can see the light of actuality. Vyaavahaarika is a real but ephemeral state of being, when one 'crosses over' one enters paaramaarthikam, a transcendent state when one is anchored in the unchanging state of Truth. When one looks back from here, one sees that holding on to the world of phenomenon as real and unchanging is delusional, therefore Maya.

The are many stories that illustrate this idea that one experiences the Vyaavahaarika as though it were substantive when it is not. Holding on to it and expecting that dukha can be ended by living in this space is delusional, thus one gets entangled in Maya."

Rajiv comment: 

I agree with this as the deeper view of advaita vedanta. My guru was an enlightened advaita master (not a regular teacher but enlightened), and said very clearly that we are not being asked to run away or escape the mundane world as some "illusion theorists" teach. We take birth as per prarabdha and must perform our dharma which is very much transactional in this world. Unfortunately, what we find today is pop-Vedanta in which they dismiss the world as illusion, causing all the confusion and problems I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Still, I dont want to push advaita as prerequisite for BD's thesis. Thats why I went through so much research, discussions, etc. with experts from: Sri Aurobindo, Kashmir Shaivism, Madhyamika Buddhism, Jainism, Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita, Sri Jiva's achinta-bheda-abheda, etc.
...
For, if I were to limit myself to Advaita Vedanta, then the western opponents get a perfect handle to attack: "You do not speak for dharma as such but only one tiny slice of it. There is no such thing as a unifying dharma, mere fragments that are randomly stuck together." In other words, the charge in the prevailing discourse has been that it is Hinduism and dharma that is a synthetic unity. This is a very big movement among scholars out there.

BD goal is to counter that and claim integral unity of dharma.

... Anyone who forgets that difference is the purpose of this exercise will find all sorts of flaws in BD, and I am well aware of the trade offs I made and why I made them."

Srinivas adds:
"Yes BD is not rooted in Advaita and can be explained using any of the Dharmic streams. Thats the beauty of it! Rajivji has stuck gold with the vocabulary. He has caught the essence of Dharmic streams by how they approach the problem and the mature subject space they apply themselves to.

For example I was disappointed not to see Madhva's Tatvavada in BD but there will be many such people and Dharmic streams which feel that way. However what is important is that the concepts in BD can easily be extended to other Dharmic streams and it takes very little effort to explain the 3 main differences according to each stream.

Rajiv's response to this para: "Since my knowledge of Madhva's work is inadequate I request that those who know better than me should post an explanation of Integrality, Embodied Knowing, Comfort with Chaos, and Non-Translatability as explained from that school..."

....
1. There is only one consciousness and all differences are in the "end" Maya/Mithya or whatever vocabulary you choose. This is the Advaita way.

2. There is only one or non-dual consciousness but it is also differentiated even in the "end". This is the Achintya Bheda-Abheda way.

3. There is multiplicity of consciousness coupled with the permanent 5 fold differences between God, Jeevatma and Matter. This is the Tatvavada of Madhvacharya.

There are other claims as well but we need to recognize that there are these differing claims with its own rich Vedic traditions. What we are concerned about is "what according to various schools of thought are the fundamental particles/tatva that make the universe?" This can be answered differently by Science, Advaita, Achintya Bheda-Abheda, Tatvavada, etc. We should also widen discussion to other claims and see how BD can be explained in the terms of those streams." 

Shaas responds to Srinivas: 
"... There is no place for "wrong" (mithya) in Advaita (Unity). Even the "differences" are just "one consciousness".

Maya does not mean mithya! Maya is Divine (DAIVI hyesha gunamayi, mama maya duratyaya, Gita VII ch.). Maybe it clouds the recognition of all is intrinsically one consciousness but it is all divine play.

When one perceives differences, differences must be dealt accordingly and aproprietly.

To all pseudo-unitarists: Unity consciousness is not achieved by being forgetful about differences. UC is seeing one's unbounded Self (Atma) in all differences." 

Srinivas follows up:
"All these truth claims, Advaita, Achintya Bheda-Abheda and Tatvavada address among many things, what the universe is made of. Is it matter, Is it Consciousness? If yes how many? The question I put forward was "what are the "fundamental particles" according each of these streams?"

Both Advaita and Achintya Bheda-Abheda accept unitary consciousness or non-dual consciousness. There is no separate consciousness dependent or independent of Brahman. Achintya Bheda Abheda deviates from Advaita in that it also accepts differentiation of the absolute Brahman while Advaita does not.

Tatvavada instead takes a totally different view in that it says the differences between God, Jeeva and Matter are real and eternal.

Now you can argue for how each of these theories account for diversity in this world. My post was not to explain how Advaita does or does not explain differences....The important thing is to accept the differences between these streams with mutual respect. We do not have to digest or force fit all streams of Vedanta as Advaita or have difference anxiety about the diversity of Vedic thought amongst different schools.BTW mutual respect amongst Dharmic streams will be an interesting topic!

The bottom line is BD's 4 main differences are still valid for all Dharmic streams. Only the way you explain them differs from one stream to another. BD is a good starting point and each of the Advaita, Achintya Bhed-Abheda and Tatvavada scholars need to take off from here and write detailed Purva-Paksha of West and Christianity according to their core beliefs."

Rajiv Malhotra adds another clarification to his concept of Integral Unity:

".... Integral Unity can be either without any internal content (as in some interpretations of advaita), or with all content/difference built into the unity consciousness itself (as in achinta-bheda-abheda).

Or it can be without using "ultimate reality = consciousness" as in the case of madhyamika Buddhism, where the idea of "everything is interdependent on everything else" implies such a unity and is expressed in the metaphor of Indra's Net.

Many dharma systems have different notions on the relationship between One and Many, but each satisfies my 4 differences including the one about Integral Unity. (I do need a good analysis of Madhava's system by some expert.)

My methodology went through multiple iterations: whats different wrt West that is at the same time shared internally among the dharma systems?.... After many trials and failures I reached these four differences that are robust on both fronts."

Wadhwa posts:

"WORLD IS NOT FALSE - A VEDIC VIEW
The theory of worldly existence as 'mithya', i.e, fictitious, deceitful and unreal is totally negated by the very definition of Dharma as given in the Vaisheshika Darshan of Kanada. It defines Dharma as "Yatho Abhyudhaya NihShreyasa Siddhi Sa Dharmah"i.e, Dharma is that which ensures material well being/progress and prosperity(Abhyudaya) as well as spiritual well being, (Nihshreyasa).
Maharishi Dayananda who was a realist, spirtualist and in a way highly pragmatic too opined that Vedic Philosophy denies that this world is an illusion. He did not endorse the view of Shankaracharya who said Jagat(world) is Mithya, i.e., false. Swamiji strongly protested against the sickly view of sorrow, pain and misery of the world. He said that world is not a purposeless phantasm and as per vedic conception there is no basis for unreality of the world. A complete God who is perfect and Purna cannot create an incomplete and illusionary world. The sorrows are of man's own creation as he violates the laws of nature resulting into pain and agony..." 

Rajiv's response:

"Shri Wadhwa is requested to address whether his interpretation of Vedas (which is the Arya Samaj interpretation) agrees or disagrees with each of the four differences mentioned in BD. We are dealing with differences from West in BD. Unfortunately, many Arya Samaj folks I meet are obsessively dedicated to proving differences with other interpretations of dharma. The in-fighting consumes them so much that they forget that today the enemy at the gate is not some rival sampradaya..." 

.....The focus of this thread should be to deepen our understanding of the four differences wrt to the West that comprise BD. Lets put forth arguments from various dharmic traditions. The idea was not to examine the intra-dharma relations good or bad, but the inter-faith differences. I repeat for the benefit of Arya Samaj, Madhavacharya scholars and others:

Q1: Does your worldview subscribe to Integral Unity or Synthetic Unity?
Q2: Does you worldview subscribe to history centrism?
Q3: Does your worldview consider so-called "chaos" as inherent in the cosmos or as an "evil" aberration that must be permanently exterminated?
Q4: Does your worldview accept Sanskrit translation of critical words into English or does it consider these words (such as those illustrated in chapter 5) as non-translatables?

Surya responds to Wadhwa:

" ....Shri Wadhwa writes: "Though Vedanta bears references to the Upanishads which are at its foundation, yet  all the above Vedantic schools out of  their own experiences  and endowment propounded different concepts. Notwithstanding their differences, they are all unanimous in their views with regard to  omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence of God."

This is in agreement with what BD says: "the Dharmic traditions see themselves as free from Western complexes: do not bear the burden of sin and guilt, and are not shackled by institutional authority, historical precedent or religious authority. ... Throughout the (Dharmic) tradition, the pursuit of truth is inseparable from spiritual practices (Sadhana), whose purpose is to alleviate suffering and bring illumination."

If you prefer a systems model identifying common ground, please see Appendix B.

Can Shri Wadhwa focus on this central comment of his email and address whether different Vedan  tic schools and their different concepts find a common ground on the core dimensions mentioned in BD?  Would very much like to see his exposition on the common ground. .."

Thayalan writes:

"Although Shankara did say that the world is false, he did not say that the world does not exist. ....its existence is a part and parcel of the Ultimate [Existence]. It is like our ignorant belief that we have many minds. Yet in reality there is one mind in which we all see the same sun. We we had separate minds we would have the problem of running interference when we try to see one object or another. Of course, if we really had our own minds then we could easily demonstrate where it begins and where it ends.

Rajiv comment: 

Illusion is our false perception that it exists BY ITSELF as a
"thing in itself". That comes from synthetic unity worldview. What exists is the rope, but the impression that it is a snake is illusory. The rope DOES exist."

Raghu adds:
"Satya comes from sat which is 'isness', eternal, truth all rolled into one. In the Chandogya Upanishads .... Maa is measurable, ya is disappearing so maaya is a perfect description of observable and measurable phenomenon that are impermanent. Maaya is reality as a person holds his/her superficial experience and understanding of the world, Satya is profound actuality accessible only to the enlightened meditive mind"

Thatte posts:
"I think the famous statement by Shankaracharya where he calls this physical world mithya has been misinterpreted . The Sanskrit word Mithya has a number of meanings and the correct meaning depends on the context. That seems to be the
case for many words in Sanksrit, including dharma as Rajiv puts it very well in BD. Mithya can be variously translated as unreal, untrue or impermanent depending on the context.

In Shakaracharya's statement, if mithya is translated into impermanent, then the issue of real or unreal gets resolved.

This physical world is indeed real but it is not permanent. Hence it is called mithya." 

Paranjpe concurs with Thatte:
"... There is a great need to disabuse the widespread misinterpretation of such Sanskrit terms, and much mischief has resulted from the interpretation of maya as mere illusion. The result is undue dismissal of an entire body of knowledge ...

Shankaracharya ... clearly and strongly refuted such a position adopted by the Vijnanavadi Buddhists. Also, he clearly said that the world is real to the extent that our knowledge of it, although ultimately provisional, is first, consensually supported, and second, necessary to the extent it is useful in successfully dealing with practical problems.

The words sat and vidya on the one hand and asat and avidya on the other are also misunderstood. Sat means that which ALWAYS is, and never is-not, i.e., permanent. Most things in the observable world are not permanent and eternal but
open to change. The knowledge of impermanent things is itself impermanent and this idea needs some clarification.

Vidya and avidya are technical terms. Avidya is NOT ignorance as is often translated. It means empirical knowledge, which is vyaavahaarika in the sense of
being based on the vyavahaara, i.e., transactions between the knower and the known through the sensory observations with the aid of reason. Such knowledge is CONTINGENT, as it is based on who is trying to know what, under what circumstances, and on the basis of what kind of pre-understanding. There are serious limits on ALL these factors (upaadhi), and the outcome of the search of
knowledge is always contingent on these factors...

Vidya, as the Upanisads point out, is knowledge at a different (higher) level. It is obtained in a state of consciousness where the distinction between knower and known has disappeared (nirvikalpa Samadhi). In such a state there is no TRANSACTION between the knower and the known; .....absolute, and irrefutable. And that is what Shankaracharya was aiming at.

....the Isa Upanisad says that those who do not possess Avidya are damned even more than those who lack Vidya. If we lack
empirical/rational/scientific knowledge, we may not even survive in the world, let alone be wise and happy." 

Ravindra notes:
"Shankara Vedanta posits three categories,
1) SAT : That exists is unborn uncreated and eternal. Its experience sublates (surates) all other experience.
2) MAYA: Maya means that is measurable thus endowed by Guna (Sato Rajo Tamo Gunaatmika iti Maaya asti). It is changing and gets born and perishes. It is experienced, but its experience can be sublated (subrated) and also sublates.
3) Asat. It does not exist and can not even be [experienced]." 

Nagaraja comments:
"Agree with most of what Sri Wadhwa has written. The only objection is that your objections to Advaita holds true only for the degenerated version of Advaita and not the original version. ...." 

Desh adds:
" In this debate of Advaita and Dvaita, a few thoughts:

1. Hindu Scriptures have never called existence as Kriti. We have called it Srishti instead. Srishti refers to manifestation as opposed to Creation. So, this debate falls at the very first step. Manifestation is real, but it is dependent on Observation and cannot exist on its own. Just like in Quantum Mechanics - the Wave Collapse occurs BECAUSE of Observation. On its own Electron is a wave.

2. The Rope-Snake argument hinges on the same Observation principle and not "Existence-Nonexistence" dichotomy.

3. It is a scientific truth that at the sub atomic level, there is no matter.  Somewhere along the way, the energy manifests as matter - which is what the search for "God's particle" (Higgs Boson - theoretical particle which provides mass such that the energy can manifest as matter) is for. The Vibration in this
"Intelligent energy" - which many scientists are now calling "Consciousness" is thought to be the manifesting cause of form and matter. Hindu scriptures like Yoga Vashishtha say this explicitly as well."

Wadhwa provides some perspective on the Arya Samaj position on BD:
".. I would like to clarify that Maharishi Dayananda, founder of Arya Samaj never intended to establish a new religion, sect or cult.  It is a socio-religious movement to unfold truth, remove ignorance and to expound Vedic knowledge ...my  personal reply is given against each question:

Q1: Does your worldview subscribe to Integral Unity or Synthetic Unity? -  Ans.Integral Unity

Q2: Does your worldview subscribe to history centrism?  - Ans.No

Q3: Does your worldview consider so-called "chaos" as inherent in the cosmos or as an "evil" aberration that must be permanently exterminated? -  Ans.Inherent in the cosmos

Q4: Does your worldview accept Sanskrit translation of critical words into English or does it consider these words (such as those illustrated in chapter 5) as non-translatables? -

Ans. Non-translatable.  Vedic Sanskrit language, is highly symbolic,figurative, multi-dimensional and has multi meanings. Literal translation of  Vedas by some Western Scholars especially has proved disastrous.  Swami Dayananda Saraswati(1824-1883) challenged Max Muller and other  scholars for their vulger interpretation of some of the Ved Mantras(Swamiji's rebuttal can be seen in his book Rigvedadi- Bhashya -Bhumika).  "

Jayakumar shares:

"... there is no [English] translation for "mithya".  (or even satyam, for that matter).

Brahma-satyam jagat-mithya.

Three key reality-expressing words in Sanskrit:
- Satyam - that which exists independent of anything else - implying that which has always existed (therefore anaadi - beginning-less), that which exists and that which will always exist. (aatmaa, Brahman).  Therefore this cannot be finite/limited.  It has to be attribute-less.

- AnRtam - False (e.g. a circular square, horns of an eagle)

- Mithya - That whose existence depends on something else. (i.e. every object, thought or concept that we know or do not know.  Even and illusion such as a mirage is mithya, so is my computer which is more "real").

In the examples below, face is sathyam, smile is mithya (relatively speaking), etc.

Likewise water is satyam, wave is mithya (relatively speaking).

Now let us see the words in the English language conveying the reality of existence:
- False
- Unreal
- Illusion
- Real
- etc.

AnRtam can possibly be translated as false.  That is reasonable.

But the English word "Real" is used for all objects.  This computer is real and the person sitting in front is also real.  And the real computer will perish and the real person also perishes.  So where does that leave us when we want to refer to the time-independent real, the reality that sustains time itself?

Hence, in English, we are forced to use this word "Real" both for mithya and sathyam.  However, this causes confusion and is not acceptable in Advaita Vedanta.  Not properly understanding satyam and mithya, many scholars had fallen into the trap of using the words "illusion", "false" or "unreal" for mithya (and maya).  Among various other reasons, this wrong translation also contributes to passivity (and confusion).

There is no established concept of Satyam or mithya in western thought.  Hence top-notch Vedanta teachers are constrained to use the words Satyam and mithya literally, as translations into English don't exist.

.....Bhagavad Gita.  Translations are from the Bhagavad Gita Home Study Course by Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam:

kiM karma kimakarmeti kavayo.apyatra mohitAH |
tatte karma pravakShyAmi yajj~nAtvA mokShyase.ashubhAt || (4-16)

Even the seers (scholars) are confused with reference to what is action (and) what is actionlessness. I shall tell you about action, knowing which you will be released from
what is inauspicious (samsaara).

karmaNyakarma yaH paShyedakarmaNi ca karma yaH |
sa buddhimAn manuShyeShu sa yuktaH kRRitsnakarmakRRit || (4-18)

The one who sees actionlessness in action and action in actionlessness is wise among human beings. That person is a yogi, who has done everything that is to be done." 

Nagaraja has the final word in this superb discussion:
"

Advaita and difference:  Lessons from Acharya's life

 Quite often, I find that certain public perception about Advaita is very different from its original spirit. And in the context of 'difference', there seems to be a perception of conflict between the notion of 'difference' and Advaita. But,if one were to dig deep and understand Advaita in an authentic way (studying authentic texts in a classical way under an Acharya's guidance and reinforcing the understanding through study of other texts such as Yoga Shasthra, Sankhya etc.), one would find that there is no conflict between the notion of 'difference' and the spirit of Advaita. I am attempting to bring this out in two independent postings - one on lessons from Acharya's life and the other on essence of Advaita philosophy itself and this posting is about the former.

 The public perception about Advaita of dismissing the world and worldly affairs as an illusion breeds its offspring's such as  -

1. Laxity in worldly duties (escapism)

2. A false ego bordering on megalo-mania that I am already great (Aham brahmasmi)

3. Everything is same; everything is Brahma(Sarvam Brahmamayam); no difference in other words;

This perception is perhaps a result of degeneration of the Jnana marga (the path of self-enquiry) into an intellectual drudgery and needs to be corrected.  In his short life-span of 32 years, the Acharya has made immense contributions in multiple fronts....

... These contributions imply that Adi Shankaracharya

1. Took THIS WORLD seriously.  He did not have anything to gain materially or spiritually as he was a Sanyasi and was already enlightened and yet  he did so much work.  ....He was the very opposite of escapism.
2.   He was focussed on Sadhana and results.  He knew that not everybody could follow the Jnana marga.  He therefore fostered many other ways of accessing divinity – Bhakthi, Rituals, Yoga methods and so on.  He never mixed up truths of spiritual states (such as sarvam brahmamayam) with mundane reality.  He was never oblivious of differences in worldly existence and worked with people according to their merit,....   
3.  In spite of being a true Jagadguru, he was a hall mark of humility.  He never behaved as if he is Brahma in his wakeful (Jagruth) state.  In his conversation with the divinity he says "I am your Dasa (servant)".  He says – hey lord I am all yours but you are not mine.  His stotras praise the glory of the divinity and beg for the grace of divinity but never claim an equal status with divinity.  The spirit of his relationship with the Almighty is best illustrated by the spirit of Anjaneya whose conversation with Rama reveals a multi-faceted relationship that he enjoyed with Rama....More about this state of unity or sameness of spiritual state in the next posting on Advaita sidhdhanta.
4. Another great man Sri Vidyaranya, 12^th Jagadguru of Sringeri Shankara Peeta, also responsible for consolidating the advaita Vedanta (which was spread in various commentaries of Adi shankara) is an excellent example of balance between spiritual world and material world.  Even though he lead an ascetic life himself, he worked fervently to build a Dharmic empire of Vijayanagara and till date the the material glory that the kingdom had attained is unparalleled.  To a possible surprise of many of us in the modern world, the Dvaita philosophy and Dvaita scholars also flourished well under the regime of Vijayanagara whose king-maker was a staunch Advaitist. So, by no means was he an ivory tower weaver of impractical theories. 

Thus a common public perception of Advaita is very distorted and does not carry the spirit of Acharya.  It is only the distorted version that can dilute the value of difference and cause an escape from assertion of difference.  The original spirit of Acharya does not negate or dilute the value of difference."

 

RMF Summary: Week of February 27 - March 4, 2012

February 29

NG (March 2012): The Journey of the Apostles Vishal comments: I am forwarding this note of protest that I sent to the National Geographic magazine today immediately upon seeing their issue.  The article starts with a picture of Christian tribals in Odisha with an inflammatory caption. Thereafter too, there is another picture of an Indian Christian who 'suffered for Christ', and usual nonsense on Christianity saving low caste people in India... February 29 Develop a strategy to answer back Arun asks: The New York Times has published several articles based on a new book, The Science of Yoga: The Risks and the Rewards," by William J Broad. The latest is here:...  ... "Yoga teachers and how-to books seldom mention that the discipline began as a sex cult — an omission that leaves many practitioners open to libidinal surprise. " -- I don't want to promote Broad's book, or help him sell more by stirring up a controversy. However, some critical analysis will be needed, I think. I'm going to assume that his book will contain all kinds of errors and misinterpretations (e.g., sutras don't name any specific asanas, so those asanas didn't exist, e.g., yoga was stripped of its sexual baggage and republished by Indian nationalists, and so on). -- So what is the way to make sure (assuming there are such mistakes) that such a book does not become general wisdom?.." Ram responds: "Rajiv has given an excellent clue about handling western style descriptions of dharmic/Indian events and activities which give only a part of the meaning of these untranslatable words. I have been using this methods to good effect recently, by pointing out that in our tradition some words have several meanings at different levels, and choosing just one meaning is wrong. For example, my friend who is of Indian descent, has been saying that the Shiva lingam in the Hindu mandirs is a phallus, and that Hindus are worshipping.... I found this to be a gross misrepresentation, and told him that ... they went up to the murtis to do arti, but were seeing it as a symbol of Shiva, or a symbol of the manifest universe etc. He was not convinced until I showed him the Wikipedia entry (below) which showed 16 meanings for the word lingam, only one of which was phallus ....He now understands that Hindus can see the lingam in many ways, ... My friend, who claims to be a Hindu himself, has now stopped with his favourite story..... Nagaraja recounts a story of Adi Sankara and Mandana Misra: "...Adi Shankara stands in front of Mandana Misra's house and says Bhikshan dehi. But, Mandana Mishra wants to taunt Adi Shankara and the conversation goes like this. MM - Kuthaha Mundi (From Where? Shaven (Implying Where are you coming from oh shaven one? - shaven used in a derogatory sense)) AS - Agalath Mundi (Shaven from Chin and above, twists the question to mean From where onwards are you shaven and answers) MM - Kim Sura Peethaha (What? you want to drink liquor?) AS - Sura Shwethaha (Liquor is white, twists the question Kim Sura Peethaha to mean What? is liquor yellow?, based on a different meaning of the word peethaha) The conversation continues like this and Mandana Mishra cannot continue his satire and comes to the point. Once they sit for a proper argument Adi Shankara then provides straight arguments to the point based on his knowledge of Tatva. What Rajiv ji is set out to do is similar to a part of what Adi Shankaracharya has done (objective, calm arguments to establish certain truths) and Adi Shankaracharya's heroics offer many lessons to do this." bluecupid shares a link: "A good [rebuttal] to Broad's sweeping generalization can be found here; Raj says: I guess this confirms that yoga has entered stage 4 of the u-turn. Rajiv's comment: Yoga like most other dharmic items has been simultaneously in stages 2, 3 and 4 for many decades. Each stage has its own champions, and they perform like good cops versus bad cops in mutual tension. This is how enzymes operate in mutual tension to end up digesting the food. Most folks cannot see this big picture and hence run around glorifying the good cops. BD defines specific boundaries which anyone wanting to be a good cop must be asked to cross explicitly and publicly. It forces a hard test, so the person cannot vacillate or pretend there is no difference. It clarifies why he cannot have it both ways. Naturally, this is very discomforting to those who have become settled in sameness. I have many angry critics attacking me for disrupting their sameness comfort zone. Karthik responds to Arun: "I had emailed Rajiv about this book a few weeks ago, on the evening I heard William Broad being interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air". As far as developing a strategy goes: could we write en masse to NPR (specifically, Terry Gross)? We would need to outline what, specifically, we found objectionable about the views aired in that interview and why, in the interest of fairness, "Fresh Air" ought to feature a balancing viewpoint. The transcript of the Broad interview is available here:.." February 29 Chance for philosophers of dharma ethics to interact with western sc A scholar named Chris[] is doing his philosophy dissertation on comparative ethics. He is a sophisticated philosopher but weak in dharma. He read BD... March 1 Why Digestion is different than Assimilation Rajiv Malhotra writes a blog to respond to critics who say that: everyone has been always borrowing from other cultures, so "whats the problem". We carry this with very little editing, but register [it's free] and read the original post in the e-group to fully understand the context and complete message. As always, the highlighting, emphasis, etc have been added in this (HHG) blog. "There are several other examples of civilizations becoming digested by some other civilization. Many symbols, rituals and ideas came to Christianity from the so-called pagans (pre-Christian Europeans), but these pagan faiths were demonized and destroyed in the process. Native Americans gave numerous riches to the European colonizers - including potatoes, tomatoes, material wealth, fertile lands - but these original discoverers and citizens of the Americas lost their way of life, and have ended up in museums as exotic artifacts, or as drunken people living on isolated reservations. Egyptian civilization was digested into Greece, and before that some of the African civilizations had been digested into Egypt. In each case, the side getting digested was compromised, marginalized and eventually ceased to be a living, thriving civilization. Today, before our very eyes, Tibetan civilization is being digested into China....  I want to differentiate between this kind of digestion and the way Greek civilization has been assimilated into "Western" classics without losing track of the sources. While many Indian thinkers, texts and ideas got digested into so-called "European Enlightenment", and the Indian sources replaced with Western ones, the same is not true of Greek civilization. It is fashionable in intellectual circles and in the academy to study and cite Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and numerous other great classical thinkers of Greece, who are now regarded as a part and parcel of the "West". But in classical times, the Greeks did not see themselves as a part of Northern European culture and referred to the northerners as the Occidental "other", while Europeans referred to the Greeks as part of the "Orient". Here lies the difference between Indian and Greek civilizations relationship with the West: When the modern West was formulated, Greece was included as a part of it. Hence, there has been no need to replace Greek sources with other substitutes. But when India was mined for source materials, it remained in Western eyes the non-Western other. India was too different, too far and too massive to be included within the West. Hence, Indian sources of interest were mapped on to Western substitutes. This is why the academy today does not teach Kapil, Bharat, Kautilya, Bharthrhari, Panini, Patanjali, Nagarjuna, Shankara, Abhinavagupta, and dozens of other greats on par with Greek thinkers. The Greeks are part of the West's imagined selfhood while the Indians are not. Therefore, I use the term "assimilation" to describe the experience of Greece, contrasted with digestion. The book explains this distinction further.  I also want to explain that Indian civilization spread across much of Asia, but in a manner that is different than imperialism, colonialism or conquest. While many Asian nations sent their brightest students to places like Nalanda university in India to bring back knowledge, this was never imposed from the Indian side. At a time when India had the material resources and power to do so, it never tried to appoint governors or tax collectors in another country, or replace their names, language and identity with its own. In other words, there was no digestion of others that would cause them harm.  I return to the issue commonly raised that every culture has borrowed from others, and hence the same kind of digestion is being done by everyone. Why am I making a case out of the digestion of Indian civilization into the West, some people ask? My response is that there is a difference between digestion and assimilation. Most examples people cite are about assimilation, not digestion, because the source tradition does not get destroyed during the process. When there is an asymmetry of power between the parties involved in the exchange, the implications of exchange depend on this power equation. For instance: Native Americans also borrowed many things from the white settlers - horses, liquor, guns, for instance. But the natives lacked the power to destroy the white culture. The borrowings in the reverse direction had an entirely different implication. One can cite examples of Indians learning from Westerners and assimilating these ideas as part of Indian ways. However, India did not take over the global language, institutional apparatus, discourse and grand narrative of history. Indian siddhantas (philosophical theories) did not assume the status of universalism in the same manner as European thought did. Hence the implications of Indian assimilations are not the same as those of digestion by the West. When women entered the American workforce in the 1960s, men had the power and the women's imitation of men at work was not because women were digesting men. Women did not have the power to do so. Hence, while there was women's mimicry of men, it was assimilation and not digestion.  Secondly, who says that I oppose all those other kinds of assimilation from being the subject of scholarship? The fact is that the history of ideas as written by Western historians is filled with how the West influenced others, rarely the other way around. In fact, even since Hegel, world history has largely been depicted as the story of what the West did to itself and to others, as though the non-West lacked agency. Therefore, it should not be seen as a problem if some works like mine focus on the flow of influence in the opposite direction. I do not oppose works that bring out assimilations (and even digestions) in which the West is not the predator. Let many directions of research flourish and interact. I do not wish to monopolize the discourse on the history of ideas, but merely wish to add one more dimension to it, ....  In Being Different, I discuss that large aspects of today's global culture are in fact founded on the values and beliefs that emerged under Western domination of the world in the past 500 years, and these in turn are founded on the values and beliefs that emerged from the unique historical and religious experience of the peoples of European origin. When all collective identities are discarded and all boundaries challenged, the result is not a world free from dominance but one in which the strongest and most aggressive identities along with their versions of history and values prevail....." Ellen looks at 'the human tendency to recognize sameness'. This is an interesting perspective, and we carry this in some depth with limited editing: "By way of introduction, I teach Hinduism and Buddhism ... ...although I have not read Rajiv Malhotra's text yet, I am in agreement (to some extent) with the essence of his basic thesis on difference. Having said that, I want to introduce yet another way of looking at 'religion'. Bear in mind that scholars of 'religion' are really not concerned with the same issues that practitioners are and this is why 'insiders' often have debates with or have taken objection to their work. But, I need not go into detail here, this discussion has raised so many issues with academia on its own that it is not necessary to rehash the objections and central points again and again. What is important to point out, I think, is that within the scholarly study of religion  -- as the saying goes -- we teach 'about' religion, we don't actually teach religion -- and this might be the crux or source of the central objection. In order to do this we attempt to explain and interpret 'religion' as a phenomenon using the methods of the social sciences (and most insiders don't always agree with this approach). But, please bear in mind, this is true equally for all religions, not just Hinduism. Having said that, I want to introduce a new way of understanding religion, but certainly not the only way. That is to say, through the lens of cognitive science or the study of the mind/brain. It seems to me, that when we look at the human mind/brain we see more 'similarities' than 'differences'.  ... This is true not only for neuroscience but also for cognitive linguistic theorists who debate Noam Chomsky's notion of a universal grammar that is triggered by linguistic environments at birth. In other words, we (i.e., humans) don't arrive in this world at birth as a tabula rasa. ... Cognitive theorists are looking at religion as a deeply human phenomenon that expresses itself, like language, in myriad ways. To this end, cognitive scientists are generating a wealth of empirical data based on analytical and applied research, and their efforts lend a new and vital theoretical approach to the field of religious studies. It is my view that the cognitive science of religion has several critical areas of mutual (and beneficial) intersection with Hindu and Buddhist religion (particularly the teachings of the great yogis and mahasiddhas) including critical discussions on the nature of consciousness, the role of the nervous system in religious experience and claims of non-duality (advaita). In this way, science and religion have a role to play in levelling the playing field where religions are concerned, at least in my view. The question is not, as I see it, one of difference per se, but rather how does the mind/brain generate religious experience and why? In the case of the great yogis, this is an exceedingly important question given the embodied nature of religious experience and the role that mind plays, for example, in meditation (including such states as turiya, samprajnata and asamprajnata samadhi, etc.). I once asked a great yogi the central question raised by cognitive philosophers. That is to say, 'how does matter become conscious?" In turn, he looked at me and did what any great yogi would, he turned my question on its head (into a headstand of sorts!) and said, "no, Ellen, the question is, how does consciousness become matter?" Either way, it is clear that for both sides consciousness is the key. And it is clear, at least to me, that on this subject humans are more alike than we are different. There is an excellent and what I consider to be a beautiful quote from an amazing scholar of psychology named Merlin Donald who writes:  .... ....why humans aspire for a sense of unity and cognitive integrity in the first place. ... it is intrinsic to our evolutionary, biological self.  It is written in to our genetic structure. The explanation is that simple. It is human to do so! I have added this simple thread for your consideration. I realize you will have to debate and tear it apart. But I do think it is worth considering seriously. Let me end with a scene from the vastly successful Bollywood film 'Dulwale Dulhania Le Jayenge' to make my point using a different approach. Baldev's pigeons, as it turns out, were the same everywhere -- in Traflagar Square and in the Punjab. It was his 'mind' (or his culture) that created the differences. Nature is One. So, too, Simran (the lead female character) prays both at a her family altar as well as in a church. Why? The pure mind sees no difference. And I think this is why we cry at the end of the film -- Baldev realizes advaita through love -- through prem -- when he opens his heart."  struth91 responds: "... For the sake of clarity, lets use the term 'spiritual experience' or 'mystical experience' as opposed to 'religious experience' for the sense of cognitive integrity or larger consiousness, as described by Ellen.... While Ellen is correct in stressing on the commonality of humans striving towards this 'spiritual experience' - religions are certainly not all 'equal' or the same in their support for such activity. In fact, BD repeatedly brings up the point that Christianity and 'history-centric' religions in general have historically been antogonistic towards this 'mysticism' and there is the well-known history of mystics being marginalized and persecuted in the Abrahamic tradition. In contrast - Dharmic religions view spiritual experience as an inner science and the the entire goal of religion is to facilitate such a state. By providing scientific validation to the thesis that striving towards cognitive unity is a fundamentally human need and goal - Ellen provides support to the conclusion that this individual striving should be recognized as a basic human right. There is a need to debate whether religions that impose dogmatic, exclusivistic or history-centric restrictions on a basic human right can be allowed to propagate and destroy the more individualistic and inner-science oriented faiths through 'push' sales techniques."  Nagaraja adds: "....The underlying voice in your conclusion seems to be that the 'difference consciousness' creates a divide, an unpleasant and uncomfortable feeling which can be overcome by a 'sameness consciousness' or a 'consciousness that overlooks differences" creating unity which is a pleasant and comfortable feeling. Please correct me if I am wrong. My contention is that while this aspiration for unity and pleasantness is good, there is another way of achieving it which the Rishis have shown and our previous generations had mastered. That of acknowledging the differences and respecting them... "  Rajiv adds a moderating comment here: "I started a new thread [this is carried in a separate post, see the egroup link at the bottom of this post] because this misunderstanding by Ellen also explained below is a very common one and a very serious one. It inflicts many well intended and supposedly well informed dharmic people including many acharyas and swamis who teach Vedanta = escapism. Lets migrate to that thread so its not personal about Ellen. But I do thank her for opening this up here." Desh comments: Honestly, I find Ellen's arguments completely jumbled up - ...Here is why: For one thing, she takes the One-ness of consciousness and extrapolates it to one-ness of mind. There is no one-ness of mind or thought. That is purely individual. Consciousness is NOT the mind. Let us not be IRRESPONSIBLE about using the buzzwords as we like. Mind/Belief/Religion are NOT the same as Consciousness/Experience/Spiritual.. and you cannot use the concepts from one context interchangeably. Religion is of the mind, not consciousness. Its god is a defined god (deliberately in lower case) - with specific characteristic... and therefore limited and restricted - it has NOTHING to do with Infinite.. All the talk of One-ness, Infinite in Religious or Theology is schizophrenic nonsense.  Spirituality starts where physicality and finite ends. Spirituality is not a "mind-game", it is an experiential process. Religion is belief-centric, Spirituality is experience-centric. Lets understand it from Gita's example - in the second chapter, Krishna asks Arjun to go fight. He refuses point blank. Instead in third chapter beginning he complains about he is confused between Jnana and Karma. And in the 4th chap beginning he asks directly "How do I know what you are saying is Truth?" Not once in entire Gita does Arjun say even ONCE that "I believe you". Instead when he sees the Universal self of Krishna he finally says "I KNOW this to be the Truth". Knowing via experience VS Believing someone. We have confused our limited "love" for Spiritual Love. The DDLJ Baldev's example to speak about Spirituality looks cute, but is nonsensical...When the Quality of one's love for her Beloved transform to become hopeless yet unrelenting, then it begins to get into a position to take her beyond the physical. ...." Sandeep responds to Ellen: " > The question is not, as I see it, one of difference per se, but rather how does the mind/brain generate religious experience and why? < I think this question has already been answered in Yoga texts.  Spiritual experience occurs due to suspension of thought.  The energy (Prana) which was occupied in thinking is first recovered in order to transfer consciousness into the subtle body. There are three energy channels Ida, Pingala and Sushumna collocated with the spinal cord.  In normal circumstances, the breath moves through left and right channels - Ida and Pingala.  All methods of Yoga aim to divert the breath from the side channels into the central channel so that it connects with the universal energy (Mukhya Prana) which can be contacted through the Sahasradala Chakra at the top of the head. Cognitive theorists are too pre-occupied with the brain. They should pay attention to the spinal cord as well. "  Srini comments: "...This is a comment on the argument used for justification of a certain way of studying religion/philosophy and not on the intentions of the person. ...."we teach 'about' religion, we don't actually teach religion" Does that mean non-belief and/or non-experience in a topic gives a person the right teach "about" it? Or is it like Deepak Chopra saying I teach "about" Quantum physics not actually quantum physics. I don't have to point out what true quantum physicists think about such people. ....I do think the contributions of such "scholars" is valuable ..." Rajiv's response:  I must clarify what Ellen meant, I think. Teaching "about" something is a third-person view, whereas practicing it is a first-person view. Both are valid and complement each other.The important point is that religions defined by a text rather than by embodied experience can be and usually are interpreted using third-person techniques known as hermeneutics. An expert need not be a practitioner because its a matter of interpreting what the text means. This is like a lawyer interpreting what a contract says. (These texts are seen as covenants or contracts given by God.) Indians must understand that this is the result of history-centrism and shortfall in embodied knowing in those traditions. So if that text (a historical record) were lost, man would be doomed as there would be no way even in principle to recover it again. Not so in the case of embodied knowing - thats the whole point of chapter 2." Kundan adds: "To add my two cents to this post, I would say that the West has been in a parasitic instead of symbiotic relationship with Indian Thought. It has enriched itself by appropriating the thought while simultaneously destroying it in India and suppressing the influence in its home soil. We are opposing a parasitic relationship that the West has forged and we do not have anything against a symbiotic relationship. True to the Indian principle, we will encourage a symbiotic scholarly exchange that is based on mutuality and parity of power. "  March 1  comment on Being Different Rajiv: This comment posted on Patheos.com where my book is being discussed at their Book Club. I enourage others to participate. Indrani comments "... As someone born into the Dharmic Traditions in the Caribbean where my ancestors have lived hundreds of years and where my internal and external space was bombarded by the oppressive presence of persons and institutions that were forcibly, selfishly, and exclusively promoting their Judeo-Christian ideology, I have spent all of my years in a constant struggle to BE myself  and to SEE myself in the world around me. I have struggled with the issues that BD so brilliantly articulates for people like us who are born into and live most of our lives almost in a Twilight Zone of sorts.  This text bridges the gap between the academy and the masses. It brings the distillation of ideas from a hardcore scholarly level down to one that most ordinary folks can understand. The text should be prescribed reading for people trying to understand why they find it difficult to "belong" in hegemonic societies, and for those who exercise the hegemony so they can appreciate the violence that they are perpetuating and perhaps do something about it. People like me are better able to find our bearings in a Judeo-Christian and western world, when we read BD. This text, in a way, sets up important navigation directions for the interface between  Dharmic and Abrahmic traditions. It is a jewel in the Samudra Manthan." March 4 Please Post : Re: Mutual Respect... Pankaj posts: On Mutual Respect As the term implies, there has to be both reciprocity and respect.... please note that the Jews do not convert and it may be possible to take a  Position of mutual respect with them, provided they accept. Also note that in India we have not had problems between Hindus and Jews because of religious injunctions or basis in society, strongly supported by the fact that both the sides do not seek to convert each other." [we will carry the discussion in this thread below in a separate post because of the many comments posted] March 4 A common misinterpretation of Unity Consciousness Ellen's recent thread illustrates the common notion that non-duality is escapist from the mundane world on multiplicity. This became the handle with which...