Baasha: I wasn't speaking with regards to you; my point was to illustrate that reincarnation, for example, is dismissed by majority of the people under the pretext of "no proof". I am saying that there is ample proof if one were to look. Whether you still dismiss it afterwards or not is your prerogative. However, to dismiss it without looking is what is disingenuous.
M: As a product of a western scientific mode of thinking, I can't use the same words you do here with the same meaning. When I say there is no proof of something, I say it because it can't be put into a theory that anybody else can test that provides external data, not as personal experience. If there were a way to put folk in a lab and show they had past lives for anybody one chose to select as a subject, the whole world would believe in reincarnation, except, of course, the fundamental Christians who can deny anything.
Furthermore, as a person who has examined many many religious claims with the same scientific need for proof, I have come to the conclusion that all of them are the same, beyond, my notion of scientific proof. That is why I don't give Mormons who come to my door the time of day. I have been conditioned to know what to expect. I intuit, as you say, what is going on, that I am listening to something produced by dogmatic faith. I have my own dogmatic faith that I prefer. I am no longer impressed by claims. I have been down many dead ends.
B: These things obviously are far beyond the scope of normality because they transcend the five senses as well as the mind. So to try and understand that which is beyond the mind with the mind is, according to the Vedas, impossible. Brahman is said to be "anirukta" or that which cannot be described.
M: I fully agree with this. This is because there is, in my opinion, another form of knowledge derived from experience. I often use the analogy of sexual climax. You can't prove to a child that he will one day experience something tremendous. He may believe you or he may not, but he won't really know until he grows up a bit.
B: This may sound ridiculous but I suppose we can agree that since neither of us are enlightened at this stage, we can neither "believe" it nor disbelieve it. That is why the Dharmic religions stress experience over "belief" and "faith" because belief by definition implies lack of substantiation. In this day and age, to simply ask someone to be satisfied with vainglorious statements is rather foolish. So what should a seeker (sadhaka) do? Well, seek! Find out the "truth" for yourself. That is the essence of it.
M: Yes and I would add being sincere. I heard it put that new organs of perception develop with need so oh necessitous one, increase your need.
B: When we take birth as human beings, we have a purpose for it. This is again according to Hinduism so opinions vary widely. That purpose is to find out who you truly are. What is your essence? Who are you? This Self-search called "atma-vichara" in Sanskrit is the purpose of life. Things that help you in that direction are considered "good" and things that take you away from it are considered "bad". Of course, these distinctions are ephemeral and have no absolute meaning. Yet, in life, we have to discriminate (in the real sense of the word ) between the 'good' and 'bad'.
M: My own thinking runs somewhat differently. I believe we were born perfect, at one with the universe, and then were put down with words. This allows the experience of self hate, when that good and bad that comes into existence with language, takes hold and is applied to the self. The inability to tolerate the feeling that we are as worthless as we were made to feel cause us to go to sleep, to divide into the ego and the hated true self. Our purpose is thus created, to cure the sickness we were given. Things that counteract self hate are good and things that keep one asleep are bad.
B: When you ask "how in such a state [of ignorance] can one know", it is through intuition and beyond. This is what Yoga is for; to dive into your mind to tap into the source of your being. Meditation increases one's concentration and Yoga makes the body supple. By combining this with intuition as well as your experiences and advice from elders, you can arrive at a solution that is life-affirming. This ability increases tremendously as you become more self-disciplined through meditation and Yoga.
M: I don't know much. I think there must be ways that one simply transcends ones own self hate. I think a more direct way is simply to feel how bad you feel. When one feels something fully one is taken back to the first time one felt it. Then one knows ones own personal truth, how and when one was put to sleep, and the lie one was forced to believe. I think this real direct self understanding should work well for everybody. But I don't know.
B: And your point about the Brahmin bowing to an untouchable is good but that was not the purpose of that incident. It illustrates that although society conditions people according to "good" and "bad", the Ultimate Reality (Brahman) is all-pervading and thus to make any distinction is ultimately false. This is simply not practical for us "normal" folk. I suppose one can try to live like that but it would make 'regular' life extremely difficult.
M: You may be right and maybe not, I do not know, but my problem with this is that I can never really know why an enlightened person acts like he does. I don't have the wisdom to say and rather than simply believe something or other, I chose to see that I don't know and withhold my opinion least I assume something incorrect and put up a wall in my understanding. I can't say it would make regular life difficult or if that would be a bad thing if it did. I fear that it might be an unconscious bias that would make me think that way.
Definitely agree with you there. Our ego-mind complex is so fundamental to defining who we are, anything that may threaten it is muffled immediately.
And interestingly, this is what Yoga helps us dissolve; that the illusion of separation gives rise to opposites and does not have any bearing in the long term.
M: My interpretation, as I mentioned, is that the ego is a form of protection from negative feelings and that to relive the original feelings is a way to freedom.
B: Purity, known as saucha, is one of the niyama (principle of individual discipline) in Yoga - a major school of philosophy as I had stated earlier.
This actually refers to mental and emotional purity as well (lack of anger, egoism etc.). Without this purity, it is difficult to practice Yoga properly. This is why Brahmins maintained a secluded lifestyle that involved rigorous purity and they avoided contact with those whose lifestyles were not conducive to such cleanliness.
M: It is also a good way to avoid things that create negative feelings making it easier to bury them. This is my objection to this kind of thinking. But perhaps, on a path of transcendence, where no self knowledge of negative feelings would be a good thing, this could make sense. I tend to think in another direction, that everything that makes you feel negatives is good because it provides a road to those feelings if one allows the feelings to their full extent. They are there in any case more or less hidden.
B: It of course was an issue that was abused later on but the principle is still intact and is warranted. When one does not follow that lifestyle of self-discipline and moral rectitude, it is foolish of them to insist on being aloof and separate from others; this is hypocrisy. That is what happened in the last 150 years or so in India and many of the so-called "lower" castes rebelled vehemently against this discrimination. Yet, we cannot fault the system or philosophy behind it; only the abuse of it.
M: I believe that no matter what it is it will be abused because of the ego. I would imagine there is plenty of areas for abuse in feeling what you feel, like making excuses for ones feelings, not taking responsibility for ones own negative attitudes, etc.
At any rate, I have enjoyed this conversation.