Two Birds

[Guest guest]

The Vedas, like the Mundak Upanisad, as well as the Svetasvatara

Upanisad, compare the soul(Individual:A part of Brahm-GOD) and the

Brahm, to two friendly birds sitting on the same tree(body). One of the

birds (the individual soul)is eating the fruits of the tree, and the

other bird (GOD:Brahm) is simply watching His friend. Of these two

birds -- although they are the same in quality--one is captivated by

the fruits of the material tree (body), while the other is simply

witnessing the activities of His friend. Although they are friends, the

soul is engrossed in fruits of the tree (body). As soon as the other

bird (soul) starts understanding its true nature and start looking to

His friend (Brahm:GOD) instead of the fruits of the tree, both are no

longer two. Forgetfulness of this relationship by the soul is the cause

of one's changing his position from one tree(body) to another, or from

one body to another.--- On Sun, 8/3/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 wrote:Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 Re: How Does Soul Remain Different From God?sacred-objects Date: Sunday, 8 March, 2009, 12:47 AMJivatma (soul) is same as God in QUALITY, but different from God in QUANTITY. Like a ray of the Sun is same and different from the Sun. Sun's ray (like the Jiva) can be in darkness (shade or shadow) just as the Jiva is in Maya. But the Sun is NEVER in darkness, as God is never in illusion of Maya. Y/s, Richardsacred-objects , "h. r. gupte" <hrgupte

wrote:>> This is bit long post.....but very interesting....> Few years ago Sitaram Wrote :> > How Does Soul Remain Different From God?> > Dear Sitaramji,> > I hope all is well, I am again here with you with some few questions.> > I was in a festival of ISKON here in former USSR and some guests and> gurus had come to attend this festival and among some guests were> some Indians from England living there which are members and devotees> of Iskon (Krishna society). I always come up with discussions with> the devotees of Krishna society even Indians in origin and there> seems to be a great discrepancy in their philosophy and rest of the> Indians.> > 1. Soul has emerged from God as a monad and after evolution> merges back into the supreme Atma or absolute and becomes one. This> is

my conviction, But Iskon does not authorize this, they say that> soul comes from God but does not merge or become one with it. They> say that it gets moksha or liberation in a way they come to Krishna> or God but does not become one. In a Mahabharat sloka > > MAMEVAMSO JIVA LOKE JIVA BUTA SANATANA > > means a part of my eternal soul enters into the jiva and> under illusion thinks that he is separate.> > When the soul comes out of something why it cannot enter back into> the source and how long can it remain separate, Billions and billions> of years but there must be end to the process of separation. This> philosophy is not palatable to me. Even as others say like in Bible> > FATHER IN ME AND I AM IN FATHER FATHER AND ME ARE ONE.> > In Buddhism as Buddha says that when you get self

realized you become> one with supreme absolute and rest of the great saints of India> likeAurobindo, Vivekananda, Chinmoi, Yogananda Paramahamsa,> Ramakrishna, Shirdi Sai Baba, Satya Sai Baba of what is said is> BRAHMAVAKYA means words said by Brahma, say that God and you become> one.> > SO HAM, AHAM BRAMASMI also signify the same.> > But how can ISKON be adamant on that kind of philosophy from mere> scripture where you can interpret one sloka in 60 different meanings> ignoring thousands of saints and Godmen and avatars in what they say.> > Will you please explain these matters.> > Best regards,> > Rajesh> > ======> <hr>> > Dear Rajesh,> > Thanks for writing again with your most excellent questions.> > Iskon has many good people. Prabhupad was a wonderful person. You

are> quite correct in saying that there are numerous ways to interpret> various slokas and verses. That is why we have such a diversity of> religions, and within any given religion, such a diversity of> sectarian shades, whether it be Protestant and Catholic in> Christianity, or Sunni and Shiite and Sufi in Islam, or Vaishnav and> Saivite in Hinduism, or Orthodox and Reform in Judaism, or Theravadin> and Mahayana in Buddhism. Even the Jains are divided into Digambra> and Svetasambra. It is impossible for humans to unite in any genuine> lasting unity and unanimity in any sphere, whether it be political,> spiritual, intellectual or aesthetic.> > > You will never resolve these many schools of thought and opinion> anywhere except within your own heart, in your own personal> conviction, in that deeply private and personal sanctuary and

retreat> which each of us carries within us. Gandhi was quite wise to say "my> religion is a deeply personal matter between myself and God."> > A certain Anglican Bishop of the previous 20th century once> said, "Perhaps the only heresy is that there was ever any dogma or> doctrine to begin with."> > The REAL miracle of God is the following Paradox: All religions> believe that they are the most intimate servants, lovers and devotees> of God and that what they have is the ONLY TRUTH. It PRECISELY this> ILLUSION that gives us strength and allows us to practice our> devotions.> > You raise interesting questions about whether the soul is non-> different from God, whether God is non-different from the universe,> whether the souls ultimately dwell WITHIN God or whether the souls> merely approach very close to God yet always remaining

separate and> different.> > > The Gaudiya Vaishnavs of the Chaitaniya Sampradaya (Math), which was> Prabhupad's disciplic succession, are very firm and rigid in their> interpretations of scripture, and are staunchly on the Dwaita side of> the issue. For Gaudiya Vaishnavs, the "worshipper" and> the "worshipped" (Lord Krishna) ALWAYS remain separate and distinct. > In the semi dualism of Ramanuja, the souls approach as close as one> pleases to God, yet always remaining separate and different. There> are Bramhavadins, such as the Vallabh lineage, for whom EVERYTHING is> made out of God. There are Mayavadins, strict Adwaitists, for whom> everything is made out of Maya (Illusion), and there is NO difference> between the Soul and God.> > For the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God> is NEVER part of the material

universe. The material universe comes> into being through an act of God's will, but then sets off on its> own, and God remains somehow outside it, as if somehow God might be> defiled, or the material reality might be ruined, if the two should> come into contact. Moses never gets to see God's face, but only> God's back as He passes by. Muhammad never hears the voice of> Allah, but only the message of Allah as narrated by the angel> Gabreel. Christians do have some unique notions implicit in their> scriptures which potentially run contrary to this strict separation> of God and Creation, and potentially lean towards the side of> Pantheism.> > Regarding Christian notions on this subject, several months ago,> someone raised a question concerning the meaning of 'The Kingdom of> God is WITHIN' and 'many mansions'.>

> John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so,> I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.> > Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,> behold, the kingdom of God is within you.> > These verses are most curious. I recently learned that it may also> be translated "the kingdom of heaven is AMONG you," which has very> different implications.> > If we look at the Book of Revelation, in the chapters surrounding ch.> 10, where it says 'God shall wipe away every tear', we see that > THERE SHALL BE TIME NO LONGER (CH 10, verse 6)... and "heavens and> earth shall be rolled up as a scroll" (no more SPACE). So time and> space ceases, and God becomes raiment, light, air, food, etc. for all> the souls (jivas).> > Revelation 10:6 And

sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who> created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and> the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are> therein, that there should be time no longer:> > Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the> heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host> shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a> falling fig from the fig tree.> > Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is> rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of> their places.> > Revelation 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and> serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the> throne shall dwell among them. 16 They shall hunger no more, neither>

thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.> 17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them,> and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall> wipe away all tears from their eyes.> > > "..in HIM we live and move and have our being--Acts 17:28"> > Acts 17: 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel> after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:> > This passage it depicts time and space itself passing away... and all> dwell WITHIN God... within the "fabric of God" so to speak. And we do> see. in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. that Lazarus is "in> the bosom of Abraham" which is metaphorical, but supports the notion> of what is described in the Book of Revelation.> > > What is interesting is that while

Christianity condemns notions of> Pantheism, i.e. the notion "that God IS the universe"; yet in the> final analysis, based on what the book of Revelation describes, God> literally BECOMES the Universe for all the jivas or souls, once the> Universe passes away. Now I think that this observation is a PROFOUND> observation.> > In light of the above understanding of Revelation, it would seem that> the "many mansions" are WITHIN God Himself.> > Consciousness begets consciousness. Religions depict God's> consciousness and will as creating creatures with consciousness. Now> man creates computerized robotics which approach closer and closer to> a form of artificial consciousness.> > These various theological theories of the various religions portray> the entire process of Creation, Existence, Destruction, Judgment,> Heaven as

ONE history or sequence of events for ONE UNIVERSE. This> is a very limited outlook when we consider that if God is TRULY> infinite, and omnipotent, then there are very likely MANY UNIVERSES,> SIMULTANEOUSLY COEXISTING, each at some different stage of Creation,> Preservation, Destruction, and each populated by sentient beings,> with God manifesting in EACH, simultaneously. If a circus juggler is> clever enough to juggle many balls at once, then certainly God is> clever enough to juggle many realities simultaneously. Surely only> one creation, one universe, one history, one birth, one life, one> death, one resurrection, one judgment, one heaven, one hell is very> boring. Even television series offer multiple storylines, and movie> theaters offer double features.> > > We see the plural "worlds" occurring in Christian and Muslim>

scriptures. "Worlds" may be understood as many planets, or as many> galaxies, but also as MANY SEPARATE UNIVERSES.> > Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom> he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;> > Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed> by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of> things which do appear.> > John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them> also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be> one fold, and one shepherd.> > The very first verse of the first Surah in the Qur'an is: "Praise be> to Allah, Lord of the Worlds."> > According to Physicist Steven Hawking, there are theoretically more> black holes in the universe than visible stars, each

one smaller than> our moon, like little black pearls, radiant.> > And beyond the event horizon, inside, ANOTHER BIG BANG expanding> space-time continuum, and within each, BUDDHAS awakening, Christ> childs in the manger, young Krisnas playing their flutes.> > The Greek word KOSMOS means both WORLD and also ADORNMENT or JEWEL.> The words Cosmology and Cosmetic derive from the same word KOSMOS.> > Now, combine that with Ch. 7, verse 4 of the Bhagavad Gita, where> Lord Krsna says, "This entire Universe is strung upon ME like pearls> upon a string" , (and of course the word for string in Sanskrit is> SUTRA).> > > Don't forget the classic, pivotal verse in Book of Revelation Ch.> 10:6, "And TIME shall be no more", in Greek, "Kai Chronos Ouk> estai". KJV translates it correctly. It is an error to

misconstrue> it as "There shall be no more delay", as other translations such as> NIV do.> > This means that TIME itself ceases. And within a page or so of that> verse, it says "HEAVEN AND EARTH shall be rolled up like a scroll".> > Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the> heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host> shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a> falling fig from the fig tree.> > Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled> together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their> places.> > In other words, SPACE CEASES; the end of the TIME-SPACE continuum.> > The Universe of universes is Indra's web, each crossing of the web> has an eye which sees all the other eyes.> > Revelation 10:6,

"And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who> created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and> the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are> therein, that there should be TIME NO LONGER.> > Hence there are possibly many black holes, each with a big bang> universe inside, and inside that universe, other black holes, other > Universes. all tucked one inside the other worlds within worlds,> universes within universes.> > Consciously or unconsciously, every living creature seeks one thing.> > In the lower forms of life and in less advanced human beings, the> quest is unconscious; in advanced human beings, it is conscious.> > The object of the quest is called by many names; happiness, peace,> freedom, truth, love perfection, self-realization, God-Realization,> union with God.> >

Essentially, it is a search for all of these, but in a SPECIAL WAY.> > Everyone has moments of happiness, glimpses of truth,fleeting> experiences of union with God what they want is to make them> PERMANENT.> > They want to establish an ABIDING reality in the midst of constant> change.> > This is a natural desire, based fundamentally on a memory - dim or> clear as the evolution of the individual soul may be low or high - a> memory of the souls essential unity with God.> > For every living thing is a partial manifestation of God, conditioned> only by its lack of Knowledge of its own true nature.> > > The whole of evolution, in fact, is an evolution from unconscious> divinity to conscious divinity,> in which God Himself, essentially eternal and unchangeable, assumes> an infinite variety of forms,> enjoys

an infinite variety of experiences, and transcends an infinite> variety of self-imposed limitations> > Evolution from the standpoint of the Creator is a divine sport> (Lila), in which the Unconditioned tests the infinitude of His> absolute knowledge, power, and bliss in the midst of all conditions.> > But evolution from the standpoint of the CREATURE, with its limited> knowledge limited power, limited capacity for enjoying bliss, is an> epic of alernating rest and struggle, joy and sorrow, love and hate --> - until in the perfected person, God balances the pairs of opposites,> and duality is transcended.> > > Then creature and Creator recognize themselves as ONE; changelessness> is established in the midst of change; eternity is experienced in the> midst of time.> > Then, God knows Himself as God, unchangeable

in essense, infinite in> manifestation, ever experiencing the supreme bliss of Self-> realization in continually fresh awareness of Himself by Himself.> > This Realization must and does take place only in the midst of life;> for it is only in the midst of life that limitation can be> experienced and transcended,> and that subsequent freedom from limitation can be enjoyed. (this> union of the created and Creator is an Avatar or Incarnation).> > If we had a chance to talk to God, and ask Him,... "which of the> religions on earth is Your religion" ... well if he named any one of> them... we would convert in a heartbeat ...> but if you could ask God right now,.... what is your religion? , what> do you think He might say?> > I think He would say that there is no name for his religion..it is in> your heart> >

When will not tell you How; How will not tell you Why. and Why will> not tell you Who> > Mind makes suffering; mind makes bliss; consciousness itself is> divinity.> > > Regarding the Hindu notions on such matters, our scriptures have> answered the question "Who is God?" in unambiguous terms. Hindu> scriptures lay down that there are (three eternal realities)-> (TATIVATRAYA) and a basic knowledge of these and their> interrelationship is the starting point for answering this question> as also the myriad other questions relating to the source, the> maintenance and the dissolution of matter and life. 'Tattva'> means 'that-ness', the verities that are self existent, eternal> essential and natural entities. The three 'realities' are (I) the> sentient (Chetana), (ii) the Non-sentient (Achetana) and (iii) the> All-Sentient

(Iswara).> > 'CHETANA' means sentient. All living beings are sentient. They have> two stages of 'awareness' Viz. Intrinsic consciousness (also known as> DHARMI-BUTA-GNANA) and Extrinsic perception (also known as DHARMA-> BUTA-GNANA).> > Each living being whether human, animal or plant has a soul or> Jeevatma. This Jeevatma has intrinsic consciousness or the cognition> of the self as a living entity. Every living being understands that> it is a living being as evidenced from the instinct of self-> preservation. The hen runs away from the vulture; the rabbit from the> dog; the deer from the tiger. This realization of 'being' and 'desire> to continue to be' is the intrinsic consciousness (Dharmi buta> gnana ). The ability to look out for what is around, to discern the> means to 'continue life' by seeking nourishment, to sense dangers to> life

(and by extension to offsprings) and the like> constitute 'External perception '(Dharma- buta-gnana).> > While intrinsic consciousness is common to all in the same degree,> the extrinsic perception or the awareness of not only things around> but also things beyond varies in degrees - with humans having the> greatest, animals to a lesser extent and plants with the least in the> scale.> > 'Extrinsic perception' or Dharma-Buta-Gnana is conditioned by> environment and is subject to expansion (Vikasa) and contraction> (Sankocha). While plants draw sustenance from earth, water, air etc,> grow and multiply they do not engage in any other activity; the> animal kingdom involves itself in activity of a much higher order> (e.g.) hunting, eating, mating, cognizing, sensing and avoiding> dangers to life, seeking shelter, resting, sleeping etc.> >

Humans are endowed with a higher state of intellect and are able to> observe, ponder over, contemplate, reason out and comprehend. This is> known as the 'sixth sense' as distinct from the five senses of the> animal kingdom. This sixth sense enables humans to understand things> falling within one's comprehension and be prognostic about even those> that are beyond comprehension.> > It is said that the 'Devas' or divine beings (who are also Chetanas)> have attained a much higher order in evolution and therefore have a> higher level of intellectual activity with which they could perceive> even those which humans are not able to comprehend.> > Be that as it may, let us consider what we humans are supposed to> understand with our present state of intellect. Our scriptures> require us to understand the differences between the three entities> and their

inter-relationship.> > When I say, "This is my book" - I mean that the book belongs to me.> The book is obviously different from myself. Similarly, when I> say, "This is my body" - the body is different from myself. Here, the> word' myself' refers to the 'soul'. Otherwise, I will not say 'This> is my body". So also, when I say, "My mind is clear" the mind is> different from the entity called 'My" - which again refers to the> soul which is different from the mind. So, it is clear that anything> you claim as 'yours' is definitely not 'yourself'. The understanding> of the Body - soul relationship (Sariratma bhava) is fundamental to> Hinduism.> > > Regarding the Eternal Jeevatma or Chetana, the body undergoes changes> in form and size right from birth through childhood, adolescence,> youth, old age and till death. The body grows, takes ill, gets

well> and is subject to so many changes whereas the soul remains constant> and changeless. The soul or Jeevatma is eternal. Sastras say, that> souls are infinite in number, atomic in size, blissful in nature. The> souls are indestructible, eternal, unchanging, immovable,> indefinable, unseen and omnipotent. Though infinite, the souls of all> living beings are similar and do not differ from one another. As for> size, they are so tiny that they cannot be seen, cannot be cut any> further, cannot be burnt by fire, cannot be drenched by water and> cannot be thrown about by wind. By death is meant only the parting of> the soul from the present body - on its future journey. Just like we> change over to new clothes discarding the old worn out ones, the soul> sheds the old body and assumes new ones.> > Jeevatmas or souls are of 3 categories: Viz. BADDAS (Ever

bound),> MUKTAS ( Liberated) and NITYAS (Ever free); Baddas: are those who> are 'bound' by 'Samsara' - through the cycle of births and deaths.> They leave one body on death and are born again in some other body> and go on rotating in the wheel of births and deaths. For the> transmigrating soul, the 'hereafter' is only 'another here' - every> reincarnation being either progressive or regressive.> > > The word 'SAM' means 'together' and 'SRU' means to flow. Hence,> Samsara means 'Perpetual bondage' to universal flow - a continuum of> all Karman. Samsara is the general condition of being steeped in the> quagmire of vulnerability, perishability, ignorance, pain,> unhappiness etc to which each successive body the soul assumes is> heir to. It also means being inextricably interwoven into the vortex> of births and deaths.> > > The

'Badda' category includes right from the four faced Brahma to the> smallest of plants like grass. The order of Baddas is more or less as> follows:> > > The SURAS (or DEVAS) Or 'the shining ones' including Brahmas, Rudras,> Indras, Siddhas, Gandharvas, Kinnaras, Kimpurushas, Vidyadharas,> Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Maruts, Aswinidevas, Yakshas and all other> celestial creatures which constitute the "Divine" Souls.> > > The NARAS or Humans including Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Sudras> and others - which constitute the "human" souls.> > > The TIRYAKS or Animals (those that grow horizontally). They include> those that live on earth like various animals, those that live in> water like fish, whales etc, those that creep like snakes and those> that fly with wings like birds - in short, the creatures that> constitute the

'fauna'.> > > The STAVARAS or those that are immobile. They include trees of all> categories big and small, plants, creepers, bushes, grass etc. - in> short, the creatures that constitute the 'flora'.> > > That souls assumed bodies in anyone of these categories according to> their 'past' actions and would later assume according to> their 'present' actions forms the basis of the" karma and> reincarnation " theories about which we will discuss at length at a> later stage.> > > Those who have secured liberation from the cycle of births and deaths> on extinction of all karma (both good and bad) through means> prescribed in the Sastras viz., Bhakti and prapatti. The goal of all> Baddas is this emancipation for which a basic understanding of the> nature of the self (Atmaswarupa) the nature of God (Iswaraswarupa),> the

means to attain God (Upaya), the bliss accruing on realizing> Godhead (Upeya) and the obstructions that prevent the Badda from> becoming a Mukta (Virodhi swarupa) - called the 'ARTHA PANCHAKA' is> essential. We will discuss these also at a later stage.> > > Those who are eternally free and were never born in the world as a> result of 'Karma' (e.g.) ADISESHA, VISHWAKSENA, GARUDA and others.> They are with ISWARA forever in his abode - PARAMAPADA and render> service to God at all times and in all manners as per the will> (Sankalpa) of God.> > > Characteristics of the Sentient JEEVATMAS The essential> characteristics of all these souls are -> GNANATVA (Knowledge)> ANANDATVA

(Bliss)> AMALATVA (Purity)> > > But, having been born in the world the knowledge, bliss and purity of> the Baddas become temporarily constrained and constricted. On release> from Samsara, these souls will become Muktas (liberated ones) and> will get restored to infinite knowledge, infinite bliss and infinite> purity.> > > Till such release, however, the souls go through 'Punarmrityu' or Re-> death and 'Punarjanma' or rebirth. Punar-mrityu means 'death of> death' which means birth.> > > MAITRI UPANISHAD says> > "In this cycle of existence, I am like a frog in a waterless well."> > The release from 'Samsara' and securing union with God is the basic> concern of Hinduism and indeed of all religions,

though they express> the concept in different terms.> > While some interpret this 'union' as 'unity' which means merging of> Jeevatma with Paramatma indistinguishably, others hold that at best> there can only be 'union' which means that even in integration, the> two retain their individual characteristics.> > According to the former, the words 'JIVA' and 'ATMA' have been> interpreted differently. 'Jiva' is the principle of life but when> applied to humans, it includes sensing, thinking, contemplating as> well as living. The 'Jiva' is the individual self and the 'ATMAN' is> the universal self. 'ATMAN' which denotes 'breath' came to be> identified with both. 'atman' with the small 'a' is said to denote> the soul in the individual and the 'ATMAN' with the Capital 'A', the> Universal soul - or the Brahman conceived subjectively. In other> words,

the 'atman' is just a reflection of the 'Atman', the former> the miniscule representation of the latter - so that the Jeevatma or> the individual soul is in essence the same as Paramatma or the> Universal soul.> > Jiva , literally means ' That which breaths' from the root ' Jiv'- to> breathe.- a biological phenomenon that goes on throughout one's life,> in waking state, in dreaming state, in dreamless sleep and beyond. It> is called ' Purusha ' since it is ' Puri- Saya '- that which dwells> in the heart of the heart. Thus, the biological serves the purpose of> another entity- the soul .> > The other school, however, maintains that the two though ultimately> integrated retain their individual characteristics. The Upanishadic> example of two birds on a tree makes this point clear.> > "Two birds, fast bound companions, clasp close the self same

tree of> these two, the one eats sweet fruit, the other merely looks on> without eating"4> > This means that the individual soul 'Jeevatma' enjoys or suffers the> fruits of its past actions (Karma) while the universal> soul 'Paramatma' is quite unsullied by any Karma and therefore does> not have to experience the fruits of any 'Karma'. This is true even> at the time of deluge when all souls get drawn to 'Paramatma', retain> the potential fruits of their 'Karma' and on being released into the> world again after the deluge proceed to experience the consequences> of their karma while 'Paramatma' remains unaffected.> > When we distinguish the body as different from the soul, we arrive at> the conclusion that the body is an 'Achetana' like any lifeless thing> like wood, stone etc. The experience of Joy or sorrow, pleasure or> pain, heat or cold

arise in the body but are felt by the soul because> it is sentient and is associated with the body. So long as one is> alive (i.e.) so long as the jeevan remains in the body, we sense all> these variations. When a person dies (i.e.) when the jeevan leaves> the body - what remains is not called a 'person' but as a 'corpse'> which cannot sense these feelings any more than a log of wood or> stone. This leads us into the second entity called the 'Achetana'.> > 'ACHETANA' means Non-sentient (i.e.) it does not possess any> knowledge, is not capable of thinking and cannot experience joy and> sorrow and have no purity of their own either restricted on> unlimited. In other words, the Anandatva, Gnanatva and Amalatva we> spoke of in the case of Chetanas are absent in Achetana. ACHETANA> consists of three categories viz., PRAKRITI (Matter), KALA(Time) and>

SUDDHASATVA.(Absolute purity)> > This PRAKRITI is also called MOOLAPRAKRITI (primordial matter),> AKSHARA ( Indestructible), PRATHAMA ( Primary), AVYAKTA (> Undifferentiated), TRIGUNA ( Triple quality)- in common parlance> known as primordial matter or primary subtle elements. This> primordial matter contains in itself inherently evolutes or> categories in the evolution of the Universe and proceeding from> subtle essence to the constitution of the material gross forms. All> that exists, exists potentially inherent in the primordial matter.> > This primordial matter undergoes constant changes due to the> interaction of Satva (Lucidity), Rajas (Dynamism) and Tamas> (Endropy) -also called the 'Trigunas' - and manifests itself in> different forms and with different names (Roopa and Nama) as per the> will (Sankalpa) of God. It is this primordial matter

that evolves> into Mahat (Universal mind) and Ahankara (Egoism) from which emerge> the Gnanendriyas (sense organs) Viz. Eye, Ear, Mouth, Skin and Nose> and the Karmendriyas (Motor organs) Viz. Tongue, arms, legs,> execrative and the procreative organs, the Mind (Manas), the subtle> elements called Tanmatras of Sabda (Sound), Sparsa (Touch), Rupa> (form), Rasa (Taste) and Gandha (Smell) as also the Gross elements of> Akasa (Ether), Vayu (Air), Teyu (Fire), Apah (Water) and Prithvi> (Earth).> > Dr S. Radhakrishnan explains this process very clearly in his "The> Prinicipal Upanishads" thus:> > " In regard to the development of the Universe, the Upanishads look> upon the earliest state of the material world as one of extension in> space; of which the characteristic feature is vibration represented> to us by the phenomenon of sound. From 'Akasa',

Vayu arises.> Vibration by itself cannot create forms unless it meets with> obstruction. The interaction of vibration is possible in air which is> the next modification. To sustain the different forces, a third> modification arises -'Tejas' of which 'light' and 'heat' are the> manifestations. We still do not have stable forms and so the denser> medium of 'water ' is produced. A further state of cohesion is found> in earth. The development of the world is a process of steady '> grossening' of the subtle 'Akasa' or ' Space'.> > All physical objects, even the most subtle, are built up by the> combination of these five elements. Our sense experience depends on> them. By the action of ' Vibration ' comes the sense of 'Sound'; by> the action of things in a world of vibrations the sense of 'Touch';> by the action of 'Light ', the sense of 'Sight'; by the

action> of 'Water,' the sense of 'Taste'; by the action of ' Earth ', the> sense of "Smell'. "> > The manner in which the evolution takes place may be figured out as> follows:> > PRAKRITI (Primondial matter)> MAHAT (Universal mind)> AHANKARA (Egoism)*> Eyes> VAK (Tongue)> SABDATANMATRA (Sound)> Ears> PAANI (Arms)> AKASA (Ether)> Mouth> PADA (Feet)> SPARSATANMATRA> (Touch) > Skin > PAYU (Excretive organs)> VAYU (Air)> UPASTA (Procreative organs)> RUPATANMATRA (Form)> Nose> TEJAS (Fire)> RASATANMATRA> (Taste)> APAH (Water)> GANDHATANMATRA> (Smell)> > PRITVHVI (Earth) The 24th entity is MANAS (individual mind) as> distinct from MAHAT (Universal mind) and the 25th entity is> identified

as the JEEVATMA (Soul).> > This 'AHAM KARA' or the 'I-Maker' manifests itself in various forms:> like ABHIMANAM-'I-ness',' MADEEYAM'- 'Mine-ness',' MAMA SUKHAM'- My> pleasure'', 'MAMA DUHKAM'- 'My Sorrows' 'MAMA IDAM'- 'My possessions'> etc.,> > By a process called 'Pancheekarana'( quintuplication) God creates the> Universe. Hence, it is called 'PRAPANCHA" - the dimensions of which> spread from the Satyaloka of Brahma through Bhuloka, the world we> live in upto the Patalaloka, the nethermost space in the Universe.> > The process of 'Pancheekarana'( quintuplication) may be understood> approximately as indicated in the following diagram. This is merely> by way of graphic illustration and does not purport to encompass the> whole gamut which God only knows> > 1/2 Earth 1/2 ETHER

1/2 AIR 1/2 FIRE > 1/2 WATER > + + + + +> 1/8 AIR 1/8 AIR 1/8 ETHER 1/8 ETHER 1/8> ETHER> 1/8 FIRE 1/8 FIRE I/8 WATER 1/8 AIR > 1/8 AIR> 1/8

WATER 1/8 WATER 1/8 FIRE 1/8 EARTH 1/8> FIRE> 1/8 ETHER 1/8 EARTH 1/8 EARTH 1/8 WATER> 1/8 EARTH> = 1 = 1 =1 = 1 = 1> > The formation of the gross elements from the subtle elements is> described as follows. 'By dividing each subtle element into two equal> parts and subdividing the first half of each into 4

equal parts and> then adding to the undivided half of each element - 5> > These compounds constitute the gross elements. They are named> according to the element preponderant in each. Since ether is> experienced as sound (Sabda), Air as touch (Sparsa) fire as color and> shape (Rupa), water as flavour (Rasa) and earth as smell (Gandha) -> each gross element (being a compound of all the five) affects all the> senses.> > Lord Krishna says:> > "At the end of the life of the four faced Brahma, a great deluge> (Mahaparalaya) takes place. During this time all inanimate things and> all living beings get into the Prakriti which forms my body and lie> in a subtle (Sukshma) state. At the commencement of the life of the> next Brahma after the deluge, I again release them for another lease> of life" -> > KALA (TIME)> >

This has three main divisions viz., PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE. The> subdivisions include such units like Varushas ( years), Ayanas ( Half> years), Masas ( Months), Pakshas ( fortnights), Saptahas ( Weeks),> Ahas (Days) , besides hours, minutes, seconds, microseconds,> nanoseconds etc.,> > SUDDHASATVA ( Pristine Purity)> > Suddhasatva is a reality which is devoid of Rajas and Tamas and this> is said to relate to the Aprakrita loka (Paramapada) and the Sariras> of Bhaghavan , the Nityas and the Muktas ( bodies of the Supreme> Lord).> > According to advaita - sat, chit, and ananda are not attributes of> Brahman. Brahman being infiniteness, by definition there cannot be> any attributes because of the following reasons: The word attribute -> guna in sanskrit - is that which qualifies the noun - that is it is> an adjective.> >

Noun refers to an object. And the adjectives are qualifiers to the> noun or the object in question. But Brahman is not an object.> Because:> > a) When we say it is an object, it is automatically different from> the subject. Since object is different from the subject, by mutual> exclusion each limits the other, and obviously Brahman cannot be> Brahman (infiniteness) any more.> > b) Object in vedantic tradition is that which can be thought of. That> makes Brahman intellectually comprehensible. Limited intellect cannot> comprehend the infinite.> > c) Gunas, as we know, are measurable by intellect. They are the> properties of prakriti - tanmatras (matra means measure). Even the so-> called abstract gunas such as sweetness of sugar is still a> measurable as we say nutrasweet is sweeter than sugar etc. In> samskrit, these are referred to as

taratama bhedhas (tara is> comparitive and tama is the superlative).> > d) Hence scripture defines Brahman as nirguna - without attributes.> From Bhakti point since Lord is out there, He becomes sakala kalyana> guna Asraya, because He is the Lord, and otherwise He cannot be the> Lord! Bhagavan Sri Ramanuja interprets nirguna as that He does not> have bad gunas, but He is the embodiment of ananta kalyana gunas.> > Of course, from Bhakti point, any statement of His glories is less> than the fact. That is why you cannot really glorify Him since any> glorification only falls short of the truth. He being infinite any> description of Him, of course falls short. He is more than what all> you can say. That is why we cannot flatter Him nor He can be> flattered, because He is too full to be flattered. Any thing we say> will be an understatement. All one can

say that He has infinite gunas> (ananta kalyana guna). As much as the infinite cannot be comprehended> so are the infinite gunas too. Advaita understands that too. Any> statement of description of the Lord is the statement by an intellect> to describe the indescribable. That is why all arguments about the> nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are meaningless arguments, because> both are not saying any thing different to argue about, only> difference is one from gyana point and the other is from Bhakti> point. Not only is ther a problem in describing the Lord, because He> is ananta, but there also exists a similar problem in describing, the> subject, Aham too. Because any description of the subject is not> valid, since any description is objectification that can be negated.> I am not an object. I am the subject, Aham. I can negate any and> every "thing" but I cannot

negate myself because I am the very> subject that is doing the negation. If at all, I can describe myself> as, I am that which cannot be objectified. That is a negative> definition to indicate a positive factor. (by negation process).> > That is why Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi says for a sadhak> to "analyze the analyst" to find out who they are. This very process> of analysis - stops with analyzer and the analyzed or in J.> Krishnamurty's words the observer and the observed become one in the> state of meditation, that is when all the subject-object duality> ceases-that is the a-dwaita state. That is why the philosophy is> known as advaita since it negates the experience of dvaita.> > To be mathematically precise, gunas are necessary but not necessarily> sufficient qualifications, qualifying the noun. Like the sweetness in> sugar. Sugar must be sweet

- necessary qualification. Sweet need not> be sugar, it can be Equal. That is sweetness is not sufficient> qualification to define sugar. The only necessary and sufficient> qualification for sugar is that it is C12H22O11. But in describing> that I am not saying anything about the gunas of sugar. Sugar is> C12H22O11, and C12H22O11 is sugar, and there are no two ways about> it. In the case of Sat, chit, ananda - the three are all necessary> and sufficient if you still insist on calling them as "gunas" - What> is implied is that sat is chit, chit is ananda and ananda is Brahman.> That is why Sruti says anantameva anandaha -with eva the sufficiency> is specified. Infiniteness alone(eva) is ananda. What is implied is> that all the three are the same indicating different points of view> of Brahman. In simple terms, one can say that they are> equivalent "definitions" or

expressions of Brahman. Just as Brahman> cannot be "thought of" so are sat - chit- ananda. These are not> things that can be comprehended. In fact Bhagavan Ramana starts his> SAT DARSHAN book with a prayer saying that:> > Sat pratyayaha kinnu vihaya santam hrudyesha chintarahito hrudakhyaha> > katham smaramastamameyamekam tasyasmritih tatra dhrudaiva nishta> > Without the principle of existence can there be knowledge of> existence. (what he means is that sat and chit are one and the same> since one cannot exist without the other)> In the heart of my personality free from thoughts is this principal> of existence - that when I say Aham - I am existence. How can I think> of it which is free from the thoughts and not available for thoughts?> Only way is to abide firmly in itself or in myself. There is no> mayavada here. It is a simple statement of

facts of what is my true> nature. or His inquiry - Who am I? Yes. Aham Brahmasmi is not a> statement based on logic or analysis but confirmation of an> experience- because the very word analysis implies that it is an> intellectual vritti or effort. Instead it is a statement of> experience beyond the intellect and that the intellect being limited> cannot comprehend the infiniteness. Because it is not something that> can be comprehended. See Kenopanishad. What some people call> transcendental experience. Transcending what? - the time and space. > > sacred-objects , kishore kishore <mydearindian@> wrote:> >> > Himanshu Ji:> > > > First I would like to thank for sharing your knowledge.> >

> > This reversal of things is interesting. I can’t deny it. Always a scientist struggled and broke his head with lot of experiments to discover something. We must appreciate. However these great scientists have been discovering things which are already there and which were created by someone already. However, unlimited things were created by Supreme energy. And these people are busy in discovering the things which are already created by someone but these people are not busy in knowing the creator. Hence “Artificial intelligence and genetics etc...†may discover the some more new things created by Supreme energy but can not discover that†Supreme energyâ€.> > > > Scientists say that they don’t believe in all these God and all. And they believe in science. But they are ignoring one important thing it is “a spiritualist also a scientistâ€. Scientist is doing experiments with external instruments made

by human and nature and spiritualists do their experiments with their own brain and of nature and use it as an instrument. Similarity is there because they both are using instruments which are a “Part of this Natureâ€. Hence I say a scientist also a spiritualist.> > > > However there is no similarity in their beliefs but they will achieve same results in future. I believe Spirituality is very hard to learn and understand than a scientific/mathematical formulaâ€. And scientific results are visible and quick whereas spiritual results are invisible and secret.> > > > You said “two conflicting systems seem on equal footingâ€. Yes, you are right. Keep posting.> > > > > > Thanks again,> > > > > > Have a nice & productive day,> > > > With Best wishes, > > M.kishore.> > > >

If you don't like to read this E-mail then please mention in subject line "REMOVE".> > > > --- On Mon, 2/3/09, himanshu gupte <hrgupte@> wrote:> > > > > > himanshu gupte <hrgupte@>> > Re: Why God created us and this Universe?> > sacred-objects > > Monday, 2 March, 2009, 10:20 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Kishor,> > Few years ago..Mr Sitaram wrote following post on his website....hope it ill be useful for you....> > > > Does God Create Man, or Man Create God?> > > > More in Heaven & Earth than Dreamed in your

Philosophy> > > > > > There's more in Heaven & Earth than Dreamed of in your Philosophy> > > > Good post! Interesting question! Here are some thoughts off the top of my head:> > > > Let us distinguish three major divisions among all "philosophies" with regard to cosmology into the following:> > > > 1.) Systems which aggressively posit the existence of a creator-god> > > > 2.) Systems which vehemently deny the existence of a creator-god> > > > 3.) Systems which dispassionately assert that the the question of god's existence or non-existence is immaterial to the human condition and to issues important to mankind.> > > > > > Those systems which aggressively assert the existence of a creator-god, and explain everything in terms of that god, can never hope to demonstrate to ORIGIN or cause of that

god, or the reason or purpose behind a god's existence. It is presumed that if there is a God, then God is the cause of all else, prior to all else, and that such a God may not even be properly said to EXIST in "being" since such a God is prior to and the source of BEING and non-Being.> > > > > > If one WERE to cite a source for God or a reason or purpose or cause for God, then one would be pointing to something PRIOR to God, perhaps we might call that "meta-God", and we are once again faced with the problem of explaining the origin, cause, reason, or source for this meta-God. Hence we are led to a situation of INFINITE REGRESS, positing an INFINITE number of causes/meta- gods. We are always told by philosophers and mathemeticians that such an INFINITE REGRESS of axioms is somehow impossible or absurd or unsatisfactory, but we are never told WHY an infinite regress of causes or meta-gods is not a viable option.> >

> > > > One philosopher/ theologian was once asked why the physical world and humanity seems imperfect, and he answered, "Since God is PERFECT, and it was necessary for God to CREATE THE UNIVERSE as OTHER than God, therefore it was necessary for the Universe to be IMPERFECT." > > > > The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) strongly object to the notion that God is WITHIN the material universe. The notion that the material universe IS God, a philosophy called PANTHEISM, is denounced by those Abrahamic religions. Somehow, God has created the material universe like some "Energizer Bunny", and set it on its merry way. God is SO allergic to this material universe creation of his, that God must send ANGELS or messengers to communicate or change things in the Universe. Nor can God in anyway be SEEN visually, although there are certainly times in scripture when God's "voice" is heard, loud and clear.

Somehow, its "OK" for God to shout into the Universe, just so long as God never enters INTO the Universe. And yet somehow it is the case, we are told, that we are EXPECTED TO PRAY to this God, that we will be rewarded if we DO PRAY, and perhaps punished if we DO NOT. > > > > > > Partly our prayer is PRAISE and submission or obedience, which this God likes very much. And in part, our prayer makes REQUESTS to God for things that we lack, or to alter circumstances which we find unpleasant. Some religions claim that this God has never spoken to mankind DIRECTLY but has always used Angels or Messengers, and yet, when we are asked to PRAY, we are FORBIDDEN to pray to Angels, but are expected to pray to God DIRECTLY, since praying to angels would constitute some form of idolatry which would displease God. These circumstances surrounding God's communication with mankind, and humanity's prayer communication to God, are most bizarre.

It is certainly not a "two-way street".> > > > > > We find it perfectly reasonable and acceptable to believe that "God" was first, and from God came the physical material universe, and human and animal life. But suppose we were to turn everything upside down and claim the OPPOSITE. Suppose we were to say that MATTER CAME first,..... that matter evolved CONSCIOUSNESS, in the form of living beings, and that this CONSCIOUSNESS eventually evolves into GOD.> > > > > > Most people are horrified at the blasphemy of this reversal of things. And yet why is it worse or less plausible than traditional cosmologies. If you object and say "where did the MATTER originally come from?" I may counter by saying that YOUR SYSTEMS never account for where GOD comes from, so in this regard, the two conflicting systems seem on equal footing. > > > > > > The end result of the new system is

IDENTICAL to the traditional system, namely, we wind up with a material universe AND a God or Divinity.> > > > > > People will argue that this new system makes God to be LESS perfect, since God/Consciousness EVOLVES from matter. And yet it never bothers anyone to think that God, who was PERFECT, and presumably in need of NOTHING, decided to create a world of IMPERFECTION and suffering.> > > > > > Yet, this new system which I describe, in which MATTER evolves CONSCIOUSNESS and CONSCIOUSNESS evolves God, is rather at the heart of Carl Jung's writings, especially his little monograph "On the Nature of the Psyche". Such a system also fits in with the trends of Existentialist thought which have been developing since Kierkegaard (and perhaps Blaise Pascal).> > > > > > Man has unravelled the human genome. What may result from this accomplishment in the coming millenium is

anyone's guess. Alan Turing was the first to suggest experiments in artificial intelligence. Should mankind succeed not only in controlling genetics and creating life, but also in creating a CONSCIOUSNESS which dwells in artifical intelligence, then most certainly such a consciousness might one day border on the divine.> > > > --- On Fri, 27/2/09, Kishore <mydearindian@ > wrote:> > > > Kishore <mydearindian@ >> > Why God created us and this Universe?> > sacred-objects> > Friday, 27 February, 2009, 5:58 AM> > > > Hi All,> > > > I have a question for you. I hope you will help me by giving right > > answer.> > > > > > My question is "if God or some power" has got "lot of> > energy" to > > create us

and this universe then i appreciate it's energy. But "why > > to create us and asking us to recognize it"?. If there is no creation > > at all there will not be any need to know that power or God.> > > > I trust God and his power. Hence, do not advice me different ways to > > reach God or Moksha.> > > > > > Did that power/God create us with some selfish desire> > or with a good > > intention?. Is that God/power we all are trying to know is a kind one > > or a sadist?. Is it not like below story.> > > > I do agree that ( so called power/God ) has provided everything to > > live and all ways to know him. And that power/God has been helping us > > in everything we do. I am not against to God. I respect it a lot. But > > my qestion is " why did that God take this resposibility of > >

creation??". Is it not a game playing with us. > > Don't you feel like that power/God acting like a judge/referee and we > > all are partcipents in this game?. One team name is "GOOD". Another > > team name is "Bad". I do agree that heshe might have created only > > Good. And we created bad. But why to create a team called "Good". If > > that God has got energy can't he/she let enjoy alone. Why to play a > > game with us?.> > > > Is it like this example "create a toy with your power and throw it > > into universe. Then the game rule is> > that Toy has to recognize that > > creator but not the virtual universe created by him ( i mean Maya )> > otherwise that creator will kill that toy and give another birth till > > that toy know the creator.Are we struggling to know a saddist/psycho > > or are we struggling to

know a Kind person ( God/Power). Please > > kindly answer my question in your own way. I appreciate if all the > > group members tell their views on this and > > clear this query.> > > > Once again, I trust God and his power. Hence, do not advice me > > different ways( Meditation/pujas/ homas) to reach God or Moksha. I > > want "why did he/she create us". If anybody realised/enlightene d/or > > spoke with God/ or has the capacity to speak with God then ask and > > reply.> > > > Thanks,> > M.Kishore from Hyderabad,India.> > Email : mydearindian@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------> > > >

[Guest guest]

please do then uderstand this from judaic perspective. i copied this becasue

it is easy to understand and is what i was taught in girls yeshiva( kabbalistic

hebrew school) when i was growing up.( i was born jewish ) in this incarnation.

the key lay in the hebrew word

tsimtsum

Kabbalists believe the universe began with a benevolent sacrifice by God. Unlike

Christianity, which says God sacrificed his only son to save the world, Kabbalah

teaches that God sacrificed himself so that the world and the human race might

flourish. Kabbalists describe God's sacrifice as tsimtsum, the Hebrew word for

“withdrawal.â€

 

Kabbalists believe God existed in the form of pure energy in the time before

creation. The power of God's energy was so vast that it prevented anything else

from existing in the universe. To make room for the human race and everything

else in the universe, God first had to recoil into itself. In the process of

withdrawal, God's identity shattered, dispersing God's energy throughout the

universe. Aspects of God, in the form of the ten sefirot, then descended through

time and space into the newly created world of material reality—the world in

which humans live. Every kabbalist's main duty is tikkun, the process of

restoring Kabbalah's fractured God to a state of wholeness through righteousness

and good deeds.

 

In religions like Christianity and Judaism, God creates and then withdraws, but

in Kabbalah God withdraws first in order to create. God still remains a presence

after creation, but in a divided form, dependent on the help of human beings to

restore its wholeness. Whereas many religions conceive of God as a humanlike

figure to whom they can speak and pray, Kabbalah views God as a boundless

unknowable force. The finite human mind cannot ever truly comprehend God, but

the collective faith and devotion of the followers of Kabbalah can make God

whole and knowable once more. The only way Kabbalah followers can begin to

understand Ein Sof is by becoming acquainted with the sefirot, the ten aspects

of Ein Sof's identity that Ein Sof emitted while creating the world.

 

Understanding and cultivating the sefirot requires a lifetime of study and

devotion, but Kabbalah provides even beginners with a way of knowing God in

everyday life. Shekhinah, the tenth sefirah, represents God's presence in the

material world and provides the first glimpse into knowing and understanding

God. As kabbalists continue to study and honor the teachings of Kabbalah, they

can ascend sequentially through each sefirah, in turn gaining a more and more

profound understanding of their divinity.

 

The Three Types of Fear

 

In The Essential Zohar, Rav Berg, the founder of the Kabbalah Centre and the

spiritual leader of contemporary Kabbalah, writes, “No idea in Kabbalah is

more important than the true meaning of fear.†At first glance, Berg's

proclamation might seem out of place, since Kabbalah tends to encompass such a

positive, hopeful set of ideals. As Berg explains, the true meaning of fear in

Kabbalah differs strongly from what most people expect it to mean.

 

We tend to think of fear as a negative emotion, the source of anxiety and

discouragement. Kabbalah instead presents fear as the primary motivator of every

righteous thought and deed in the universe. To understand this surprising

portrayal of fear, we need to understand the three types of fear described in

the Zohar, Kabbalah's main text. The first type of fear involves the things we

hold dear in our lives on earth: our home, our health, our friends, and our

possessions. Fearing the loss of any of the above does not qualify as fear in

Kabbalah. Similarly, Kabbalah considers fear of damnation, or any type of

consequence in the afterlife, an unacceptable application of the concept of

fear. Kabbalah refers to fear of loss in the material world and in the world

hereafter as “evil fear.â€

 

The third type of fear is the only fear kabbalists must honor and cultivate, and

that's the fear of God. In The Essential Zohar, Berg insists that kabbalists

replace the word “fear†with “awe†in describing the emotion they should

feel when contemplating God. Though “fear of God†appears in the Old

Testament and in the Zohar, Berg believes the phrase was intended to convey a

feeling of respect and admiration, not worry or concern. Awe in the face of God,

the third fear described in the Zohar, is the most powerful gift God gives us.

It is the awareness that God is the source of all the energy, wisdom, and

strength in the universe.

 

Berg views this awareness as the key to kabbalistic faith, the beacon that keeps

followers loyal to their only goal: bridging the gap between the perfect world

that God initially created and the broken world that human beings inherited

after God withdrew. By always remaining in awe of God's power and

self-sacrifice, kabbalists should never indulge in doubt or self-pity. Instead,

they should draw inspiration from God's power and achievement and strive to

honor God by restoring its wholeness.

 

Chaos and Forgiveness

 

Kabbalists believe God created a perfect world that we've never known. Just

after the moment of creation, when God's identity shattered, the paradise we

would have inherited instead descended into chaos. In place of the Garden of

Eden, humans encountered a world fraught with danger, disease, and countless

other perils. Many religions blame human beings for the problems we encounter on

earth. Rav Berg refers to a famous sermon by puritan minister Jonathan Edwards,

called “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,†to point out how other

religions portray God as spiteful and resentful of human beings for their

sinfulness. Edwards notoriously described man as a piddling insect that God

would be delighted to cast into the flames of hell.

 

Kabbalah presents God in a very different light. Though Ein Sof sacrificed its

own identity to create the universe for human beings, kabbalists describe their

God as a forgiving, endlessly loving force. Kabbalists typically portray their

relationship with God as a marriage of sorts, a give and take in which God

depends on people to restore its wholeness, and people depend on God to inspire

them to act righteously in order to heal their fractured God. Kabbalah does not

include a doctrine of irremediable sin, but instead conceives of everyone, even

God, as continually becoming, rather than being. Kabbalah therefore believes

that even the vilest sinner always has a shot at forgiveness in the eyes of God:

even in the final moments of life, hope remains.