Phuein Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I have recently had the great joy of watching, and pondering, a lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda about an understanding of the "self", according to the Vedanta - a philosophical stream in the Hinduist religious tradition, based on philosophical teachings and texts. I am not, myself, a Hindu, Vedanti, or religious person. A [ridiculously short] summary of his arguments, from my understanding, is: 1) The knower and the known are separate. I am aware of my experiences, but I am not them [strictly], because I observe them. 2) The knower, in this case - my consciousness (self), is unknown. We have no means of observing it, separately, neither practically nor logically. I am the knower, so I can only experience myself, but not observe myself as an object. 3) The knower, this witness to experiences, is the same thing in all living beings and existence. Instead of turning us into metaphysical abstracts, this conclusion actually infers that we are all the projections of the same core thing, like many dreams inside one mind, and thus everything is undivided in nature. 4) Realizing this knowledge, both intellectually and experientially, means we can act out of wisdom, rather than out of ignorance. We don't mistake experiences to be our entire identity; I am not [only] my feelings. What do you guys and gals think about this? Disclaimer: I actually watched his much longer double lecture (Part 1, Part 2) about this, before this short video. There he goers into much detail, with examples on the board (written), so I highly recommend it, if you find these notions worth thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootoo Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I like to think a lot about this What are the observer and the observed separated by? just time right? I am not actually observing anything as it happens but instead a fraction of a second later when my nervous system and brain do their business and project it to the big screen we call consciousness. Isnt the observer created or at least greatly shaped by whats observed? Everything is undivided in nature, its just to make communication easier that we separate them out and give different sections/parts different identifiers - this is where the lesson that 'the map is not reality' is important. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh F Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I think this is another example of spiritualism being a guise for escapism. Unfortunately, the things which happened to you in your life did happen to you, and they always will have happened to you. Thats an uncomfortable reality for some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuein Posted September 24, 2014 Author Share Posted September 24, 2014 I think this is another example of spiritualism being a guise for escapism. Unfortunately, the things which happened to you in your life did happen to you, and they always will have happened to you. Thats an uncomfortable reality for some people. The Swami never says that any of this doesn't happen to you. He rather puts the idea of "you" into a different, much larger perspective, which includes the physical experience. The shorter video might not explain this, properly. The longer ones do. As an example, I could be saying, "My hand is injured." While this is true, it is also true, and from a larger perspective, to say, "I am injured." Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh F Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Sure yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satsang Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Im not a religious person myself but you might see this more fitting here.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le7QZ6NA4QYHinduism seems to be the closest to my understanding of life,really like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuein Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Thanks for sharing. I didn't like that it was not structured. The Swami's talk was very clear, with descriptions and examples, especially in the longer videos. Also, the Swami gave credence to the value of our temporal experiences, which makes sense for any functional person. I did like the irony he pointed to, with the scientific method. Just as research gives evidence for physical laws that may predetermine everything, so does free choice seems evident. A clear contradiction. A fault in the method, due to "seemingness" not being valid proof. More than anything, though, I cannot trust the studiousness of a fat person. Such behavior immediately highlights for me a person who is self-neglecting, and thus generally neglecting. Not rigorous. He feels manipulative, in the conversation, rather than genuine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satsang Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Thanks for sharing. I didn't like that it was not structured. The Swami's talk was very clear, with descriptions and examples, especially in the longer videos. Also, the Swami gave credence to the value of our temporal experiences, which makes sense for any functional person. I did like the irony he pointed to, with the scientific method. Just as research gives evidence for physical laws that may predetermine everything, so does free choice seems evident. A clear contradiction. A fault in the method, due to "seemingness" not being valid proof. More than anything, though, I cannot trust the studiousness of a fat person. Such behavior immediately highlights for me a person who is self-neglecting, and thus generally neglecting. Not rigorous. He feels manipulative, in the conversation, rather than genuine. This is exactly why I like him.There is no structure,there are no rules to follow,it isnt said in a written way.It simply goes as the conversation develops,there are no guidlines to follow.To me it keep a does of honesty rather then preaching about knowledge he posses."More than anything, though, I cannot trust the studiousness of a fat person. Such behavior immediately highlights for me a person who is self-neglecting, and thus generally neglecting. Not rigorous. He feels manipulative, in the conversation, rather than genuine." I truly hope you arent serious about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuein Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 I truly hope you arent serious about this. Why should I not judge a man's trustworthiness in accordance to how he treats himself? It takes time and effort to figure out a persons claims and arguments. I wouldn't want to bother with someone who doesn't, at the very least, appear logical. A self-neglecting person talking about the meaning of life makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satsang Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Why should I not judge a man's trustworthiness in accordance to how he treats himself? It takes time and effort to figure out a persons claims and arguments. I wouldn't want to bother with someone who doesn't, at the very least, appear logical. A self-neglecting person talking about the meaning of life makes no sense. To me he seems really happy and cheerful,so that indicates he treats himself really well.The only time I would agree with you is the time where hes weight would affect his behaviour.Afterall TV is full of fit handsome guys scamming people.My participation in this thread ends here.Take care. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts