The Material Cause...

[satay]

Admin Note

Namaskar!
I am not sure what's going on in this thread...a simple discussion seems to have turned into a big argument or at least that's my impression from reading a few posts.

Please allow me some time to read the whole thread before any further action.

For now, I feel that it must be closed.

Thread under review.

Mahadev!

[satay]

Namaskar,

Sarabhanga has edited some of his comments. The thread is open for discussion again.

Thank you.

[atanu]

Namaste Bob,

The karma yoga will continue. But it is foolish to ‘cast pearls before swine’.

Namaste All,

Om Namah Shivaya

It is painful. It would have been painful, if it was used against me, or any other member, or against Sarabhanga himself. I would have objected.

It is not a Hindu usage. Even the Christian scripture teaches: "Do not cast" and does not teach to use the saying the way it is being used.

Though a foolishness is taken upon oneself but not before implying two graver things.

Om Namah Shivaya

[devotee]

It is painful. It would have been painful, if it was used against me, or any other member, or against Sarabhanga himself. I would have objected.

It is not a Hindu usage. Even the Christian scripture teaches: "Do not cast" and does not teach to use the saying the way it is being used.

I don't know what prompted Sarabhanga ji to use this saying but it is highly unexpected from a person of his stature & could have been better avoided. In fact, this saying has been used in impersonal way in the Bible i.e. not directed against anyone in particular but here it was used directly against a person. ... and that would hurt anyone, as Atanu has correctly pointed out. It is not Hindu usage ... why learn bad things from others ?

I think it would better to delete that sentence from the record.

OM

[sarabhanga]

More misunderstanding! But since you press the point …

The comment is saying that it is foolish to expect someone who has no possibility of properly appreciating something (which is sacred to those who understand it) to fully grasp its import. And the remark was directed to Bob in response to his own reply to my note about the frustration of having to repeat things dozens of times and going round and round in endless debate which I was beginning to realize was most likely futile.

I can waste many hours confirming sanskrit translations and defining terms and contexts, and it will all be ignored or countered with arguments copied from another web-site merely reproducing the majority views.

Imo none of the above is really of your or our concern...only ego has such concerns.

Thanks Bob, that was a really helpful comment.

If I had been repeatedly misunderstanding something, after the other person had been explaining it again and again in many different ways, which all turn out to be futile, the frustrated explainer would perhaps be justified in thinking that he had been foolish in casting such “pearls” before a veritable “swine” (in the biblical sense), who could not really be expected to grasp them.

ajAtivAda was intended to lead a sannyAsin to the station of avadhUta, and never intended for comprehension by non-sannyAsins.

There is so much more that could be said on this matter, but no explanation will ever be sufficient for those who have no personal experience of the pañca.

svabhAvavAdins will remain dedicated to their parAdvaita, and never grasp ajAtivAda, while they remain ignorant of the pañca.

The pañca cannot be known be reading, and would not be expected by reason alone ~ truly, it is something that must be seen to be believed.

When you have renounced the three-worlds and quenched the fire with your own perspiration in the ultimate havana, and risen again in ashes from the saMskAra with avadhUta dIkshA, and wandered over the veritable form of satI with the fifth head of brahma firmly grasped, returning to kAshI for the final dissolution; when you know the “kshatriya vAnaprastha” and have seen beyond the extremity of naranArAyaNa; when you truly know gurudatta, then you would understand.

But until that time, it is majority rules! I can waste many hours confirming sanskrit translations and defining terms and contexts, and it will all be ignored or countered with arguments copied from another web-site merely reproducing the majority views.

Why does an avadhUta wear ashes? Why does bhairava self-immolate by tapasya in kAshi? Why does satI sacrifice herself into the fire of daksha, and why does prajApati then appear as a goat? Why was christ crucified, and why does the sage at the close of the Isha upaniSad apparently die? These questions (and many more) will all be answered simultaneously when you understand the significance of quenching the fire-brand.

But until then, the highest advaitam will only be disparaged as shUnya or even dvaitam, and the point will be missed yet again. All discussions will degenerate into my guru vs your guru, and no conclusion will ever be reached.

It is not a Hindu usage. Even the Christian scripture teaches: "Do not cast" and does not teach to use the saying the way it is being used.

The english language is not a Hindu usage! I think you still don’t understand the point I was making, nor how the saying was actually being used, nor how it was particularly relevant to this discussion, nor why I used it in a response to Bob ~ NOT directed at him personally, but as part of an answer to his unsympathetic statement that any concern about hours of wasted effort should only be counted as an expression of personal ego. I considered retiring, but then confirmed that the karma would continue.

Strictly speaking, I should not be speaking in such an open forum, and the only way that I justify this is to consider the forum as an extension of my own Ashram. It is fine that many schools of thought coexist, but none should absolutely conflict with any other. And, with a proper understanding of their context, all true dharmas can easily be accommodated and work together, with minimum friction and maximum thrust. Each one follows their own dharma, while all understand their equally important part in the whole (and hence my emphasis on explaining the relationships, levels, stages, etc.). There must be a common vocabulary, with particular contexts having their own particular connotations but all contexts sharing the same essential theme (and hence my emphasis on clarifying terminology). And from an apparently random assortment of sticks, sanAtana dharma arranges a perfect cakram. Any basically true piece will be useful, but some may require a little pruning, and others are just not fit for the unified purpose and must be discarded. I don’t mind a long discussion with anyone whose alAta is basically true, for I know that in the end we can come to an agreement. But I have no interest in arguing with an avowed non-hindu who seems more concerned with me and my attitude and my manner of communication than he is with anything that I am actually trying to say. I would not deliberately sit down to meditate in a place where there are biting insects, and I am happy to sit in another place where such irritations will not disturb the process.

It is amazing how much mischief can be caused by taking a line completely out of context.

‘Don’t cast pearls before swine.’ ‘Don’t play music to a cow.’ ‘Don’t throw gold coins to a cat.’ ‘Don’t expect a monkey to appreciate ginger.’ ‘Honey isn’t made for a donkey’s mouth.’ The meaning is exactly the same.

According to the gospel of matthew: ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.’

According to the muNDakopaniSad: ‘This is declared by the Rg verse: Let one teach this knowledge of brahma to those only who perform the karma enjoined, who are versed in the vedAs, and firmly established in brahmA, who, endowed with full faith, offer oblations themselves to the fire called ekarSi, and who perform the shirovrata according to the rule.’

And according to the shvetAshvataropaniSad: ‘This highest secret in the vedAnta, expounded in a former age, should not be given to one whose passions have not been subdued, nor to one who is not a worthy son, nor to an unworthy disciple.’

Can you please explain the essential difference between ‘this should not be given to one who is unworthy’ (which is the standard hindu tradition) and ‘that which is holy should not be thrown to the dogs’ or ‘cast not your pearls before swine’ (as advised by christian tradition)???

nAprashAntAya dAtavyaM na aputrAya ashiSyAya vA punaH

The highest secret of vedAnta is a veritable pearl, which should not be taught to “an untrue son” (thus, not to a “bastard child” or a “mongrel”, and hence not to a “dog”). And neither should it be taught to “a person or thing not deserving to be taught or not capable of being instructed” (thus, not to a “donkey” or a “monkey” or a “cat” or a “cow” or a “pig”).

Since only an idiot would even contemplate teaching vedAnta to any one of these animals, the words are surely metaphorical and referring to human communication, indicating simply anyone who is incapable or unprepared for properly appreciating or digesting the pearl of wisdom. The veda refers to wisdom that should only be given to a tyAgin (vAnaprastha), and the upaniSad is referring to wisdom that should only be given to a sannyAsin, and in each case the meaning is the same ~ don’t give the post-graduate instruction to the undergraduates, for they are (as yet) unfit to properly comprehend it, and in their hands the true significance will be lost. And it is fruitless to caste such pearls of wisdom to those who are not prepared (i.e. to the “unwashed”, who are without the appropriate saMskAra) for it.

Any difference between the biblical statement and the vedAntika statement is only in your mind.

And regarding my own use of the phrase ~ it is futile to give the ultimate wisdom of sannyAsa to those who are not prepared for sannyAsa ~ it is useless to suggest the common origin and aims of apparently diverse dharmas to those whose passionate support of one side over another makes them blind to the very possibility ~ and it is clearly unwise to cast appropriate metaphors before those who take everything literally!

Though a foolishness is taken upon oneself but not before implying two graver things.

And what are those grave implications? The intention was to say that when others are incapable of understanding it is best not to waste everyone’s time and cause more upset and confusion by continuing to press the point.

I could have used various expressions ~ ‘don’t cast pearls before swine’, ‘don’t give that which is holy to the dogs’, ‘don’t play music to a cow’, ‘don’t throw gold coins to a cat’, ‘don’t expect a monkey to appreciate ginger’, ‘honey isn’t made for a donkey’s mouth’, ‘don’t give the sacred inheritance to an unworthy son’, or ‘don’t give this gem of wisdom to an unworthy disciple”. And since the original comment was a reference to:

ajAtivAda was intended to lead a sannyAsin to the station of avadhUta, and never intended for comprehension by non-sannyAsins. There is so much more that could be said on this matter, but no explanation will ever be sufficient for those who have no personal experience of the pañca.

I thought the “unwashed” connotation was most appropriate, so I quoted the famous sermon on the mount (don’t cast pearls before swine) ~ although I could perhaps have quoted the upaniSad instead, by saying that it is foolish to ‘give this gem of wisdom to an unworthy disciple’. Or is there some particular problem with pigs? Would a reference to dogs, cows, cats, or donkeys, have been better received? Or is there some particular problem with quoting from the bible?

Perhaps I should have said “bandar kya jane adrak ka swad” (?)

In fact, this saying has been used in impersonal way in the Bible i.e. not directed against anyone in particular but here it was used directly against a person.

Please understand everything that I have said above, and note that the phrase has NOT been used directly against anyone in particular, and it was not being used against Bob, but rather in response to his previous comment about my previous comment about various long and circular discussions with no apparent possibility of conclusion.

This thread is a perfect example of the problem, which is still chasing its tail because the intentions and the context have been completely missed, despite repeated explanations.

[atanu]

-
This thread is a perfect example of the problem, which is still chasing its tail because the intentions and the context have been completely missed, despite repeated explanations.

Namaskar All,

This thread is Shivam.

Mala, a word commonly used, is actually very dirty. It means excreta, which while hidden in body is not known as dirty. When it is expelled out by self, it becomes untouchable and none will even imagine of taking it back.

Mischief Mongering, Ego, and ignorance, three dirtiest malas have been expelled by Shivam and it is auspicious.

The auspicious will be revealed when Sarabhanga, Bob and me (most) will embrace each other and recognise the EKATMA. Let it happen naturally.

----------

I have thought how Gandhiji would have tackled. He would have said: "Hey Rama, he does not know that he and I are same". And Ramana? He would have smiled and kept silent and it would have been known to the aggressor that he was not the doer.

---------

I see some reflection of Da-Da-Da story here. Why Indians are taught of Self again and again? I think, because we are in need of self-respect most.

Om

PS: This thread is Shivam. Satay will invite Bob and Bob and Sarabhanga will forget the apparent insults, which no one heaped upon other.

Om Namah Shivaya