destiny and human beings - Page 2

12-05-2005, 06:17 AM

Hari OM

i was just pointing out a semantic error not a logical error, when discussing complex theories language becomes very critical, that is why language lessons were also included in earlier days.

Unless the language is clear, precise and unambiguous our mind may not reach near the truth (but irrespective of how good the language is it can't acquire it, a different topic)

instead of creation, it is better stated as "manifested", i.e., God manifested himself as this Universe (Prakriti), the Base consicouness field (Brahaman), the individual entity (atman) and every thing else, as stated in Gita, "everything is like beads of Yarn clustered on Yarn itself, there is nothing else besides me", so this universe is not a seperate entity created and pushed aside by God to be enjoyed by Souls, it is also as much a part of God, as "Souls" are, the concept of Universe created for Soul is Abrahmic not Hindu (please let me know any Gita verse against this)

As for the "glue" which binds soul to material is Guna as stated in Gita, when somebody stands apart from Guna, he is immediately liberated. Guna is like a channel through which the Soul interacts (controls/enjoys) the Universe (Prakiriti) and as per Advaitha, the Soul, Guna, Prakiriti and HE are one without anything besides.

narayanadasa · 12-05-2005, 07:35 AM

Jai Sriman Narayana:

Ok, you are talking from an Advaitic point of view.. I do not have much knowledge on the Advaitic concept.

But, let me ask you this question: When you say God manifisted himself as Prakriti, Brahman, Atmam why did he manifest? Was'nt he happy without that?

12-06-2005, 12:40 AM

Hari OM

Advaitha is quite a complex subject, i was not writing on that point of view.

In fact many people fail to understand its meaning, and just apply our everyday meaning to it, like you said "was He Happy" this denotes two things - He and His Happiness, so not advaitha.

Any serious student of vedanata is interested in five questions about creation-- Why,How,Where,Who and When.

When-- is clearly defined in Hinduism and if you open any Panchanga, you can see the when given in days

Who -- generally considered a trivial question and most of the acharyas agree that He (who existed before creation) was beyond human comphrension of form, so can be called with any name and assumed with any form, no difference.

Where & How--Both are related and there are three schools of thought here

Dvaitha- He created the universe outside Himself, like a spider spinning its web from itself and then retracting inside it, the most common objection to it being the presence of space outside Him (EVERYTHING IS FROM GOD)

VistaDvaitha-- Like Sun reflected in millions of water drops, the real He is reflected in millions of souls, objections being what happens when the drop bursts, how does the reflection reach Sun (EVERYTHING IS GOD)

Advaitha--- not really explained well, generally said with a man mistaking a rope to be snake, however this is not advaitha from a glance, since it involves two things-Man and rope, so this is explained by a complex concept of Dhrk, Dhristha and Dhristhi (the seer, the seen and the process of seeing), not much objection here, since very few people had understood even conceptually (THERE IS NOTHING BUT GOD)

Bhagvan endroses all three in Gita, so we can't be sure which is correct

WHY?--- This is not stated in Gita also no where it is directly stated, only deduced by Acharyas. The most common view, which i do accept currently is all this is play or drama, even though there are other views.

So you a good guy fighting a bad guy means that you had assumed a role of good guy and fighting another who had assumed a role of bad guy. But if you hate him it is as childish as a hero of a film hatting the villian, also hero can't go and hug the villian he has to fight the villian until his role is completed. Also here death, killing etc., are all just acting, only a persons role comes to the end on his death, not the real person himself, as is said in Gita, this soul can neither kill nor get killed.

This drama has lots of comedy,tragedy, violence, songs, etc., now this period is a particularly violent period. The God interfers in the drama (called Avathar) whenever the drama goes out of control or becomes too boring

Sorry for the lengthy reply, i had written whatever i had known

12-06-2005, 10:04 AM

VistaDvaitha-- Like Sun reflected in millions of water drops, the real He is reflected in millions of souls, objections being what happens when the drop bursts, how does the reflection reach Sun (EVERYTHING IS GOD)

The explanation for this given in the form of a 'Ghata' (Pot)- which is made of clay.
When this 'ghata' is empty - there is space in it. When we break this 'ghata' it does not requires to do anything to get mixed with the outer space. Rather there is no differance between inner space and outer space. Just one is bound by 'ghata' and another is not.

12-08-2005, 11:54 PM

Hari OM

But i think the Gatha example is more suited for Advaitha.

Because as per VistaDvaitha, there is a divine element inside every material element. so the reflection of sun in each water drop satisifies that theory as also the actualy divinity or greatness of the sun.

But the Pot has the same ether (space) inside and outside and "just appears" to be divided by a non-space (pot) element which can be called an illusion or maya, since the Pot didn't exist in the beginning nor it would exist in the end, it just came out from nowhere (i.e., the raw material of the pot) and would disapper into nowhere. So an illusory pot comes and divides the One space into multiple apparent spaces (i think that is why Bhagavan says in Gita, Soul is spoken of as immutable, if he had told Soul is immutable then the question of Advaitha would have been solved), so in my opinion the pot example is more suited to Advaitha than VistaDvaitha.

narayanadasa · 12-09-2005, 05:51 AM

Jai Sriman Narayana:

Good comments. I was out of town the last 3 days, so still reading and thinking...

12-09-2005, 02:53 PM

************Initially there was only one "HE" and called "Hari" who was bliss personified (literally) and aslo called "Saguna Brahmam" - Brahaman with All Atrributes

Then He created out of Him a Pure Consicous field which was Nirguna and called "Nirguan Brahmam" or simply as Brahman and denoted by "OM"****************

I have read your posts, which are nice and logical.

But you have somewhere questioned the use of word "created", and I see that you have used it yourself.

And based on your above statements, I would be glad if you cleared a doubt: which is saguna? atma or purusha or which is nirguna? atma or purusha?

12-11-2005, 02:48 AM

After studying the vedic literature,I find the concept of God as an element which is there in every atom of every living & nonliving thing rather than an entity controlling everything as more correct & appealing.This is explained by our thinkers as Ghataakash,Mathaakash,Taadaaakash & chidaakash.Briefly this means that there is space[Akaash] inside a pot which is separated from the space outside,however if you break the pot the space inside merges with the space outside but no space is destroyed. Similarly the space which is inside the house, though separate from the outside space; merges with outside space when the house is demolished. No loss of space is there. To beautify the house or to have public toilets or liquor bar is your choice and not of the space but the post effects of the choice are unavoidable.If you make it an open toilet it will stink.If you make it into a liquor bar the drunkards will create problems.
You are master of your destiny in terms of making choices but the effect of the choices has to be suffered or enjoyed by you alone. Sometimes the choices are not with you in the sense of municipality coming and demolishing the hut.You have to suffer in the rain all the same.
Moksha or mukti is knowing self i.e.Atman identifying it with the element which pervades the universe[Uni & verse i.e. one line,a beautiful concept] & to be one with that element. There is no god in the sense of any deity as Vishnu or Shiva etc.No god writes you future, you and the circumstanes write it. But if your atman is one with the paramatman then you are happy and content & your action are more intune with the universal god

12-11-2005, 02:58 AM

may be

I thought the example of water drops and sun are more related to Advaitha.
Because what I heard and read - the reflection of sun in water drops resembles Sun, the image will move with air and will reflect rays, it will appear as if it is the Sun, but in reality it is not, it is just a mirror image that is is 'Jagat Mithya' concept and we are possessed by Maya so we feel that the image as itself true and real. But in reality the Brahman/Parmatma is different.

12-12-2005, 12:19 AM

Hari OM

Thanks for your compliments, even though i don't deserve it.

My "views" are second-hand or bookish and that too novice ones.

Thanks for questioning the contradications and thanks for Narayanadasa for his questions.

i think all the contradications will be happening , until we "see" the truth, and also i am aware of what Bhagavan says in Gita "Only yogis and striving recluses would be able to see the truth enshrined in their hearts, others would fail in spite of their best efforts", even though i am neither yogi nor a recluse, still i am trying to "see" the truth since Bhagavan has not explicility discouraged
others.

Now coming to your question, i think purusha is a term of yoga (Patanajli) origin which talks about Prakriti, Purusha and Iswara, while Atma is of vedantic origin which talks about Jagat, Jiva, Atma, Brahma and ParaBrahama

In yoga terms purusha is Guna while Iswara is Saguna(all Magnificent Gunas) , while in Vedatana, Jiva is Guna bound while Atma is Nirugana (no gunas), Brahama is Guna-Addetha (Beyond Gunas) and ParaBrahama is Saguana (with all magnificient gunas). But i think comparing between two systems, purusha of yoga and atma of vedanata may be beyond my expertise

BTW as a side-topic, let us "see" what is meant by "seeing"

generally what we consider seeing is the pattern-matching by the mind.

A part of the energy spectrum (light, sound, chemical and thermal) is converted to electro-chemical inputs by the senses which is again converted to an electro-magentic pattern in the brain.

The mind, which is other than the brain, "sees" this pattern and compares this pattern with its own pattern store-house (called memory) where billions or trillions of patterns are stored. From this comparison the memory gets the name-form-attribute of the pattern (nama-rupa-guna) ,from which it analysis and decides about the pattern.

However we may not be able to "see" the truth or God in this way, since the corresponding pattern for them may not be registered in the memory and the mind keeps on searching for that pattern and hangs.

However there is another way of "seeing" that is seeing through the intellect where there is no patterns exist for the object and the intellect directly "perceives" the truth about the object. No prior "knowledge" of the object is required in this case (which would not have been available also).The rishis are the advanced seers of this category while the scientist are the beginners of this category.

We can "see" the truth only by intellect not by our usual mind seeing.

Sorry for the lengthy reply

12-12-2005, 06:18 AM

Hari OM

now i can understand that you are making so much of irrelevant noise out of ignorance and not arrogance which i intially suspected.

"I find the concept of God as an element which is there in every atom of every living & nonliving thing"

1) what is the term used for representing non-living things in veda?

2) How can God be inside a non-living thing unless He is also dead? or re-phrased how a thing can become non-living if God is inside it?

ajit12 · 12-14-2005, 09:31 AM

Dear Guest,
I think you have not understood the concept of god ,so the lack of humility.Upnishads speak of god as the one which encompasses 'CHARACHAR' i. e. every thing in this universe you are still thinking of god as a being as an entity.Therefore you are ascribing living or nonliving labels to god. God does not exist in that sense of a supreme being. That is why vedas say he does not do anything ,he is not a reason for anything,neither he has any physical properties. If you read Patanjali yoga sutra this concept is enumerated there.
request you to read brahmsutras also .That is why srutis describe god as 'NETI,NETI---not understood'
I am not making a noise as you say but just putting forward my interprtation or views. You may not agree, which I accept but don't call your views as noise.
Love to you

12-15-2005, 01:00 AM

Hari OM

CHARACHARA-- moving and non-moving
SURASURA-- bright and non-bright

What is the term for Living and non-living?

i think you still have time to save yourself, if you read a good and genuine Gita instead of a Gita with some research institute and all.

Remember, "Man has to raise himself by his own effort and not degrade himself. Ones own self is his best friend and worst enemy" (in Gita, "outside" the Genuine chapters), remember that and try to araise yourselves