Questions about soul

[theist 1]

 

What that means?

It is very straight forward. No need to look for hidden meanings. The perfect devotee sees Krsna face to face. Just like you see your friend or teacher face to face.

 

You are with your teacher and he is teaching you how to accomplish some project which he has assigned to you. It is that personal.

 

The essential idea here is that God is a person and not just some abstract idea. He just happens to be the Supreme Person. You, the soul, are a person. You are a person because you are part of Krsna who is the Supreme Person. It follows then that the way to relate to the Supreme person is as a person.

 

Not a belief, not a theology or philosophy, but a personal one to one relationship.

 

ps You used to distinguish yourself by adding 111 after the guest username. That was very helpful as there are numerous people using the guest username.

[Guest guest]

 

It is very straight forward. No need to look for hidden meanings. The perfect devotee sees Krsna face to face. Just like you see your friend or teacher face to face.

 

You are with your teacher and he is teaching you how to accomplish some project which he has assigned to you. It is that personal.

 

The essential idea here is that God is a person and not just some abstract idea. He just happens to be the Supreme Person. You, the soul, are a person. You are a person because you are part of Krsna who is the Supreme Person. It follows then that the way to relate to the Supreme person is as a person.

 

Not a belief, not a theology or philosophy, but a personal one to one relationship.

 

ps You used to distinguish yourself by adding 111 after the guest username. That was very helpful as there are numerous people using the guest username.

 

so, this is like--> wherever you look- you "seethe omnipresent whole" that is/was/will be "watching you" all the time,

...that knows everything about you...

correct?

 

2. why is it not enough to say it is brahman? (i think brahman means that-omnipresent whole) why you need to say that God is personal- to me personal would only be in other people.

[Guest guest]

Ill try to ask different, don't bother those questions.. (to delete them)..

[theist 1]

 

so, this is like--> wherever you look- you "seethe omnipresent whole" that is/was/will be "watching you" all the time,

...that knows everything about you...

correct?

 

2. why is it not enough to say it is brahman? (i think brahman means that-omnipresent whole) why you need to say that God is personal- to me personal would only be in other people.

 

No these are good questions. This is an important area to clarify.

 

This is from the 14th chapter of the Gita:

 

TRANSLATION

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

 

PURPORT

The constitution of Brahman is immortality, imperishability, eternity, and happiness. Brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization. Paramatma, the Supersoul, is the middle, the second stage in transcendental realization, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth. Therefore, both Paramatma and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person. It is explained in the Seventh Chapter that material nature is the manifestation of the inferior energy of the Supreme Lord. The Lord impregnates the inferior, material nature with fragments of the superior nature, and that is the spiritual touch in the material nature. When a living entity conditioned by this material nature begins the cultivation of spiritual knowledge, he elevates himself from the position of material existence and gradually rises up to the Brahman conception of the Supreme. This attainment of the Brahman conception of life is the first stage in self-realization. At this stage the Brahman-realized person is transcendental to the material position, but he is not actually perfect in Brahman realization. If he wants, he can continue to stay in the Brahman position and then gradually rise up to Paramatma realization and then to the realization of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many examples of this in Vedic literature. The four Kumaras were situated first in the impersonal Brahman conception of truth, but then they gradually rose to the platform of devotional service. One who cannot elevate himself beyond the impersonal conception of Brahman runs the risk of falling down. In Srimad-Bhagavatam it is stated that although a person may rise to the stage of impersonal Brahman, without going further, with no information of the Supreme Person, his intelligence is not perfectly clear. Therefore, in spite of being raised to the Brahman platform, there is the chance of falling down if one is not engaged in the devotional service of the Lord. In the Vedic language it is also said, raso vai sah, rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati: "When one understands the Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure, Krishna, he actually becomes transcendentally blissful." (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7.1) The Supreme Lord is full in six opulences, and when a devotee approaches Him there is an exchange of these six opulences. The servant of the king enjoys on an almost equal level with the king. And so eternal happiness, imperishable happiness, and eternal life accompany devotional service. Therefore, realization of Brahman, or eternity, or imperishability, is included in devotional service. This is already possessed by a person who is engaged in devotional service.

[...]

 

The Brahman effulgence is real but there is more. The Brahman is the aura of Krsna. Just like everyone has a certain aura extending from and representing their mind Krsna also has. Krsna's mind is unlimited and so His aura is also unlimited. Krsna is completely pure and therefore His aura is also.

 

When you meet a friend, who has an aura, do you talk to and relate with just your friend's aura or do you relate directly to your friend? Similarly the devotee looks beyond Krsna's aura and relates more directly and personally with Krsna.

[theist 1]

Here are two mantra from Sri Isopanishad that illustrate the point.

 

 

Mantra 15. O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.

 

Mantra 16. O my Lord, O primeval philosopher, maintainer of the universe, O regulating principle, destination of the pure devotees, well-wisher of the progenitors of mankind, please remove the effulgence of Your transcendental rays so that I can see Your form of bliss.

[theist 1]

Another practice we can use to direct our attention directly onto the soul/self, or ourselves, is rather than just thinking of the soul as some distant abstraction we by trace out the real perceiver in any act of sense perception.

 

A simple act of say looking at an apple on a tree can reveal the soul if we just think it through. Let's say we are gazing at such an apple. We use our eyes to capture the light pattern known by us as an apple. We see the apple. But clearly it is not the eye that is perceiving the apple anymore than a telescope is aware of the stars as we point it deep into the heavens at night.

 

So we next come to the optic nerve which transmits the image to the brain. It also can't perceive what is being transmited through it anymore than a cable line can perceive the internet transmission passing through it.

 

How about the brain then. Is the brain the perceiver? Francis (dna) Crick thought if there was a self it would have to a brain neuron or some combination of neurons and so he spent a large part of his research life and energy searching in the brain for the self only to find none. Unfortunately he stopped there and concluded there was no self afterall. If he would have hunted for the perceiver he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.

 

The brain is no more the perceiver than the hard diskdrive in our computer is aware of what it stores and passes on.

 

At this stage he was on the gross platform of Buddhism having eliminated the body as the self but he didn't deal with the subtle mind energy like the Buddhists do. They dismantle that as well and come to the same conclusion that there is no self.

 

But how can they deny that there is no perceiver and that in fact it is they themselves that are doing the perceiving? It is such a straightforward obvious fact that it is the self within the body and mind that is doing the perceiving. I see therefore I am to play off Descarte.

 

I am perceiving the apple. You are perceiving the apple. This means we are the self or soul and there is no need to look for the self beyond or outside of ourselve's.

 

We see ourselves by our own illumination just as the sun sees itself by it's own illumination.

 

"And we all shine on...like the moon...and the stars...and the sun...

Yeah we all shine on and on and on on on..."

[Guest guest]

 

Why not, what do you think about that?

____________________

 

however, i found a nice page describing "our topic"- it's ww.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm

 

I'll read it, then come back with questions:)

 

Now that I contemplated on it i think the chart is perfect.

 

Jiva-tattva is an interesting subject to all of us since that is what we are...

Those in jiva-tattva have a privilege to exist and should absolutely never violate another jiva's own rights. This principle absolutely directly applies to those who possess Bhagawans' infinite free will and help. Abusing a privilege by doing the absolutely infinite inexcusable is punishable by absolutely any inconceivable negative iccha of an ontological superiors' which is absolutely irrecovable. If by partial fault, a very silly ethical dilemma is put upon us then we absolutely must use our new free will and Bhagawans' help to execute the quasi-infinite right choices which is easy to the infinite (literally) level. There is no purpose of Maya except what I do. If there is, it would of been already executed internally. If one is attached negatively to Maya (a brief moment of time) then the jiva (real person) will not ever be.

 

The privilege arises from our origin. The origin is from absolutely nothing for infinity to many things due to the grace of possessors of inconceivable power and an independent desire. Therefore, when we are gifted with a 3-quality (bliss, knowledge, and existence) form there is absolutely no gift higher than that for us at the moment... However, in the most rarest of rarest case if one feels that reality is imperfect and that reality should not of spawned a gift 'I' then one may suicide with divine help and end it all for 'I'.

 

Now, I am interested in more details about the ontology chart posted here. I have no particular questions to ask but just any knowledge anyone would like to share.

[Guest guest]

"There is no purpose of Maya except what I do."

 

TO

 

There is absolutely no purpose of Maya except what I do.

[Guest guest]

(1)Sum of All Infinity

(2)Light Masters

(3)Gods & Godesses

(4)Eternally liberated jiva-tattva (history: nescience past)

(5)Marginal Liberated jiva-tattva (history: nescience past)

(6)Dynamic Intelligent Conscious spiritual matter

(7)Non-Liberated jiva-tattva (history: ?future?)

(8)Ambivalent Dynamic Intelligent Vigilant Unconcerned Inferior Dark matter (history: temporarY future).

(9)Static temporary illusionary matter

(10)Abs. Non-Existence

(Infinity)???...

 

There are low trapped routes possible so don't U try to push someone into another category...

It's extremely extremely extremely Offensive!!!

[mjan 0]

Can you tell me, what exactly is happening when we die, according to Vedas?

Thank you

[AncientMariner 0]

 

Can you tell me, what exactly is happening when we die, according to Vedas?

Thank you

 

 

It is my understanding that your thoughts at the time of death determine the destination of your next life. The consciousness you cultivate during this life generally make you think about certain things so for example say you are married to a beautiful wife and all you do is think about her there is a chance when you die that you think of your beautiful wife and then you become incarnated in the body of a woman.

[mjan 0]

Is there step by step explanation?

(looking from a perspective of person that is dying/dies)