PDA

View Full Version : Role of Karma (Prarabdha) in the context of creation.



nirotu
16 March 2007, 04:42 PM
Hi All:

Many in Sanatana Dharma have come to believe and accept the role of fulfilling Karma/Reincarnation as a primary vehicle to attain Moksha (liberation).

Isn’t there a danger of superimposition of this theory on to a real goal and purpose of creation, especially for man, which is to undertake the spiritual journey and come to know “self “ and the connection with its source?

What are your thoughts?

Blessings,

p.s. I have posted two threads they are somewhat interconnected!

yajvan
16 March 2007, 07:01 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Hi All:

Many in Sanatana Dharma have come to believe and accept the role of fulfilling Karma/Reincarnation as a primary vehicle to attain Moksha (liberation).What are your thoughts?



Namaste nirotu,
Let me say I am not for reincarnation! this is the unselected alternative to Moksha. The goal is to achieve the SELF. It is God's grace that He lets us continue our progress to this Moksha in another life.

Krsna says, no effort is ever lost... those that perhaps have fallen short of this attainment will pick up in the next life and continue.

So, acceptance goes with the territory, yet I do not see it as a primary vehicle for moksha, only as the opportinuty to try again.

...oh? Dying? its easy. I have done it a million times. (a close friend)

pranams,

satay
16 March 2007, 11:43 PM
namaste nirotu,


Hi All:

Many in Sanatana Dharma have come to believe and accept the role of fulfilling Karma/Reincarnation as a primary vehicle to attain Moksha (liberation).


As sri yajvan has pointed out already...your statement is false.



Isn’t there a danger of superimposition of this theory on to a real goal and purpose of creation, especially for man, which is to undertake the spiritual journey and come to know “self “ and the connection with its source?


Isn't there a danger in assuming that the 'self' will be thrown in a fire pit if a man doesn't accept and obey the divine, especially, if the assumption is that a man gets only one life or max 130 years? Isn't there a danger in assuming that there is only chance? The one chance theory makes a man either a materialist and reject the divine or makes a man fear the divine instead of loving him or makes a salesman out of a regular man.

saidevo
17 March 2007, 02:06 AM
Namaste everyone.



Isn't there a danger in assuming that the 'self' will be thrown in a fire pit if a man doesn't accept and obey the divine, especially, if the assumption is that a man gets only one life or max 130 years? Isn't there a danger in assuming that there is only chance? The one chance theory makes a man either a materialist and reject the divine or makes a man fear the divine instead of loving him or makes a salesman out of a regular man.


If the maximum life of a man is 130 years according to Christianity, what about the time in Hell or Heaven? What exactly happens to the soul in an eternal hell or heaven? If the soul in hell is destroyed after all its sufferings and the soul in heaven lives on eternally, then it means that Christianity does not believe that the soul is indestructible!? How can it be that some souls are indestructible and reach the heaven and some are destructible when they reach the hell? If such is the case, why should God create a destructible soul and even the hell as its caldron? If God created man after his image, can this be the case?

Perhaps, since God had to create the universe within six days, he was in a terrible hurry, and in that hullabaloo, made a hotchpotch of his work. And the greatest irony of this Kali Yuga is that the largest religion in the world has been based on such hideous concepts and considers itself hunky-dory!

Karma is a universal law of cause and effect, which is common to all human souls. Christianity may not accept reincarnation, but Christians as human souls do accumulate karma of both the good and bad types because no human being can be perfect. This being the case, in what way does a human soul which has not perfected itself in one life enjoy eternal heaven and another soul which has more propensity towards bad karma burn in eternal hell? What is the yardstick that decides, even among Christians, that one person goes to heaven and another to hell? And how can it be that the clergy are immune to hell whatever their faults? If they get God's grace, why should only they get it?

With such questions the falsity and superficiality of Christian theology easily comes to the fore. It would be well-nigh impossible to attain or even discuss the goal of spiritual journey and the connection to the source remaining within the framework of such dogma.

The universal law of karma and reincarnation is not an 'acceptance by belief' in Sanatana Dharma but an 'acceptance by discovery' by great sages who were spiritual scientists. In the absence of such a law there will be no necessity for creation at all, so where is the question of the real purpose of man's spiritual journey towards the source, realising his connection with it?

sm78
17 March 2007, 02:26 AM
Isn’t there a danger of superimposition of this theory on to a real goal and purpose of creation, especially for man, which is to undertake the spiritual journey and come to know “self “ and the connection with its source?

What are your thoughts?

Blessings,

p.s. I have posted two threads they are somewhat interconnected!

Let us first understand that self-knowledge is a journey and not a belief ~ those who actually undertook this journey found that most beings are cought in a cycle of re-birth form which liberation is possible by completing the journey. May be it just a theory for you, but for many it is said to be real knowledge.

satay
17 March 2007, 12:26 PM
Namaste everyone.

If God created man after his image, can this be the case?


namaste,
I must add to this an insight and that is that if God created man in his own image then he is the biggest idoltar of us all.

nirotu
19 March 2007, 09:07 PM
Let me say I am not for reincarnation! this is the unselected alternative to Moksha. The goal is to achieve the SELF. It is God's grace that He lets us continue our progress to this Moksha in another life.

Krsna says, no effort is ever lost... those that perhaps have fallen short of this attainment will pick up in the next life and continue.

So, acceptance goes with the territory, yet I do not see it as a primary vehicle for moksha, only as the opportinuty to try again.

...oh? Dying? its easy. I have done it a million times. (a close friend)

pranams,

Dear yajvan:

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I do agree with you. The path of discovery of “self” is in itself brings us into this spiritual journey. While Karma is totally secondary, many have strengthened the reality of “karmic cycle” as the primary impetus for reaching the goal. There is no denial in the reward for efforts (good or bad) in any religion. But, those who think doing good karma alone brings about the salvation have lost the true meaning of realities of spiritual journey.

A man can either continue to look towards and emphasize his shadow or he can simply move towards the right direction of light. The shadow is minimized or made to disappear altogether. Therefore, one can either continue to focus on realities of Karma or can undertake the spiritual journey in which these are minimized anyway.


As you said it well, when focus is on undertaking the journey the karmic baggage gets minimized.

Blessings,

nirotu
19 March 2007, 09:32 PM
Isn't there a danger in assuming that the 'self' will be thrown in a fire pit if a man doesn't accept and obey the divine, especially, if the assumption is that a man gets only one life or max 130 years?

Dear Satay:

While I was trying my best to avoid playing each other by pitting different religions, you seem to be determined to bring it to front.

If you are referring to the sayings of Christ Jesus, your arguments are baseless and illogical. Many among Hindus believe that “fear of Hell” has caused Christians to obey the divine. People who are clever with words use this “fear factor” as a basis for Christian obedience. How is it different than the following?

Hinduism believes in salvation or Moksha through a morally upright living and doing good karma, (which is the basis for my OP). They want to be liberated from the cycle of birth/rebirth. The only threat to that process of liberation is reincarnation (rebirth). Therefore, fear of reincarnation is what motivates them to do good karma. What’s wrong with this logic in bringing “fear factor”?


Isn't there a danger in assuming that there is only chance? The one chance theory makes a man either a materialist and reject the divine or makes a man fear the divine instead of loving him or makes a salesman out of a regular man.
Long time ago, I confronted similar question from another faithful servant of God. It is worth bringing out to you.

As Pascal (French Scientist and Philosopher) said it, “I would rather die believing in God and find out there was no God than die not believing in God and find out there indeed was a God”. Let me put my spin to it: If a Hindu belief is correct about reincarnation and a Christian finds that after death, at least he finds there indeed is another chance to correct for all his sins. If, on the other hand, a Christian belief is correct and a Hindu dies and finds out there was no more chance, which would be a safer bet?

My friend, in my humble estimation, no one knows his past karma or the life he or she lived! Therefore, why not consider the lifetime that is given to us as an opportunity to improve ourselves along with the grace of God, not truly knowing what will happen after life?


I must add to this an insight and that is that if God created man in his own image then he is the biggest idoltar of us all

You have a very false sense of “image” as described in the Bible! No created being has seen God or lived to tell us let alone be in His splitting image! If I were an image of God, I would be in ten different places at the same time! All I know of God is, God is a spirit. If you too were to believe this, you would not extrapolate man as a creation in God’s splitting image!



The term “image” does not mean to reflect God is “idolator”! Brahman is “absolute” and “unconditional” and no definition can comprehend Him. However, we can “apprehend” Him through “conditioned Brahman” what we call “God”. We can then associate God’s image in us (not in inanimate objects) through attributes such as “Love”, “Patience”, “mercy”, “Long suffering”, “endurance” etc, which we come to know as representing God’s character. Hence, in that sense image reflects some of God’s characters in us.

Coming to your notion of idolatry, it seems to me that if Brahman is the “absolute”, and when we reduce Him to merely an object of worship, it is reduced to a less than the “absolute”. That is why in Islam and Christianity idolatry is forbidden!!!



Blessings,

nirotu
19 March 2007, 09:35 PM
Let us first understand that self-knowledge is a journey and not a belief ~ those who actually undertook this journey found that most beings are cought in a cycle of re-birth form which liberation is possible by completing the journey. May be it just a theory for you, but for many it is said to be real knowledge.

Dear sm78:

Good point, sm78. Yes, the difference between having real knowledge of journey and actually undertaking such a journey is what differentiates between knowing “turiya” in theory and taking steps to attain the same. In fact, undertaking the actual spiritual journey seems to be the only solution to man’s ignorance or fallen state. As I said earlier, the shadow is minimized only by moving in the right direction of the light. That simple move has to be made.

Blessings,

mirabai
31 March 2007, 03:29 AM
As Pascal (French Scientist and Philosopher) said it, “I would rather die believing in God and find out there was no God than die not believing in God and find out there indeed was a God”. Let me put my spin to it: If a Hindu belief is correct about reincarnation and a Christian finds that after death, at least he finds there indeed is another chance to correct for all his sins. If, on the other hand, a Christian belief is correct and a Hindu dies and finds out there was no more chance, which would be a safer bet?

I apologize for interjecting in this conversation, and at this late date too! I am slowly working my way through some of the threads here, and trying to digest this one. Slow, partly for lack of enough time to devote and also I have to look up a lot of things still. Forgive my ignorance if my comments reflect it, as they surely must.

I am not a scholar, in fact I am struggling daily to find my footing on this path of Hindu Dharma so I hesitate to comment. But I think timidity can not live in the same heart with devotion, so I strive to forgo timidity.


Nirotu you seem to have a great amount of knowledge of many tenents of Hindu beliefs. Your understanding of many concepts and terms is better than mine. The other members who have commented already have beautifully responded to your points. I hope they will not mind my humble thoughts being added.


I never will try to convince you that my beliefs are more correct than yours, but only clarify a misunderstanding or misconception.


In a lot of your post, you seem to miss the real essence, or deeper meaning, or such. Sorry I am not good at explaining. Let me try again. For me, there is no question of a "safer bet" because I have chosen not to leave it to chance. Blind faith is exactly that- blind. It is as you said.. to follow the path which is the best bet, or which seems so, and it is at best a guess. It is impossible to understand Hinduism when you think of faith in this way.

To follow the path of Hindu Dharma is to have eyes wide open and not only that, but to desire to see reality. And to order your conduct and your life according to a yogic discipline even when it is uncomfortable or painful or lonely. And doing this, in doing the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing, you come to see that the actions that you take in everyday life are not yours but God's.

If you have a child, do you hand him a list of rules upon his birth, then step back and see whether he will survive to adulthood when you judge him for what he has accomplished or failed to accomplish? Or on whether he has accepted you as his authority? If he, through innocence and inexperience, chooses a wrong path is he doomed?



No, you lovingly place him in an environment that you have already prepared for him, and the safeguards and lessons you have installed will guide and enable him to safely and gently progress, step by step to obtain the knowledge he needs along the way. And you give him as many chances as he needs. He will fail and learn from the failure many times. Everything you have installed and put in place, is only to help him progress. You are wise and you know all the mistakes he could possibly make and have made provision that with each lesson learned is progress toward you. It is you who guide his actions because you have anticipated what he would need. He can choose to accept the boundaries; the rules..laws..dharma..you have put in place and have a very nice happy time in his life, or ignore and break them and suffer the consequences, then after enough consequences are suffered he begins to realize the reason he must follow a certain dharma, and it makes his life a happy one and he becomes more in harmony with you.

There is no fear of reincarnation, also no "vehicle of.., fulfilling Karma/Reincarnation. These are simply part of the natural laws that have been put in place in preparation and anticipation of our progress through our lives.

"Thus it is that the Vedas proclaim not a dreadful combination of unforgiving laws, not an endless prison of cause and effect, but that at the head of all these laws, in and through every particle of matter and force, stands One, "by whose command the wind blows, the fire burns, the clouds rain and death stalks upon the earth."
And what is His nature?
He is everywhere, the pure and formless One, the Almighty and the All-merciful. "Thou art our father, Thou art our mother, Thou art our beloved friend, Thou art the source of all strength; give us strength. Thou art He that beareth the burdens of the universe; help me bear the little burden of this life." Thus sang the Rishis of the Veda. And how to worship Him? Through love. "He is to be worshiped as the one beloved, dearer than everything in this and the next life."
........The Goal of Hinduism paper by Swami Vivekananda

atanu
31 March 2007, 11:19 AM
As replied to Shri Nirotu

In a lot of your post, you seem to miss the real essence, or deeper meaning, or such. Sorry I am not good at explaining. Let me try again. For me, there is no question of a "safer bet" because I have chosen not to leave it to chance. Blind faith is exactly that- blind. It is as you said.. to follow the path which is the best bet, or which seems so, and it is at best a guess. It is impossible to understand Hinduism when you think of faith in this way.

------




Namaskar,

You have caught Shri Nirotu offgaurd and you have pointed out what we all failed to point out so precisely. Is Dharma a gamble that there will be safe and unsafe bets? God has chosen the path for his children and He is called Leader of the Path also. What can an ego select? On its own it will always select the pleasurable over what is good.

Regards,

Om

nirotu
02 April 2007, 04:39 PM
I apologize for interjecting in this conversation, and at this late date too! . . .

I am not a scholar, in fact I am struggling daily to find my footing on this path of Hindu Dharma so I hesitate to comment. . . .

Nirotu you seem to have a great amount of knowledge of many tenents of Hindu beliefs. . . . .

Dear Mirabai:

Thank you and welcome to the forum. First of all, there is no need to apologize. Second of all, you are free to express your views. Thirdly, I am no expert or as knowledgeable as some others over here.

In a lot of your post, you seem to miss the real essence, or deeper meaning, or such. Sorry I am not good at explaining. Let me try again. For me, there is no question of a "safer bet" because I have chosen not to leave it to chance. Blind faith is exactly that- blind. It is as you said.. to follow the path which is the best bet, or which seems so, and it is at best a guess. It is impossible to understand Hinduism when you think of faith in this way.
If you look at the context of my response, you will know the reason for that statement. The word “safer” connotes “to air on caution”. When one is confronted with two alternatives based purely on intended consequences and uncertainties, one would take a safer alternative. In that case it is not a “blind faith” but an intellectual ascent for him. Because, a purely blind faith can also be a wrong faith. A faith must not be a random act of will but be an intellectual ascent of sort. A blind-faith in any belief tends to make a man skeptical or dogmatic because religion then becomes a matter of blind faith rooted in a system of beliefs.

While I am not advocating whose faith is superior or correct, I am merely clarifying the point I made about “safer bet” in the context of discussion. Once again, let us keep the reference to the context in mind.


To follow the path of Hindu Dharma is to have eyes wide open and not only that, but to desire to see reality. And to order your conduct and your life according to a yogic discipline even when it is uncomfortable or painful or lonely. And doing this, in doing the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing, you come to see that the actions that you take in everyday life are not yours but God's.
Very well said! While I do agree with what you say here, but, for many doing good karma with an expectation of reward has become a primary impetus for liberation. In fact,Christianity commands to act not from the idea of reward but for the sake of what is good in itself!

If you have a child, do you hand him a list of rules upon his birth, then step back and see whether he will survive to adulthood when you judge him for what he has accomplished or failed to accomplish? Or on whether he has accepted you as his authority? If he, through innocence and inexperience, chooses a wrong path is he doomed?


No, you lovingly place him in an environment that you have already prepared for him, and the safeguards and lessons you have installed will guide and enable him to safely and gently progress, step by step to obtain the knowledge he needs along the way. And you give him as many chances as he needs. He will fail and learn from the failure many times. Everything you have installed and put in place, is only to help him progress. You are wise and you know all the mistakes he could possibly make and have made provision that with each lesson learned is progress toward you. It is you who guide his actions because you have anticipated what he would need. He can choose to accept the boundaries; the rules..laws..dharma..you have put in place and have a very nice happy time in his life, or ignore and break them and suffer the consequences, then after enough consequences are suffered he begins to realize the reason he must follow a certain dharma, and it makes his life a happy one and he becomes more in harmony with you.

Your point is well taken! Yes, God does intervene in our lives as you eloquently describe. There is a famous story in the Bible about the prodigal son that fits so well. If we are God’s creation and He loves us, our life time is full of opportunities to know Him at an intimate level.


There is no fear of reincarnation, also no "vehicle of.., fulfilling Karma/Reincarnation. These are simply part of the natural laws that have been put in place in preparation and anticipation of our progress through our lives.
It is interesting to see you so beautifully describe the intervention of God in man’s life earlier but now you are setting Karma/Reincarnation as a part of natural law as if God has let everything take its course with “cause and effect” law. I do have some reservations in understanding “cause and effect” theory that makes “Karma and reincarnation” as a closed system. When I say a closed system, I do mean there is strict correspondence where effect is a direct result of cause without being influenced or intervention by any external agent.


1- If karma/reincarnation pairs well as a result of cause/effect, then there is no system of injustice! Nothing is unjust and everything is just because every action or an effect is directly related to past karma. Truly, there is no foundation for believing anything to be unjust. It has fairness inherent in it. Such a system becomes, in my view, a play field for ego. If a woman gets raped it must be the result of her past karma. She must have raped someone in her past life. Therefore, it is justified her being raped this time.

2- In such a closed system of justice, I find there is no room for compassion. Simply put, I must not feel sorry for someone’s misfortune but assume it is a direct result of his past deeds.

3 – In a closed system there cannot be any intervention by God. God simply winds a clock and let it run its course and watch from the sideline. If I help someone I would only make matter worse by hindering his/her karma and hence, decrease her chance of liberation sooner!

Therefore, it makes more sense to emphasize the journey and not on details of doing so called karma. If you are focused on your journey, you will automatically do the right thing partly because, the very first step of journey is the surrender to grace! The logical outcome of God’s grace working in you is the good work that you produce. God’s grace will not let you go astray as long as you are holding the hand of grace!

Blessings,

saidevo
03 April 2007, 09:13 AM
Karma & Reincarnation, Dharma and Moksha (Liberation)

The swirling currents of discussion in this thread have somewhat blunted (mainly by the words of Nirotu) the basic concepts of the three factors of life that guide (not lead) a soul to Mokha or liberation: Karma, Reincarnation and Dharma. Nirotu as usual has subtly interjected a word here and a phrase there to convolute and confuse things and the Hindu concepts, so we need to reinforce focus on the actual meanings of the concepts and the action of the universal laws of cause and effect.

I have chosen two quotes from Nirotu that are answered in a nutshell by the quotes from Yajvan and Mirabai, placed before and after Nirotu's quotes. I have enumerated my points after the quotes below. Members may correct any errors and add more clarity to them.



Let me say I am not for reincarnation! this is the unselected alternative to Moksha.




A man can either continue to look towards and emphasize his shadow or he can simply move towards the right direction of light. The shadow is minimized or made to disappear altogether. Therefore, one can either continue to focus on realities of Karma or can undertake the spiritual journey in which these are minimized anyway.




Hinduism believes in salvation or Moksha through a morally upright living and doing good karma, (which is the basis for my OP). They want to be liberated from the cycle of birth/rebirth. The only threat to that process of liberation is reincarnation (rebirth). Therefore, fear of reincarnation is what motivates them to do good karma. What’s wrong with this logic in bringing “fear factor”?




To follow the path of Hindu Dharma is to have eyes wide open and not only that, but to desire to see reality.


1. The inexorable destination of every soul is Moksha or Liberation from manifestation in matter. This is the concept of Moksha: to be free from material manifestations. Christianity believes in an eternal heaven as the destination to be attained in a single life, by submitting to the grace of God. The souls who fall short of this in their efforts rot in eternal hell only to get destroyed for ever.

In Hinduism, Moksha is mergining with (Nirguna) Brahman, the Absolute Reality for Advaitins and remaining for ever near God (Saguna Brahman) for followers of other philosophies. Advaita also says that Moksha is not something in the yonder heavens but only a state that forever remains with the Self. To attain it, a soul must seek Self-Realization.

2. Hinduism does not believe in salvation or Moksha through good karma as Nirotu says (in the second of his quotes above). In Hinduism, the only way to attain Moksha is through Self-Realization.

Nirotu (cleverly/unintentionally) interjects the word Hinduism and says, "Hinduism believes in salvation through doing good karma." In the very next sentence he continues, "They want to be liberated from the cycle of birth/rebirth."--obviously referring to the Hindus. So, what he says as the belief of Hinduism is only the belief of Hindus, and his error might be unintentional (though he takes utmost care to be unambiguous generally). Okay, let us give him the benefit of doubt.

So the only way to Moksha is to realize the Self in Hinduism. And this is possible only when a soul is free from the universal law of Karma and Reincarnation. Though the general perception of non-Hindus is that Hindus believe in attaining Moksha by accumulating good karma, most Hindus do know that this is not so and that the actual Moksha comes only when a soul is free of karma, that is, with a NIL karmic balance.

The cycle of karma and reincarnation is like a conveyor belt. The conveyor belt takes a soul through the three worlds bhu, bhuva, suvaha (earth, astral and heavens). The soul has to expend its bad karma by physical reincarnation on the earth, usually by suffering. In the astral world, the soul waits until another birth to expend its prarabdha karma. And in the heavens, the soul enjoys the fruits of its good karma, until it expends some or all of it, and then the soul is back on the conveyor belt descending into gross matter for further embodiment and incarnation.

Are the fruits of good karma enjoyed only in the heavens? Yes. Don't they have any effects in the next birth? They do have. The good karma ensures that the soul is born in better circumstances in the next life, advanced more spiritually. This is so because, good karma adds to the supreme vibrational matter in its mental and causal bodies which greatly decreases the soul's propensity towards gross vAsanAs.

Therefore, enjoying the heavens is not liberation in Hinduism as in the Abrahamic religions. The actual liberation is past the heavens, which is the realization of Self.

Where is the hell, by the by? Hell is highly subjective in Hinduism. Our gurus teach that it is a state of mind than an actuality. The descriptions of hell in Hindu Puranas are symbolic. Hell is the suffering that a soul undergoes in the astral world for the vAsanAs (impressions) that cannot frucify except by taking a physical form. This hell is not permanent. The soul is not destroyed in the crucible of its suffering. It either goes up to the heavens to expend whatever little good karma it has accumulated ("no effort is ever lost") or gets down for another birth to expend its vAsanAs.

Karmic shadows, short or long, will always be there so long as a soul is away from the Self, which is the only source of light. To make the shadows go, the soul needs to merge with light.

3. There are, let us say, five to six billion human souls on the earth today. Almost all of them (leaving out a minor percentage of jivan muktas or souls liberated even while in physical form) have the three kinds of karma, irrespective of their religious faith or absence of it. This is a hard fact that humanity will slowly come to realize, as the individual freedom and right of a soul to make its own path to God gains momentum.

Where does dharma come in this picture? Dharma is the set of precepts given by our Rishis, the spiritual scientists, to ease a soul's embodied life on earth and to guide its spiritual progress. This is the reason Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, and is known as Sanatana Dharma, a Dharma that is Universal and Eternal, within the context of Creation in this manvantara.

4. What about the karma of jivan muktas? We see them undergo bodily pain and ailments, but as Ramana Maharshi said, jnAnis will have pain but no suffering, because their mind is the purest (shud^dha manas). Their physical pains and ailments may either be due to the accelerated expenditure of any vAsanAs or their voluntarily taking up the suffering of their devotees.

And what about their good karma? We see them do only good towards everything that lives. Their good karama won't require them to expend them in the heavens (they are already past it by Self-Realization), because they have learnt to submit them to God:

kAyena vAcA manasA indriyai: vA buddhyA AtmanA vA anusRuta svabhAvAt
karoti yat yat sakalam parasmai nArAyaNAya iti samarpayet tat

(Whatever one does with his body, speech, senses, intelligence or mind, he should offer everything at the feet of the Lord.)

Srimad Bhagavatam 11.2.36

satay
04 April 2007, 12:31 AM
Namaste nirotu,


Dear Satay:

While I was trying my best to avoid playing each other by pitting different religions, you seem to be determined to bring it to front.

If you are referring to the sayings of Christ Jesus, your arguments are baseless and illogical. Many among Hindus believe that “fear of Hell” has caused Christians to obey the divine. People who are clever with words use this “fear factor” as a basis for Christian obedience. How is it different than the following?

Hinduism believes in salvation or Moksha through a morally upright living and doing good karma, (which is the basis for my OP). They want to be liberated from the cycle of birth/rebirth. The only threat to that process of liberation is reincarnation (rebirth). Therefore, fear of reincarnation is what motivates them to do good karma. What’s wrong with this logic in bringing “fear factor”?



Respected saidevo has tried to explain nicely your false understanding of the eternal laws of nature. I trust that you will try your best to understand his post.



Long time ago, I confronted similar question from another faithful servant of God. It is worth bringing out to you.

As Pascal (French Scientist and Philosopher) said it, “I would rather die believing in God and find out there was no God than die not believing in God and find out there indeed was a God”. Let me put my spin to it: If a Hindu belief is correct about reincarnation and a Christian finds that after death, at least he finds there indeed is another chance to correct for all his sins. If, on the other hand, a Christian belief is correct and a Hindu dies and finds out there was no more chance, which would be a safer bet?


With all due respect to Mr. Pascal, I would like to suggest that his argument is hopelessly flawed and illogical. And since the initial argument of Pascal is flawed, your spin upon it is flawed as well. Allow me…

In your words, Pascal said that “I would rather die believing in God and find out there was no God than die not believing in God and find out there indeed was a God.”…Well, the last time I checked, most Hindus and that includes me, do believe in God! So, Pascal’s argument as presented here does not apply to a Hindu. Furthermore, the argument is illogical as follows:

- if you as a Christian or someone who believes in jesus baba’s words consider this argument as a valid and strong support for your faith, then surely you must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions that believe in a ‘God’ including Sanatana Dharma. So basically, I can turn around and quote the Gita to you saying that only Lord Krishna’s words are valid and submit this argument in support of it. This is illogical nonsense at best.

- Even localized to Christianity, it is self refuting, depending on which church you follow. For example, in discussions with many ‘liberal’ Christians on the CF, I found that there are Christians that believe that the bible God judges people purely on how they lived their life and not so much in what they believed in. For these Christians, the wager is meaningless.

- In another post, you say that this is ‘safe bet’ or intellectually best bet (along these lines b/c I don’t have your post in front of me), this kind of logic makes God look like an idiot. Do you think that God is stupid? How can one simply believe in God simply out of convenience? If one accepts the wager as presented here, it would be ‘out of convenience’.

- Crux of the argument seems to be that “believe in the bible God or he will send you to Hell”, you are assuming that all Hindus believe in ‘Hell’ as understood by Christians. Saidevo has already corrected this misunderstanding of ‘Hell’ from Hindu perspective.

Now, to your spin, it is illogical because:

- the initial wager of Pascal is illogical
- you are assuming that Hindus believe in ‘Hell’ according to the bible
- you are assuming that you as a Christian will be reincarnated as a human being. In fact, no where it is mentioned that I know of, where it is stated that a human being will be reincarnated as a human being in his next life. What if you are tree in your next life? You know that scientists have done experiments that show that trees have ‘feelings’. Another chance does not equal to another human birth or even another human birth with viveka or buddhi without which knowledge of God might be quite difficult if not impossible altogether.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it is more logical to assume that God is all loving, and that he will judge us on our works and if we tried to make this world a better place or not, instead of us just believing in him out of convenience as Mr. Pascal and you suggest.



My friend, in my humble estimation, no one knows his past karma or the life he or she lived! Therefore, why not consider the lifetime that is given to us as an opportunity to improve ourselves along with the grace of God, not truly knowing what will happen after life?



You have a very false sense of “image” as described in the Bible! No created being has seen God or lived to tell us let alone be in His splitting image! If I were an image of God, I would be in ten different places at the same time! All I know of God is, God is a spirit. If you too were to believe this, you would not extrapolate man as a creation in God’s splitting image!



The term “image” does not mean to reflect God is “idolator”! Brahman is “absolute” and “unconditional” and no definition can comprehend Him. However, we can “apprehend” Him through “conditioned Brahman” what we call “God”. We can then associate God’s image in us (not in inanimate objects) through attributes such as “Love”, “Patience”, “mercy”, “Long suffering”, “endurance” etc, which we come to know as representing God’s character. Hence, in that sense image reflects some of God’s characters in us.

Coming to your notion of idolatry, it seems to me that if Brahman is the “absolute”, and when we reduce Him to merely an object of worship, it is reduced to a less than the “absolute”. That is why in Islam and Christianity idolatry is forbidden!!!



Blessings,

My apologies for not replying to this…another day…

More on Pascal's Wager on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

nirotu
04 April 2007, 03:37 PM
The swirling currents of discussion in this thread have somewhat blunted (mainly by the words of Nirotu) the basic concepts of the three factors of life that guide (not lead) a soul to Mokha or liberation: Karma, Reincarnation and Dharma. Nirotu as usual has subtly interjected a word here and a phrase there to convolute and confuse things and the Hindu concepts, so we need to reinforce focus on the actual meanings of the concepts and the action of the universal laws of cause and effect.

Dear Saidevo:

You have expounded very well! While, for many the role of karma and fulfillment of it has been the goal, I am delighted to know the secondary role of karma (only as a guide) in your statements. As well as that may be, however, I would like to reemphasize the role of journey of a soul. My OP was to bring that to the front. It was never my intention to confuse anyone other than state the prevailing understanding of the role of karma, which has been for all the time the gradual revelation of eternality in us through the progress governed by the laws of karma.

The actual nature of man is far from the ideal nature. As a result, there is a great distance of consciousness between the actual and the ideal (Moksha). I do believe that the shortest distance to Moksha is the spiritual journey undertaken by the “free will” of man through surrendering to “Grace” as a first step. When this is done wholeheartedly through the surrender to grace, all “karma” can be bypassed!

The concept of “karma” itself is the biggest bondage as it acts as a deterrent to man’s free-will from undertaking the necessary pre-requisite (turning to grace) and surrendering completely to grace. Because, in doing such karma, it is the persistent “I” doing the karma deters one from reaching the goal. Such bondage has shut us from realizing ourselves.

Once grace takes over, there is no karma to talk about. I view Prarabdha Karma as absence of grace. In fact, a man full of divine grace cannot be re-incarnated. When you are bathed in sunlight there is no question of shadow appearing! It is man’s ignorance (or misunderstanding) of this knowledge keeps him bonded to karma and reincarnation.


In Hinduism, the only way to attain Moksha is through Self-Realization.I will agree with you but with qualification. It is given that all religions require us to look upon life as an opportunity for self-realization (Moksha). Moksha is the ideal towards which humanity has to move. However, our ordinary level of consciousness is not the highest form. Therefore, evolving towards the self-realization is the key to understanding the Kingdom of God that is within us. Each one must seek for himself if he is to find. That said, on a practical side however, a man has to shift from a lower plane A (lower self) to a higher plane B (higher realized-self). This entails a journey; I mean a practical journey, from point A to point B. Again, we bring our self back to that first step of surrendering to grace for this journey to be successful. Only then the truth hidden in every soul will manifest in awakened spiritual consciousness.

The cycle of karma and reincarnation is like a conveyor belt. The conveyor belt takes a soul through the three worlds bhu, bhuva, suvaha (earth, astral and heavens). The soul has to expend its bad karma by physical reincarnation on the earth, usually by suffering. In the astral world, the soul waits until another birth to expend its prarabdha karma. And in the heavens, the soul enjoys the fruits of its good karma, until it expends some or all of it, and then the soul is back on the conveyor belt descending into gross matter for further embodiment and incarnation.
Well said, Saidevo. When a person goes through “Prapatti”, a complete surrender, he will naturally do everything according to the will of God. Because, if the indwelling of grace in man that results in indwelling of God in man (which is the highest truth), the conduct which translates into practice is ideal “karma”. Such a person who has truly surrendered to grace recognizes that everything is controlled and governed by a divine plan and he becomes an obedient participant. Therefore, it is not “doing karma” that one should boast about, but rather the indwelling of grace that has led him to do the karma.

To illustrate with a practical or a mundane example, it is well known that when a student in a creative art class (music, writing, painting etc.) finds a good teacher, he/she will do everything right. In our discussion, if grace is nothing less than the highest teacher, how can you go wrong?


Karmic shadows, short or long, will always be there so long as a soul is away from the Self, which is the only source of light. To make the shadows go, the soul needs to merge with light.
Why get bogged down in measuring and analyzing the shadow? There won’t be any shadow when a person makes the right move in to the direction of light! I call your moving away as the “journey”.


Where does dharma come in this picture? Dharma is the set of precepts given by our Rishis, the spiritual scientists, to ease a soul's embodied life on earth and to guide its spiritual progress. This is the reason Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, and is known as Sanatana Dharma, a Dharma that is Universal and Eternal, within the context of Creation in this manvantara.

To reach the highest state it is not always necessary to adhere literally to the rules of Dharma. The cases of sudden uprushes of the spirit among seemingly commonplace souls, great many moral elevations among men who have had no prior knowledge of Dharma can be easily seen. They see God so intensely that the soul is more certain and more possessed by the grace of God than anything one can imagine.

Having said that, I do agree that to some extent, Dharma is needed as a guide to a man who constantly has developed a conflict between the divine and the un-divine in him. The battle between “virtue” and “vice” has caught man in between that needs some guidance for rescue. However, if that first initial inner event of turning to grace has not occurred in him, no matter what Dharma teaches, it will always be opposed by him.

To summarize, if you see carefully all my discussions, there is no doubt about one indispensable thing that I have been emphasizing over and over again has been the prerequisite first step of turning and completely surrendering to the “Grace” till there is not even a shadow of “ego-I” left in you.

Blessings,

grames
04 April 2007, 06:46 PM
Hi,

Looks like someone is very hardly trying to draw a line between christian belief and sanatana dharma. :) Good and appreciated.

Just wanted to add two points to the discussion....

1. First of all, Karma is not and will not lead anyone to Moksha. It will be a wrong statement to make and such assumptions are not correct and if it is understood like that, your closed circuit logic will be applicable. But Karma is cause effect theory but governs only the material existence when the deeds and acts are all about material existence. But, anything done in the spiritual realm there is no Karma and it is as simple as that. The one who is absorbed completely in to the spiritual world, will not have to worry about Karma.

2. Dharma is eternal duty and responsibility. So, in another way of understanding karma, anything that do in terms of your Dharma is free from Karma.

nirotu
06 April 2007, 04:33 PM
Hi,

Looks like someone is very hardly trying to draw a line between christian belief and sanatana dharma. Good and appreciated.

Just wanted to add two points to the discussion....

1. First of all, Karma is not and will not lead anyone to Moksha. It will be a wrong statement to make and such assumptions are not correct and if it is understood like that, your closed circuit logic will be applicable. But Karma is cause effect theory but governs only the material existence when the deeds and acts are all about material existence. But, anything done in the spiritual realm there is no Karma and it is as simple as that. The one who is absorbed completely in to the spiritual world, will not have to worry about Karma.

2. Dharma is eternal duty and responsibility. So, in another way of understanding karma, anything that do in terms of your Dharma is free from Karma.


Dear Grames:

I agree completely with you. That is exactly what my last e-mail shows. If material part can be likened to man’s shadow (karma), instead of emphasizing that, the person should move in to the direction of light (spiritual realm). That absolves our karma.

It is good to see that we agree on this not very well realized concept, which has kept man bondaged to karmic cycle through shear ignorance.

BTW, I am pleasantly surprised to see you on this forum. I was inquiring about you with Satay sometime back. I am guessing you are the same ‘Grames” I had chatted with!

Blessings,

atanu
07 April 2007, 04:24 AM
Namaskar everyone,

From the stadpoint of a particular jiva, karma is there that however, can be effaced. In general, for jivas as a group, Karma is eternal. This is what is taught to us by VA and sanatana dharma in general. Advaita does not say that Karma is eternal or that karma will lead to moksha but it says that a jiva feeling that it has some karma is ignorance, which is eternal in general but can be effaced by a particular Jiva.

Shree Krishna teaches: "Know that you are not the doer". This is the final teaching and true when there is no ego doer. But even with a trace of ego (individual self) the doer will always be there. Without Jnana this cannot be overcome. A sattwik personality will also have some sense of doership with regards to his own (apparent) good work. And this is bondage. This will allow one to attain heaven but not liberation. Till one has a sense of doership, the tendencies may pull a sattwika person to some momentary wrong doing and in such cases karma indeed is important.

If karma/ignorance of karma was not a factor, then we would not be striving to get rid of it. And we would not be pained if our neighour prospered more than us.

When a jiva understands for certainty that it has no independent faculty for cognition and action, then only the progress to liberation can be made. The individual soul/ego/manas goes down through Vritta (tendencies) or it mutilates and kills this demon called Vritta and attains freedom (that too Lord does).

Shri Krishna teaches that the truth will be known in samadhi alone. And for samadhi, the requirements are samadrishti, bhakti, good karma (selfless devotional work and Tapas) and knowledge of ONE BRAHMAN pervading everthing and everybeing. Ego is there to help extinguish ignorance/karma but persisting ego will not allow this extinction.

Bible also says: Envy is progress. This sums up. Sense of an Individual Identity will not allow envy free thoughts ever. It will creep in as some urge and create karma away from Moksha.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 April 2007, 04:52 AM
Dear Saidevo:

---
I will agree with you but with qualification. It is given that all religions require us to look upon life as an opportunity for self-realization (Moksha). ------ Each one must seek for himself if he is to find. That said, on a practical side however, a man has to shift from a lower plane A (lower self) to a higher plane B (higher realized-self). This entails a journey; I mean a practical journey, from point A to point B. Again, we bring our self back to that first step of surrendering to grace for this journey to be successful. Only then the truth hidden in every soul will manifest in awakened spiritual consciousness.



Dear Nirotu,

Namaskar,

Don't you ever see/understand that while professing to differ (marginally always), you say the same thing as saidevoji or Satay or me or any other person?

What you call practical journey we call 'KARMA'. Submission, selfless service, worship, meditation all come in here as positive Karma. And Sanatana dharma teaches that Meditation is the best Karma/bhakti/jnana, since it is conducted with 100 % of one's mind. However, Karma cannot fructify to moksha without Jnana of grace which is love --- your very being. That is Self Realization, which again cannot happen in presence of any ego desire even as deep sleep does not happen when mind is desirous. Self Realization does not happen without continuous abidance in Self or at God's feet (in present time or as past effort).

Sage Yajnavalka says in Brihad Arayanaka Upanishad, it is karma that differentiates one being from another. What else?

Why one has to get bogged down with a lady called language, who ensnares as well as liberates?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 April 2007, 12:26 PM
Dear Saidevo:

------To summarize, if you see carefully all my discussions, there is no doubt about one indispensable thing that I have been emphasizing over and over again has been the prerequisite first step of turning and completely surrendering to the “Grace” till there is not even a shadow of “ego-I” left in you.

Blessings,


First welcome to sanatana dharma. But then, what remains of you after the ego?

Om

nirotu
11 April 2007, 12:17 PM
Don't you ever see/understand that while professing to differ (marginally always), you say the same thing as saidevoji or Satay or me or any other person?

What you call practical journey we call 'KARMA'. Submission, selfless service, worship, meditation all come in here as positive Karma. And Sanatana dharma teaches that Meditation is the best Karma/bhakti/jnana, since it is conducted with 100 % of one's mind. However, Karma cannot fructify to moksha without Jnana of grace which is love --- your very being. That is Self Realization, which again cannot happen in presence of any ego desire even as deep sleep does not happen when mind is desirous. Self Realization does not happen without continuous abidance in Self or at God's feet (in present time or as past effort).

Dear Atanu:

Though your (and other’s) intention is likely pure, it can unintentionally mar the truth behind statements such as above. You may be meaning the same thing what I say about “karma”, but, you can easily see the big difference in our approach that is the very concept of “Karma”. My understanding is that the prescribed formula of karma, be it +ve or –ve is somehow misused.

All the while when a person is doing “worship”, “meditation” etc as a part of positive “karma”, there is a failure to realize that whenever there is “doing” involved, there is always a “doer”. As along as there is a “doer” of Karma, the inherent attachment of “I doing this” cannot be removed. Thus, in this way, it can be perceived that “karma” itself seems to be making the journey longer, harder and more mental. Otherwise, we seem to be in sync with the goal.

I am saying that not everyone is misusing this concept of Karma but to an average man it (karma) becomes a way of life and keeps him bondaged to a life of being reconciled to the sufferings of his mortal flesh as opposed to holding the hand of grace!

This is where the concept of journey with surrender like a child comes in to play. Surrendering to God does not involve leaving the world or giving up our actions, but realizing that every action (karma) is in accordance with His laws, and by His explicit will. At the same time in such a surrender one lets the divine plan rule his or her life without giving up one’s best effort. In that recognition of everything that is controlled and governed by a divine plan, there is a complete renunciation of individual existence “I” or the ego. As long as there is a sense of “doership”, there is no “moksha”, as you have said it also, but the question remains as to how do you go about removing that attachment? You say by “self-realization” through practices of Dharma where as, I would say this sense of “doership” is lost when we hold on to grace where divine will act and guide the course of events.

Your statements clearly put more emphasis on doing this and that. When a person assumes grace is so weak, he will inevitably keep reminding himself of doing this or that. I have to do more meditation or I have to spend more time in prayer or I still have to purify myself more. However, actions performed under grace are truly devoid of “I” ness associated with it. They “just do it” not wanting to know the outcome. Mother Teresa never felt the need to help more sick or unwanted people in order to be in favor of God. She just kept on doing it. She has been known to say, “I am the pen through which He writes”. Buddha never has said, “I have to meditate more” but just did it. Jesus never felt the need to do more for the Father but just did it. The problem in your approach is that the karmic path has a strong smell of “I-ness” associated with it, be it conscious or unconscious.

Atanu, we are in agreement with lot of things such as goals etc, however, we have to be cautious about putting so much emphasis on “karma”. I may be perceived as preaching the choir here but I hope you will see underlying difference between our thoughts. Basically, the differences lay not so much in actual paths but the attitude or the approach. One feels he is not worthy of the Father and feels the need to get there by doing various acts (karma) whereas; the other feels the birthright knowing of belonging to the Father and performs the acts with that knowledge. I feel that we all have that birthright but some of us are not conscious of it (sheep and Lion parable, which Yogananda/Ramakrishna Paramahansa have often used).



Blessings,

atanu
12 April 2007, 08:27 AM
Dear Atanu:

You say by “self-realization” through practices of Dharma where as, I would say this sense of “doership” is lost when we hold on to grace where divine will act and guide the course of events.

Blessings,

Dear Nirotu Namaste,

Nice. I have no points to argue on.

Just would like to point out that a better way of saying "hold on to grace " is to say: Meditate, which is holding on to His feet continously. hehe.

Holding on to Him in meditation allows no I to surface. So, there is no doing this or doing that (as you wrongly surmised), since there is no doer.



Regards,

OM NAMAH SHIVAYYA

atanu
12 April 2007, 08:36 AM
Dear Atanu:

-------
One feels he is not worthy of the Father and feels the need to get there by doing various acts (karma) whereas; the other feels the birthright knowing of belonging to the Father and performs the acts with that knowledge. I feel that we all have that birthright but some of us are not conscious of it (sheep and Lion parable, which Yogananda/Ramakrishna Paramahansa have often used).

Blessings,

Namskar,

I do not think that anyone here would agree that Sanatana Dharma teaches that Jiva is not worthy of father. Just the opposite --- sanatana dharma teaches that father is the only truth. Following the prescribed karma, bhakti, jnana paths one is helped to remove the illusion that "I am separate from Brahman and I have indepedent intelligence and power to act".

Why all this striving Nirotu Ji? The wise do not say that this is better and that is bad. All is Siva alone.


Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
12 April 2007, 12:32 PM
Namaste Nirotu,



Mother Teresa never felt the need to help more sick or unwanted people in order to be in favor of God. She just kept on doing it. She has been known to say, “I am the pen through which He writes”. Buddha never has said, “I have to meditate more” but just did it. Jesus never felt the need to do more for the Father but just did it. The problem in your approach is that the karmic path has a strong smell of “I-ness” associated with it, be it conscious or unconscious.


Mother Teresa


Mother Teresa suffered a heart attack in Rome during 1983, while visiting Pope John Paul II. After a second attack in 1989, she received a pacemaker. In 1991, after a battle with pneumonia while in Mexico, she suffered further heart problems. She offered to resign her position as head of the Missionaries of Charity. However, the nuns of the order, in a secret ballot, voted for her to stay. Mother Teresa agreed to continue her work as head of the order.

In April 1996, Mother Teresa fell and broke her collar bone. In August of that year she suffered from malaria and failure of the left heart ventricle. She underwent heart surgery, but it was clear that her health was declining. On March 13, 1997 she stepped down from the head of Missionaries of Charity and died on September 5, 1997, nine days after her 87th birthday.

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)


So much for the grace of (Christian) God on such a soul who did selfless service for such a long time! Was it on account of her karma that she suffered so much in her own health? And later to her death, they wranged over her beatification! (She was beatified on October 19, 2003, over six years after her death). And she still waits for a canonization, in the absence of a second miracle. Speaks volumes of the dogma and religious administration of Churchianity. Had she been a Hindu, such a noble soul would have been adored in her lifetime and revered as a God posthumously.

Buddha
The very name stands for meditation! Buddha is nothing without the jnAnA he obtained under a bhodhi tree. And he was able to get his Self-Realization only after a number of reincarnations. What made him reincarnate, karma or God's grace?

Jesus Christ
Jesus, as the Son of God, knew his father right from the time he was baptized (when the spirit of God descended on him like a dove), yet he felt that God his Father had forsaken him and cried when he was crucified. What was the reason for that temporary illusion that Jesus suffered at the time of crucifixion?



"According to the Cayce material, Jesus and Adam were different incarnations of the same Christ soul. Eve and the Virgin Mary (Jesus' twin soul) were also different incarnations of the same soul. This karmic connection between Adam and Jesus explains why Jesus was able to pay the "karmic debt" by atoning for the "sin of Adam." This Adam-Jesus connection can be seen in the following excerpt from the Cayce readings:
Question: "When did the knowledge come to Jesus that he was to be the Savior of the world?"
Cayce: "When he fell in Eden."
http://cafe.noeticnetworks.org/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.pl?az=show_thread&om=162&forum=DCForumID2&omm=48&viewmode=threaded


Let it NOT be misunderstood. I don't discount the grace of God. Like the good rain, it falls on every soul. The souls with sat karma (good karma) make better use of it and progress faster spiritually. The Grace later guides them to Self-Realization, teaching them to reflect and meditate. It is not without reason that Sri Krishna has arranged the paths to libration in the order of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga. To those who totally surrender to Him he grants jnAnA; this surrendering is not blind, like a thief praying to God before he goes about his business. Prapatti first shapes up in thoughts and then gets down to one's words and deeds, automatically guiding them. Prapatti ensures that the soul's bad karma that are not to be exprienced by it are dissolved, and good karma that the soul however accumulates is passed on to God. (This is only my impression, and I may be wrong).

The one point I want to highlight is that everyone, including the jIvan mukta generate karma by being physically reincarnated. As I have already said, jIvan muktas have learnt to submit it to God. As Atanu has clearly pointed out, "Holding on to Him in meditation allows no I to surface", which is a better way of saying "hold on to grace".

Self-Realization is the only way to liberation in Sanatana Dharma. It comes by Sravana, Manana, Nididhyasana (reading/listening, reflection and realization by meditation--the three R's). Grace might accelerate this process, but the path has to be traversed.

nirotu
13 April 2007, 05:31 PM
So much for the grace of (Christian) God on such a soul who did selfless service for such a long time! Was it on account of her karma that she suffered so much in her own health?

Dear Saidevo:

The kind of comments on Mother Teresa (as above) only shows how a mortal man like you and I think! In spite of all hardships, physical ailments, Mother Teresa still described herself as a pen in His mighty hand (these were her last quotes). She did not succumb to the thoughts you are holding now. That is the beauty of the first-step that exemplifies what we have been talking about all along! Her instinctive knowingness of the Father made her believe nothing would separate her from the love of the Father, not disease, not trials, not any persecution (period). Without such a connection of knowingness such mortal thoughts like yours come to any man!

She knew better than any one that clinging on to grace does not absolve one from trials or sufferings. In fact, Jesus Christ makes it very clear that in this world trials and tribulations will come to every one whether he believes Him or not (John 16:33). But, for those who believe in the assurances of Jesus, the trials form only a temporal change compared to what is in heaven for eternity.


And later to her death, they wranged over her beatification! (She was beatified on October 19, 2003, over six years after her death). And she still waits for a canonization, in the absence of a second miracle. Speaks volumes of the dogma and religious administration of Churchianity. Had she been a Hindu, such a noble soul would have been adored in her lifetime and revered as a God posthumously.
You seem to be hung up on religion, dogma and which platform it comes from. While I am no fan of Catholicism (canonization), I believe Catholics are dogmatic in their assertion of sainthood. Instead, one has to rise above institutional preaching and stick to the scripture.


Buddha

The very name stands for meditation! Buddha is nothing without the jnAnA he obtained under a bhodhi tree. And he was able to get his Self-Realization only after a number of reincarnations. What made him reincarnate, karma or God's grace?
This is irrelevant to our discussion. The context in which Buddha is brought in my comment is to demonstrate that there was absolutely no “doership” in his meditation. Let us be careful and not lose the sight of our subtle focal point and that being “karma” vs. “actual journey” or to be a pen in His hand. Your question of “karma” or “grace” can be discussed but is not relevant to our discussion. Perhaps, I like the idea of discussing “meaning of grace”, which can be a next topic.


Jesus Christ

Jesus, as the Son of God, knew his father right from the time he was baptized (when the spirit of God descended on him like a dove), yet he felt that God his Father had forsaken him and cried when he was crucified. What was the reason for that temporary illusion that Jesus suffered at the time of crucifixion?
As usual you are going on a tangent! Let us continue with the thread of this discussion. In His cry “why have you forsaken me”, one finds complete humanity in Jesus Christ. Most humans undergoing such a persecution can easily give up and question God. Yet, His very next statement sums up His complete abidance in the Father when He said, “Yet, it is not my will but thy will be done”.

I will admit that the dynamics of how He is fully of divine nature and fully of human nature is somewhat of a mystery to me.


Let it NOT be misunderstood. I don't discount the grace of God. Like the good rain, it falls on every soul. The souls with sat karma (good karma) make better use of it and progress faster spiritually. The Grace later guides them to Self-Realization, teaching them to reflect and meditate. It is not without reason that Sri Krishna has arranged the paths to libration in the order of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga. To those who totally surrender to Him he grants jnAnA; this surrendering is not blind, like a thief praying to God before he goes about his business. Prapatti first shapes up in thoughts and then gets down to one's words and deeds, automatically guiding them. Prapatti ensures that the soul's bad karma that are not to be exprienced by it are dissolved, and good karma that the soul however accumulates is passed on to God. (This is only my impression, and I may be wrong).

The one point I want to highlight is that everyone, including the jIvan mukta generate karma by being physically reincarnated. As I have already said, jIvan muktas have learnt to submit it to God. As Atanu has clearly pointed out, "Holding on to Him in meditation allows no I to surface", which is a better way of saying "hold on to grace".
I agree!


Grace might accelerate this process, but the path has to be traversed.

I believe you are leaving roomful of doubt when you say “grace might accelerate”, when in fact, without grace one is endlessly in a bondage to “karma”. Therefore grace does and will act when we seek!

Blessings,

nirotu
13 April 2007, 05:35 PM
Why all this striving Nirotu Ji? The wise do not say that this is better and that is bad. All is Siva alone.

Dear Atanu:

Thank you for your comments. I am gratified to know you agree in general. However, your last comment (above) made me think this way. Somewhere, you seem to resist the practical nature of journey. While we both agree on substance with each other and, with due respects to your quote, “All is Siva”, and unless one actually gets into action no one can ever accomplish that lofty goal (self-realization).


Thus, I would like to think that everything we discussed, exchanged in our “sat sangh” indeed is a part of that journey. Perhaps, I would rephrase it: One cannot call it a striving but take it as an integral part/parcel of spiritual journey.

Your comments are well taken and thanks for your insightful thoughts.

Blessings,

saidevo
14 April 2007, 08:15 AM
Since we are essentially discussing the interplay between karma, grace, and yoga meditation in the context of liberation, here is a compilation about these concepts and their relationships. Members might add clarity and remove any fallacies in the compilation I have done below.

The Role of Karma and Grace in Liberation

The first mention of the term karma occurs in the karma-kAnda portion of the Vedas. Later it finds place in the Purva Mimamsa philosophical system propounded by Jaimini, which is also known as the Karma Mimamsa. The Uttara Mimamsa philosophical system propounded by Vyasa goes by the name Brahma Mimamsa.

Thus Sanatana Dharma is fundamentally a religion of karma in the most inclusive sense of the term (acting, causing and receiving). In Vedic terms dharma was synonymous with karma and denoted the relationship between men and gods through the worship of sacrificial ritual actions. The concepts of karma and bhakti were unified in the Vedic rituals, and the astrology and sacred geometry behind them harmonized man's position in the universe.

Upanishads expounded the concept of karma into a theory and revealed that everything in the created universe and the very creation thereof is guided by the immutable Law of Karma, the law of cause and effect, which entails the very creation/emanation of the universe and launches souls into a cycle of reincarnation. It would be interesting to trace the history of the karmic concept in Hindu scriptures; perhaps Yajvan and other well-read friends here may take up the job.

Upanishads also speak of God's grace as a must for liberation. Some examples (there may be others):



Translations from the Website http:www.shastras.com

Subtler than even the subtlest and greater than the greatest, the Atman is concealed in the heart of the creature. By the grace of the Creator, one becomes free from sorrows and desires, and then realizes Him as the great Lord.
(Svetasvatara Upanishad, III-20)

Himself realizing Brahman by the power of self-control and concentration of mind, as well as by the grace of God, the sage Svetasvatara expounded well to the highest order of Sannyasins, the truth of that supremely holy Brahman resorted to by all the seers.
(Svetasvatara Upanishad, VI-21)

And (he who is in) that which is the northern door of this (heart), is Samana. He is the mind, he is Parjanya (the rain-god). This (Brahman called Samana) should be meditated upon as fame and grace. He who meditates thus becomes famous and graceful.
(Chandogya Upanishad, II-xiii-4)

As to why God's Grace is a must for liberation, Aurobindo says:

And when we have heard the whole of the Brahmavidya from the Teacher, we still know God by theory only; we must farther learn from a preceptor the practical knowledge of God, the vision of Him and attainment of Him which is Yoga and the goal of Yoga. And even in that we cannot succeed unless we have the Grace of God, for Yoga is beset with temptations not the least of which are the powers it gives us, powers which the ignorant call supernatural. "Then must a man be very vigilant for Yoga, as it hath a beginning so hath it an ending." Only the Grace of God, the blessings of triumphant self-mastery that comes from long and patient accumulation of soul-experience, can keep us firm and help us over these temptations.


Obviously, God's Grace can and does interfere with the immutable Law of Karma, takes a soul out of the cycle of reincarnation, and grants it Moksha or liberation. This very truth brings up a number of questions:

-- Under what circumstances can a soul get the dispensation of grace from God?

-- Is it universal, or at God's own volition?

-- Does it require any acts from the part of the soul or only total surrender? In other words is God's method of dispensing grace synergetic (where the souls cooperate) or only anergetic (a non-deed)?

-- In what way does grace relate to prapatti or devotion?

-- Why only a few souls get the grace and the rest continue to suffer in the cycle of reincarnation?

The answer to all these questions lie in the concept of karma and is beautifully expounded in Vaishnavite Philosophy, especially by Vedanta Deshika. I haven't read much of VP, but even a cursory glance at it is enough to bring out the relationship with karma, thus:

God by His very nature is universal mercy and universal grace. Then why does he not save all the souls? Because He is also a just God, a God of Dharma. His grace is universal, but a soul has to become eligible for it and must have prepared itself in its past lives for the grace. This would explain the apparent selectivity in the dispensation of God's Grace.

In other words, a soul must cooperate with God for getting His grace. The cooperation required is like a monkey child holding on to its mother using its own strength. The strength here is Bhakti or devotion, known as Prapatti in the Vaishnava Sampradaya.

The bhakti or prapatti is obtained by previous good actions accumulated over many births. It is that Satkarma (good karma) which ripens as the fruits of bhakti or prapatti and makes the soul eligible for God's Grace and liberation. The time variety of karmic accumulation of different souls explains why only selective souls are liberated by grace. When enough of a soul's good karma ripens as prapatti, God's grace annihilates the karmic balance and raises a soul to liberation. Until this happens, both God and the soul have to wait. This is the general philosophy of the Vatakalai Vaishnavities.

What about the case of a soul remaining in total surrender like a kitten, so its mother may pick it up and carry it to safety? Surely, God's grace here works against the fair play of the Law of Karma? What if the soul has not accumulated enough Satkarma that could ripen into prapatti? Tenkalai Vaishnavite philosophy explains this by the play of God's substitutive karma which heightens the soul's state and releases it to liberation. This redemptive glance of God is purely his Will 'about which even His consorts have no idea'. Some Vaishnavite scholars believe that God offers himself to YamaDharma Raja, the god of karma and justice to fill up the required portion of Satkarma for the soul's liberation. (Reminded of Jesus' offering himself for the sins of mankind? This is perhaps where Vaishnavism comes close to the Christian theology.)



Manavalamamuni summarised the entire soteriology of the Tenkalai in five statements: "1) The Alvar’s excellence, 2) that the Lord’s causeless grace is the basis for it, 3) the uniqueness of the bhakti that he had on account of [the fact that it was based on account only on the Lord’s grace], 4) that it was not gained from [Nammalvar’s] karma or jnana, 5) that there is no other cause for the Lord accepting him but that grace alone."

The Vaishnavite philosophy outlined here is based chiefly on the study given here about Nammalvar's salvation: http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/irenik/relkultur36b.htm


Thus, we can see that both karma and grace play their roles in the path to liberation with complementary cause and effect interplay. It would be a futile exercise to set one against the other in the path to liberation.

Abhishek
18 April 2007, 02:48 AM
Hello nirotu,
It has been a very involving conversation going on here. Though a little flaring. :) But there are a few facts I would like to add here. I see that the conversation is hovering around the question if karma can lead to Moksah. I do not understand Moksha, I cannot possibly imagine what it is. Nor do I think that I have the intellectual capacity to comprehend it. I do not even understand what Heaven or Hell are. And what I do not confidently understand with first hand experience, I will not comment on. But I have first hand experience with Karma. Because I have seen it happen everyday. I experience the effect of my actions on my Discrimination, my moods and my complete well being. I have verified what the Gita teaches in my own actions. And from those discoveries I have something to share with you. The most important factor that determines the fruit of your action is the motive behind it. It is the motive that overpowers all else. For example, if I argue with my guru, do I argue in inquiry of the truth or do I argue for proving my superiority? If I am arguing for egotistical reasons, I WILL feel the negative effect of it. And I generally feel it quite immediately. Even a seeming virtuous act can be bad Karma. If you take Mother Teresa for instance, had her actions for gaining fame and recognition, it is Rajasic. In such a case one will feel the negative effects of one's action. In your discussions with the other members here, I have noticed a tendency to evaluate an action on the basis of its social relevance and utility. That is not how Hinduism evaluates an action. One has to evaluate good and bad in the light of how much effect it causes on you.

I have great respect for your questions here:



1- If karma/reincarnation pairs well as a result of cause/effect, then there is no system of injustice! Nothing is unjust and everything is just because every action or an effect is directly related to past karma. Truly, there is no foundation for believing anything to be unjust. It has fairness inherent in it.



Indeed there is no injustice. But you are again evaluating happiness and distress on the basis of the intrinsic value of the events themselves. Events don't have any intrinsic value of happiness or distress. You have to evaluate them on the basis of the effect they cause on the person in question. For example getting cancer could have been good for somebody. Lance Armstrong for example.

You also said:


Such a system becomes, in my view, a play field for ego.


Could you explain more elaborately.



2- In such a closed system of justice, I find there is no room for compassion. Simply put, I must not feel sorry for someone’s misfortune but assume it is a direct result of his past deeds.


Where is it mentioned that you are NOT supposed to feel sorry for someone's misfortune? In fact sympathy towards the unhappy is one of the aspects of yoga of Patanjali. The fact that someone's misfortune is because of his actions is true. But why should it stop you from having any sympathy for him? Both are separate and independent of each other. Someone else's misfortune is because of his karma, your sympathy is your karma.



3 – In a closed system there cannot be any intervention by God. God simply winds a clock and let it run its course and watch from the sideline.

You are correct in your own way in thinking so. So what if it is so? Why can't it be that way? Should God rather be doing something else? What should he be doing? Do have anything in mind? And what is this clock? Have you thought about this clock? Are you sure this clock is not God himself? Are you trying to find God? Or are you already assuming how he should be? Else how do you already know what God should be doing and not doing?

saidevo
18 April 2007, 08:17 AM
Namaste Abhishek.



You are correct in your own way in thinking so. So what if it is so? Why can't it be that way? Should God rather be doing something else? What should he be doing? Do have anything in mind? And what is this clock? Have you thought about this clock? Are you sure this clock is not God himself? Are you trying to find God? Or are you already assuming how he should be? Else how do you already know what God should be doing and not doing?


Your questions are pertinent and refreshing to the discussion. Yes, God is His Creation and Creation is His Clock. And the Clock is not linear and eternal, but cyclical.

nirotu
18 April 2007, 04:18 PM
. . . . But I have first hand experience with Karma. Because I have seen it happen everyday. I experience the effect of my actions on my Discrimination, my moods and my complete well being. I have verified what the Gita teaches in my own actions. And from those discoveries I have something to share with you. The most important factor that determines the fruit of your action is the motive behind it. It is the motive that overpowers all else. For example, if I argue with my guru, do I argue in inquiry of the truth or do I argue for proving my superiority? If I am arguing for egotistical reasons, I WILL feel the negative effect of it. And I generally feel it quite immediately. Even a seeming virtuous act can be bad Karma. . . .

Dear Abhishek:
Welcome to this discussion board. Thank you for your thoughts.

Before I go on answering your questions, at the outset, please, understand the paradigm. What I notice from your description is a clear demonstration of how a mind gets so busy in defining everything in karmic concepts. Beware of the endless cycle in to which mind can spin. We need to be cautious of concepts and theoretical crutches for the mind. The concept of “Karma” qualifies as one such entity. It only justifies the existence of mind to its own self and therefore, keeps us in ever spinning loop busy and distracted from real goal. While Saidevo has presented a beautiful summery of interplay between karma and grace leaving, I believe, enough room for further speculation and theories.

Why do you not see among sages, saints and even Jesus Christ emphasizing the path of Karma? You keep talking about motive. All these sages have stressed at a deeper level, that the only motive a man can have is to surrender! If your highest motive is to surrender then there would be no further discussion analyzing all these arguments. If you look carefully the lives of all sages and Jesus Christ you will notice none of them ever stressed “Karma” concept. Even Ramana Maharishi when asked about “Karma”, his familiar answer was “who is asking this question”. At the deepest level their answer is “there is no karma”. The discovery of real “I” and its connected ness with the Father seems to be their focus all the time. They felt it was only to a less qualified man the concept becomes a goal.

If goal is Turiya, which is devoid of any karma, why are you emphasizing “karma” so much to be the path leading to it. Many have not understood the simplicity that I have been emphasizing, which is the total surrender. Let all Karma (actions) be a logical outcome of that Grace through Surrender! There is absolutely no question of shadow (Karma) when you are bathing in the sunlight (grace)!

Please, remember that we are not setting “Karma and Grace” against each other but showing the simplicity and merits of the path of “Grace”. We are dealing with everything in our discussion in the context of creation where human ego (I-ness) does not want to vanquish! It clings to any branch to hold on to in human mind. Sometimes Karmic concepts can be a huge branch where as, path of Grace calls for complete surrender of “I-ness”. The problem lies with average man where it (I-ness) can propagate the mind in that there is no easier way out! It is said that there are many ways to reach the summit. I am emphasizing that the shortest and sure way is through the path of complete surrender. It is the only branch you hold on to! When scripture quotes our mind as restless drunken monkey, it always wants to cling to any branch! Why do you let it have any branch when you can have only branch of surrender!

If you take Mother Teresa for instance, had her actions for gaining fame and recognition, it is Rajasic. In such a case one will feel the negative effects of one's action. In your discussions with the other members here, I have noticed a tendency to evaluate an action on the basis of its social relevance and utility. That is not how Hinduism evaluates an action. One has to evaluate good and bad in the light of how much effect it causes on you.
Again, you seem to be caught in the web of karma – its action and fruits. Why do you care what happens to mortal flesh so much? My view is that it is wrong to think Mother Teresa’s bodily suffering was a direct result of her karma. For her, it could have been her own negligence in taking care of her health. She, being a nun, never took good care through diet, proper exercise etc. Besides, she may have been genetically predisposed to ailments. What you fail to realize is the fact that despite all her mortal sufferings, the joy of knowingness of the love of the Father was stronger than any pain of suffering inflicted on her. Even Ramana Maharishi suffered from Cancer! What does that tell you? While I am not in a position to address why they suffer, I certainly cannot attribute that to Karma. Therefore, I find it leads one with an endless excercize to analyze what mortal flesh goes through in this creation.


Indeed there is no injustice. But you are again evaluating happiness and distress on the basis of the intrinsic value of the events themselves. Events don't have any intrinsic value of happiness or distress. You have to evaluate them on the basis of the effect they cause on the person in question. For example getting cancer could have been good for somebody. Lance Armstrong for example.


God’s system of justice and morality is not based on how human feels. Taking the logic you propose “evaluate them on the basis of the effect they cause on the person”, I find it difficult to explain why God would inflict bodily ailment to Mother Teresa when she was going along well with God’s plan in helping humanity. It would only hinder accomplishing His own goal in her!

I don’t think given a choice, Lance Armstrong would have opted for cancer. But, he used that illness not to brood over his misery but to an advantage that mankind could benefit. No body wishes or desires cancer on any body! Likewise, Mother Teresa, despite her failing health, felt it necessary to hold on to the hand of grace to accomplish the task at hand and that is to save a suffering soul!


Where is it mentioned that you are NOT supposed to feel sorry for someone's misfortune? In fact sympathy towards the unhappy is one of the aspects of yoga of Patanjali. The fact that someone's misfortune is because of his actions is true. But why should it stop you from having any sympathy for him? Both are separate and independent of each other. Someone else's misfortune is because of his karma, your sympathy is your karma.
Compassion makes a man move into action to alleviate pain and suffering experienced by another man. My question is if that suffering person is meant to suffer to fulfill his part of past karma, how can a compassionate person interfere and break that cycle? Saidevo has brought forth some interesting questions related to this to explain how God can and does intervene the immutable cycle of cause and effect.

You are correct in your own way in thinking so. So what if it is so? Why can't it be that way? Should God rather be doing something else? What should he be doing? Do have anything in mind? And what is this clock? Have you thought about this clock? Are you sure this clock is not God himself? Are you trying to find God? Or are you already assuming how he should be? Else how do you already know what God should be doing and not doing?

I like to think that the Universe is an open system where God can freely act. In an open system, describing cause and effect as having strictly one-to-one correspondence, leaves other parts out of the equation. The very nature of God’s intervention in human lives tells us that karmic laws are not immutable. Perhaps, we can discuss Saidevo’s thought-provoking questions in his recent note.

To summarize, all I am emphasizing is to be cautious of endless analysis of the shadow (which is there but not real), instead to keep our focus on how to move into more light (metaphor for journey). That has been my stressing point and, therefore, my insights and conclusions be regarded in this context and not misjudged to be judgmental or as critical evaluation.

Blessings,

Abhishek
19 April 2007, 01:47 AM
Before I go on answering your questions, at the outset, please, understand the paradigm. What I
notice from your description is a clear demonstration of how a mind gets so busy in defining
everything in karmic concepts. Beware of the endless cycle in to which mind can spin. We need to be
cautious of concepts and theoretical crutches for the mind. The concept of “Karma” qualifies as one
such entity. It only justifies the existence of mind to its own self and therefore, keeps us in
ever spinning loop busy and distracted from real goal. While Saidevo has presented a beautiful
summery of interplay between karma and grace leaving, I believe, enough room for further
speculation and theories.

It is an interesting supposition you have that the concept of Karma can be actually detrimental to
one. I have certainly found it interesting. But what you have said above is not an argument. You
have not started with facts, experiences or scriptures. You have based your statements on your own
conclusions. Namely: “mind gets so busy in defining everything in karmic concepts” and "Beware of the endless cycle in to which mind can spin". We haven't yet concluded if Karma is just a game of the mind. I haven't yet agreed to you yet. In such a scenario, your asking me to be ware of Karma as “games of the mind” is an empty statement.


Why do you not see among sages, saints and even Jesus Christ emphasizing the path of Karma? You
keep talking about motive. All these sages have stressed at a deeper level, that the only motive a
man can have is to surrender!

Please try to understand that “surrender” is also a motive. And one of the noblest of all motives.
The Gita says “Forgetting all else, one who takes refuge in me, he attains me”. How is that
contrary to the law of Karma?


If you look carefully the lives of all sages and Jesus Christ you will notice none of them ever
stressed “Karma” concept. Even Ramana Maharishi when asked about “Karma”, his familiar answer was
“who is asking this question”. At the deepest level their answer is “there is no karma”. The
discovery of real “I” and its connected ness with the Father seems to be their focus all the time.
They felt it was only to a less qualified man the concept becomes a goal.

There are so many sages that even say that there is no “I”. That it is all farce and there is only
one reality. What about them? Are they wrong? So why waste time in believing there is an “I”? We
may just surpass that as well. In my personal system of religion at least, sages are guiding
lights. But they do not replace knowledge. If I do not understand or realize it myself confidently,
their statements are just statements, not reality. Hence, I do not hold them as truth. You may want
to differ here, for which you have complete freedom. For all you know, this might be the reason we
are failing to agree on so many things. :)


The problem lies with average man where it (I-ness) can propagate the mind in that there is no
easier way out! It is said that there are many ways to reach the summit. I am emphasizing that the
shortest and sure way is through the path of complete surrender.

Well, I cannot talk of what is good for the common man. For every man is different and what may
suit one may not suit me. But you see most religion when it goes to the masses, it becomes only a
ritual. The real purpose, the knowledge behind it is lost. And one cannot attain anything without
knowledge. What is good for the common man? Which system is more appropriate is an age old
argument. And I do not consider myself qualified enough to answer that. But I can say one thing,
most religions are not perfect. Most methods of worship are not perfect. Neither are they meant to
be perfect. They are not replacements to discrimination. If one is trying to design a system of
religion devoid of discrimination, devoid of acknowledging what one sees as reality, one is
designing fundamentalism. In my opinion, (and my opinion only) surrender is the easiest to fake. Not only to others, but also to oneself. Also how does one know if what one feels is really surrender? Just because one bows his head 5 hours a day in front of idols does not mean one has surrendered. How does one know that he has
surrendered?


My view is that it is wrong to think Mother Teresa’s bodily suffering was a direct result of her
karma. For her, it could have been her own negligence in taking care of her health.

I am sorry. I have not made myself very clear here. I did not mean to say anything about the real
Mother Teresa. I was just imagining a situation. I am sorry if that was inappropriate.


I don’t think given a choice, Lance Armstrong would have opted for cancer. But, he used that
illness not to brood over his misery but to an advantage that mankind could benefit. No body wishes
or desires cancer on any body!

You misquote me. I did not say he wished for it. I said cancer “could be good for somebody”. For
some it causes death, for some it may bring more life.


Compassion makes a man move into action to alleviate pain and suffering experienced by another man.
My question is if that suffering person is meant to suffer to fulfill his part of past karma, how
can a compassionate person interfere and break that cycle?

You feel compassion, fine. How are you “breaking the cycle”? What cycle?

atanu
19 April 2007, 12:17 PM
Namaste All,

As usual Shri Nirotu confounds me -- and without doubt all of us. He always seems to me to be coming from some pre-decided position. On one hand, he has concluded that we do not know the practical journey and on the other he berates us that our sticking to karma concept is a barrier to moksha.

Abhishek has pointed out that surrender is the best karma. I will add: True surrender will let one know that one has nothing real that one can surrender. And one who has realised the above will also realise that karma belongs to the Ego, which has assumed the doership and not to the real Self. To attain this state however, a karma called Neti-Neti, is required. The Karma is for the ego, which we are at present. The assertion: "I have surrendered", is another act of ego only. It is also karma and may be negative when a feeling of superiority prevails.


And this discussion is futile since in the very beginning Nirotu asserted (generalized) with characteristic elan: "Many in Sanatana Dharma have come to believe and accept the role of fulfilling Karma/Reincarnation as a primary vehicle to attain Moksha (liberation)".

As if coming to believe incorrect things is the hallmark of sanatana dharma followers.


Om Namah Shivayya

nirotu
19 April 2007, 04:24 PM
It is an interesting supposition you have that the concept of Karma can be actually detrimental to one. I have certainly found it interesting. But what you have said above is not an argument. You have not started with facts, experiences or scriptures. You have based your statements on your own conclusions. Namely: “mind gets so busy in defining everything in karmic concepts” and "Beware of the endless cycle in to which mind can spin". We haven't yet concluded if Karma is just a game of the mind. I haven't yet agreed to you yet. In such a scenario, your asking me to be ware of Karma as “games of the mind” is an empty statement.

Dear Abhishek:

While Karma itself is something one has to do or go through in life, it is not the means to an end (reach the goal)! If you start with this supposition, rest will fall rightfully in their respective places.

Everything is well said in your note. But, let’s be brutally honest here. Regardless of the goal, our current state in this creation is the state of mind. Scripture does say mind is of the matter and it crutches on to seeds of thoughts. Beware of giving mind crutches to hang on to, which has been cited by sages over and over again.

When we find ourselves in this creation, we are in a possession of a mind that cannot be bypassed. Because mind, as such in scriptures, has been likened to a drunken monkey bit by a scorpion that is aimlessly wondering and holding on to whatever branch it finds. All I am saying is that it is natural to be aware and cautious of giving it crutches. This is not a personal conclusion but very logical state of things.


Please try to understand that “surrender” is also a motive. And one of the noblest of all motives. The Gita says “Forgetting all else, one who takes refuge in me, he attains me”. How is that contrary to the law of Karma?


In my opinion, (and my opinion only) surrender is the easiest to fake. Not only to others, but also to oneself. Also how does one know if what one feels is really surrender? Just because one bows his head 5 hours a day in front of idols does not mean one has surrendered. How does one know that he has
surrendered?

You are not really seeing what I mean by surrender. Perhaps you may not have seen my previous notes on this forum. My concept of surrender is different from most people come to think, which is more of a religious surrender as you have described. I am emphasizing more of what Jesus Christ said about “child like” surrender, which has absolutely no motive or intent. It is purely unconditional and innocent knowingness of the child of his parent. This is what I call first-step or the initial inner event! All other practices of Yogas will follow later. If any one bypasses that first step, all other form of surrender can easily be faked as you have said so well. What I call surrender is more like inward turning to grace (light) where shadow of karma will be overcome!


There are so many sages that even say that there is no “I”. That it is all farce and there is only one reality. What about them? Are they wrong? So why waste time in believing there is an “I”? We may just surpass that as well.

When sages deny “I”, they are truly denying the “lower-self”. No sage, to my knowledge, has denied “atman” – true nature of “I” in them (higher –self). Even Ramana Maharishi liked to say “I – I”. Therefore, you can see only the nature of lower “I” is being negated by sages.


In my personal system of religion at least, sages are guiding lights. But they do not replace knowledge. If I do not understand or realize it myself confidently, their statements are just statements, not reality. Hence, I do not hold them as truth. You may want to differ here, for which you have complete freedom. For all you know, this might be the reason we are failing to agree on so many things.

I agree that true spirituality has to be experiential. True spiritual journey has to be of direct experiential knowledge not from here say or from books and ritualistic practices. I never denied that part. We agree on this part, don’t we?

Blessings,

nirotu
19 April 2007, 04:26 PM
Namaste All,

As usual Shri Nirotu confounds me -- and without doubt all of us. He always seems to me to be coming from some pre-decided position. On one hand, he has concluded that we do not know the practical journey and on the other he berates us that our sticking to karma concept is a barrier to moksha.

Abhishek has pointed out that surrender is the best karma. I will add: True surrender will let one know that one has nothing real that one can surrender. And one who has realised the above will also realise that karma belongs to the Ego, which has assumed the doership and not to the real Self. To attain this state however, a karma called Neti-Neti, is required. The Karma is for the ego, which we are at present. The assertion: "I have surrendered", is another act of ego only. It is also karma and may be negative when a feeling of superiority prevails.

Dear Atanu:

It seems to me we are in more agreement than ever. Because karma belongs to ego (as you pointed out), why provide ego more things to cling on is my comment. If karma is ego, why continue to feed ego with crutches?

If you look closely, you are pointing out what I have been emphasizing. What you call karma – “neti-neti”, I am replacing even the “neti-neti” act with simple child-like turning to grace. Because even in “neti-neti”, you are providing yet another crutch to the ego (intellect/mental).

My friends, I know I am confounding you all. I would like for you to grasp that all my attempts are towards trying to keep it very simple. The mind likes to make things very complicated, where as, the truth is very simple. Hence, if you understand the paradigm (from my perspective), all things will fall in their places.

Blessings,

atanu
19 April 2007, 08:30 PM
Dear Atanu:

------
If you look closely, you are pointing out what I have been emphasizing. What you call karma – “neti-neti”, I am replacing even the “neti-neti” act with simple child-like turning to grace. Because even in “neti-neti”, you are providing yet another crutch to the ego (intellect/mental).

------

Blessings,

Namaskar


Then what about your practical path, Niotu Ji? A child is not practical. It does not care. It puts all burden on mother.

Not all can at once become like Shri Ramakrishna. And neither is one path suitable for all. Discrimination of truth as the starting point (as in Shankara and Ramana's teaching) or total child like surrender (as in Shankara and Ramana's teaching) are both valid paths.

This does not invalidate the role of karma for purification of Ego -- such as selfless work, devotion, love for all etc. But without the knowledge that EGO is ignorance and not real, the so-called good karma will not help.

Neti-Neti is not mere intellectualism. Sanatana Dharma teaches that the self has to know the self. As your child like surrender assumes that God is another to whom one surrenders, is not the finality. If God was another then Nirotu would not exist. Even Ramakrishna had to undergo Vedantic training from Totapuri.


The following silent investigation is not intellectualism (as you have termed it).


Who Am I?

The gross body which is composed of the seven humours, I am not; the five cognitive sense organs: the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects: sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five organs, viz., the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion and procreation, which have their respective functions, speaking, moving, grasping, excreting and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, which perform respectively the five functions of in breathing etc., I am not; the mind which thinks, I am not; The memory too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functionings, I am not.

The awareness which alone remains – that I am.

But most of our discussions are probably dry intellectualism.

Om Namah Shivaya

Abhishek
20 April 2007, 12:36 AM
most of our discussions are probably dry intellectualism.


Yes. But I have certainly found them involving and thought provoking.

Arvind Sivaraman
20 April 2007, 05:40 AM
Om Sai Ram.
Namaste.
The following Scriptures can provide the answer for your query.
1)Bhagawat Gita
2)Shri Valmiki Ramayanam
3)Shri Ved Vyas's Srimad Bhagawatham.

In Shri Valmiki SundaraKandam Chapter 26,Sloka 50 - Godess Sita says
"Priyanna Sambhave Dukham Apriya Dhadikam Bhayam,
Thabyam he ye viyujyanthe namsteshaam mahaatmanaam"

ie;When Hapiness comes the mind is filled with joy,when unhapiness comes the mind is filled with sorrow,Men who have conquered these both are really great men,my Salutations to them.

Thus, whether in this birth or in the next or in many subsequent births, our earnest desire should be to achieve the Lotus feet of Lord Hari from where there s no downfall.

There is also a sloka in Srimad Bhagawatham that even after becoming a sanyasi we should constantly remember God else we could slip from the superior lokas.

Eg : Like Jay and Vijay who were born as Hinyakashipu and Hiranyakshan,
Kamsan and Ravanan and Kumbhakarnan.

sm78
20 April 2007, 06:05 AM
If you look closely, you are pointing out what I have been emphasizing. What you call karma – “neti-neti”, I am replacing even the “neti-neti” act with simple child-like turning to grace. Because even in “neti-neti”, you are providing yet another crutch to the ego (intellect/mental).

1. Firstly, Intellect <> Ego. No one in Hindu Dharma includes Intellect/Buddhi as a part of Ego. It is a divine attribute like Love which comes from God.

We may obscure our intellect with our ego (maha moha, ahamkaar) and beliefs (moha) ~ like we often tend to do in discussions. Intellect is a spark of pure awareness. God is not stupid!!!

2. Secondly, moha and beliefs only survives out of ego. It has no real existence.

Moha :- I ami born so and so and hence entitled so and so (jati moha). Moha :- My belief seems to the truth (bigotry).
Moha :- Believing in the pic of a bearded man who may (or may not) have lived in middle east 2000 years ago is the child like act of turning to grace of god, while the pure act of turning inside to understand oneself is an act of Arrogance!!!

Sri Krishna asked only one question at the end of his discourse to Arjuna:- "Has his moha been dispelled ?? "

Jai Sri Krishna

sm78
20 April 2007, 06:08 AM
Then what about your practical path, Niotu Ji?

Hasn't Nirotu Ji amply demonstrated his path already ?

satay
20 April 2007, 09:13 AM
Namaste nirotu,

Child like surrender is totally in line with Lord’s message and can be understood by anyone interested. The only effort required is to grab a copy of Gita and read the last adhaya.

Child like surrender to the Lord is nothing new to Sanatana dharma adherents. The problem comes when adharmic forces want us to surrender to the maleccha gods of their religion and say that salvation comes by praying to so and so only be that allah or god of bible.

Nirtu, are you not just dancing around the issue and not really saying what you want to say? Let me ask you this. Do you think that the child like surrender should happen through Jesus only i.e. by accepting him as your only saviour? Do you personally, not reject all other ‘surrender’ as false, as any surrender other than through jesus, in your opinion, is to false gods?

Maybe that is what you have been trying to say here, but are not saying explicitly, because of forum rules or for other reasons. If that is the case, I request you to be honest with yourself and with the members of this forum.

It would be very refreshing to see a Christian be intellectually honest for once. If it takes us bending the rules of the forum a little bit, so be it.

Gill Harley
20 April 2007, 10:57 AM
Hello everyone

I have been trying to find out the first mention in Vedic scriptures of the concept of karma. Does anyone know if it appears in any of the four Vedas, and if so, which one(s): Rig, Sama, Yajur or Atharva?

Or does it not make an appearance until the Srimad Bhagavatham times...if then at all?

It's just that now I come to think of it, I cannot recall a single instance of being mentioned in the older four Vedic books - and I'm not even sure that the later literature has the same definition of it as exists today.

Your help would be much appreciated!

atanu
20 April 2007, 11:42 AM
Hello everyone

I have been trying to find out the first mention in Vedic scriptures of the concept of karma. Does anyone know if it appears in any of the four Vedas, and if so, which one(s): Rig, Sama, Yajur or Atharva?

Or does it not make an appearance until the Srimad Bhagavatham times...if then at all?

It's just that now I come to think of it, I cannot recall a single instance of being mentioned in the older four Vedic books - and I'm not even sure that the later literature has the same definition of it as exists today.

Your help would be much appreciated!

Hello,

Namaste Gill

Yes. Why not? It is specifically mentioned in Isha Upanishad and also in Brihadarayanaka Upanishad. Pure Karma in conformance to the scriptural injunctions is also enjoined upon in Gita.

But the truth is that for the knower of Self, there is no Karma. But again the truth is that only one out of many thousands may know the Self.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Gill Harley
20 April 2007, 01:22 PM
Hello,

It is specifically mentioned in Isha Upanishad and also in Brihadarayanaka Upanishad. Pure Karma in conformance to the scriptural injunctions is also enjoined upon in Gita.

But the truth is that for the knower of Self, there is no Karma. But again the truth is that only one out of many thousands may know the Self.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

So...I think I'm right in saying that the Upanishads are much later than the core four Vedic books?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I don't much like this idea of .."the truth is that only one out of many thousands may know the Self."

It's not particularly helpful.

Where does this come from, I wonder? And is it a rule, or an observation? I think this kind of sentiment is very off putting to the seeker of Truth, especially as he or she is enjoined also not to have a big ego. Those two concepts when put together would be enough to from a cocktail that would put the seeker off from even trying, in my view.

satay
20 April 2007, 01:35 PM
So...I think I'm right in saying that the Upanishads are much later than the core four Vedic books?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I don't much like this idea of .."the truth is that only one out of many thousands may know the Self."

It's not particularly helpful.

Where does this come from, I wonder? And is it a rule, or an observation? I think this kind of sentiment is very off putting to the seeker of Truth, especially as he or she is enjoined also not to have a big ego. Those two concepts when put together would be enough to from a cocktail that would put the seeker off from even trying, in my view.

namaste,

What Atanu is implying has been said by the Lord in Gita...this is where the 'surrender' part comes in. It is my understanding that 'Surrendering' to the lord is the instruction for this yuga. More knowledeable members please correct my understanding...

satay
20 April 2007, 02:03 PM
For those interested, I am talking about adhyaya 9 and 18 of Lord's instructions, in particular, 9.34 and 18.62

Gill Harley
20 April 2007, 02:42 PM
Hello Satay

Nice to talk to you again.

I'm just intrigued that such an important component of Hindu philosophy seems to be entirely absent from the original four Vedic books distilled from the most ancient knowledge of spirituality by Vyasa-deva....

There is a growing consenus that these four books were compiled no earlier than 3,500 BC, while the Upanishads, I believe, and the Puranas, are dated to around 1,000 BC, give or take a few hundred years.

So if there is no mention of the doctrine of karma in any of the original four Vedic books (from which the Puranic writings are derived - e.g. imho the story of the Mahabaratha is a "modern remake" of the Battle of the 10 Kings from the Rig-veda), then that means that the original Sanathana Dharma did not recognise it, or at least, there is no evidence that it recognised it.

Of course, this is all assuming that there is no mention of the doctrine of karma in the four Vedic books, which are still not sure about this at this stage of the discussion.

satay
20 April 2007, 03:07 PM
namaste Gill,
Are you looking for a literal mention of the word or concept of Karma in one of the Vedas? I have not studied them myself so I couldn't tell you which book you will find that in. However, it is my understanding that the concept of karma has been drived from the hymns of Vedas.

Vedas are supposed to be used to test the validity of philosophical statements in the hindu tradition and I would find it very strange to say the least, that there is no mention of karmic law in the Vedas. Vedas deal with dharma, karma, artha and kama. The section on Karma-kanda what is that supposed to be?

anyway, I think that we are going off topic now from OP so please start a new thread.

nirotu
20 April 2007, 04:05 PM
Then what about your practical path, Niotu Ji? A child is not practical. It does not care. It puts all burden on mother.

Dear Atanu:

Thank you for interesting thoughts.

With all due respect, I have to admit that my point was not taken in the right context. When I say childlike, it does not mean a sort of biological reversal of age in a man. I am not talking about becoming a child here. Then, it would be “childish” not “childlike”. Here is a beautiful passage from a discourse by Paramahansa Yogananda on what it means to be truly a childlike:

“A wonderful child blooms like a flower, with no conscious intent to advertise its unfolding fragrance or beauty. So is the would-be divine man: he absorbs himself in expressing the glory of God, unaware, like a child, of its own qualities.

Truly great master-minds of India that I have seen are divinely childlike, displaying the qualities that are natural to a pure mind-sincerity, frankness, non-attachment, universality, uniformity of action-thought-speech, forgiveness, calmness, sweetness, laughter, and freedom from worry – minus the child’s ignorance.

A person who does not cultivate the above mentioned attributes latent in the soul is constantly beset with selfishness, suspicion, worries, fear and attachment, which steal away his peace and leave him in misery.

As a well-adjusted child lives happily, confidently secure in the protecting power and love of patents, so a divine man with child-like trust relinquishes fear, worldliness, and egotistical living by completely depending on the all-protecting power and divine love of God” – Paramahansa Yogananda.

Perhaps, I may not have been as articulate as the sage Yogananda. Nevertheless, being childlike is a recurring theme in many sages’ lives.


This does not invalidate the role of karma for purification of Ego -- such as selfless work, devotion, love for all etc. But without the knowledge that EGO is ignorance and not real, the so-called good karma will not help.

I am not invalidating Karma, not at all. I am merely placing initial turning to grace above everything. As Lord Krishna explains: “There is no man on earth who can fully renounce living work.” This is the fact of each individual’s life. However, He goes on to say, “but he who renounces the reward of his work (karma) is in truth a man of renunciation” (Chapt. 18:11). Performing action or karma is important but how many can truly say that he/she is not expecting reward? The grip of ego is so strong that it deludes mind to hold onto anything and everything along the way.

Irrespective of good and bad karma, I feel that it is a longer route as long as mind (knowledge) is involved, instead of the simplicity of childlike first step.


Neti-Neti is not mere intellectualism. Sanatana Dharma teaches that the self has to know the self. As your child like surrender assumes that God is another to whom one surrenders, is not the finality. If God was another then Nirotu would not exist.

Let us not talk about our finality or goal, which is to be with God. Atanu, the creation has occurred. In that creation the atman and ego have come into being. Bypassing this reality is to be very theoretical and conceptual. What I call practical journey is that the context of creation is not bypassed in our discussion and is not lost from the view. Atanu and Nirotu have come into existence and therefore, they cannot bypass the realities of atman and ego. Even though, ego (shadow) is illusion, it is still there. Therefore, if you face the shadow, shadow will always appear to you. When this journey focuses on moving into the light, there is no question of shadow appearing!


Who Am I?

The gross body which is composed of the seven humours, I am not; the five cognitive sense organs: the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects: sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five organs, viz., the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion and procreation, which have their respective functions, speaking, moving, grasping, excreting and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, which perform respectively the five functions of in breathing etc., I am not; the mind which thinks, I am not; The memory too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functionings, I am not.

The awareness which alone remains – that I am.

Your points are well taken in its spirit. But, I will say this: In creation it would be impossible to relinquish these sensory perceptions on your own without that first step of turning to grace. A man in sleep may achieve all these and be with God because he has transcended all these material instincts. But when he wakes he sure becomes a devil by bringing himself back into the world of material instincts.

Blessings,

nirotu
20 April 2007, 04:09 PM
1. Firstly, Intellect <> Ego. No one in Hindu Dharma includes Intellect/Buddhi as a part of Ego. It is a divine attribute like Love which comes from God.

Dear sm78:

It is my fault that I misled you. It should, instead, read like this : “ If you look closely, you are pointing out what I have been emphasizing. What you call karma – “neti-neti”, I am replacing even the “neti-neti” act with simple child-like turning to grace. Because even in “neti-neti”, you are providing yet another intellectual crutch to the ego." Therefore, beware of the drive of the ego to cling to any branch!


We may obscure our intellect with our ego (maha moha, ahamkaar) and beliefs (moha) ~ like we often tend to do in discussions. Intellect is a spark of pure awareness. God is not stupid!!!

Resounding Amen!


Blessings,

Gill Harley
20 April 2007, 04:13 PM
Deare Satay - apologies for going off course. I have now started the new thread elsewhere.

But could you kindly tell me from which Vedic book the section of Karma- kanda comes from? If you could quote chapter and verse, it would be even more helpful.

Many thanks.

nirotu
20 April 2007, 04:15 PM
Child like surrender is totally in line with Lord’s message and can be understood by anyone interested. The only effort required is to grab a copy of Gita and read the last adhaya. Dear Satay:

Do not think for a moment that I have come to bring new morals from the Bible. The Bible does not have anything worthwhile in the area of morals that wasn’t already there in existence. What makes it interesting is that it shows man’s incapacity/inability to hold on to morals that already existed! Therefore, if you have truly read Gita or the Bible and understood it well, you would not have disagreed with me. Because, this is exactly what the Gita has said and what the Bible is reminding what was said.


Child like surrender to the Lord is nothing new to Sanatana dharma adherents. The problem comes when adharmic forces want us to surrender to the maleccha gods of their religion and say that salvation comes by praying to so and so only be that allah or god of bible.

In my response to Atanu I have included a passage from Yogananda. Try to marinate your mind in it if you get time. The true meaning of surrender in a man with attributes like the one described by the Sage Yogananda is what I am referring to.

Nirtu, are you not just dancing around the issue and not really saying what you want to say? Let me ask you this. Do you think that the child like surrender should happen through Jesus only i.e. by accepting him as your only saviour? Do you personally, not reject all other ‘surrender’ as false, as any surrender other than through jesus, in your opinion, is to false gods?

What I call fake surrender is exactly what Abhishek alluded to in his response. Going to temple, performing poojas through pundits, going to churches on Sundays are mindless exercises only to fake the world how religious he or she is. Unless, there is a shift inwardly through surrender to God, all these practices are fake.


Maybe that is what you have been trying to say here, but are not saying explicitly, because of forum rules or for other reasons. If that is the case, I request you to be honest with yourself and with the members of this forum.


It would be very refreshing to see a Christian be intellectually honest for once. If it takes us bending the rules of the forum a little bit, so be it.

Satay, I have been extremely careful not to flare any tempers here. I have repeatedly said to you, possibly a million times, I am not here to proselytize. I am sharing a few gems here and there about the very purpose and journey of being a human be it from any scripture.

If this simple truth eludes you, then I have nothing more to say.

Blessings,

satay
20 April 2007, 07:22 PM
namaste nirotu,

I agree with most of your post, however, you have not answered any of my direct questions. This confirms in my mind the same impression I have from other missionaries and that you are not any different. (sigh)

Please answer the following:

Do you believe that surrender to GOD can only happen if one accepts jesus as his only saviour? Do you believe that if a hindu surrenders to GOD ignoring Jesus' teaching, that in your opinion he is surrendering to false gods as taught by bible? What if it's a sikh person, do you think that a sikh can not surrender to the word or GOD unless he accepts jesus as his saviour?

First, give us your personal opinion and then if possible tell us what the bible teaches. You are after all, representing christianity or trying to convey Jesus' message.

Perhaps the members will appreciate it more if you were open to us instead of dancing around the message you are trying to convey.

atanu
21 April 2007, 01:16 AM
Deare Satay - apologies for going off course. I have now started the new thread elsewhere.

But could you kindly tell me from which Vedic book the section of Karma- kanda comes from? If you could quote chapter and verse, it would be even more helpful.

Many thanks.

Dear Gill,

The whole of the Vedas is the prescription to right karma. What else do you think they are? The foolishness of ego, worship, meditation, enquiry, are all there. Upanishads have distilled the essence.

What do you think is reciting Sata Rudriya? Is it not a sat Karma?

At the level of mind, which exists because of the notion of cause-effect, the karma is paramount. And to keep the mind calm and tranquil, it is essential that one engages in pure karma -- as much as possible. If one has transcended the body-mind consciousness then karma is left behind.

Atma is free. It is Na Lipayate. At the same time it is Advaita.

Are we in Advaita? If you are, then karma is behind you.

But I am not free of karma and so are most of us -- whatever may be the claims. Pretending is no good.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 April 2007, 03:41 AM
Dear Atanu:

---------
Your points are well taken in its spirit. But, I will say this: In creation it would be impossible to relinquish these sensory perceptions on your own without that first step of turning to grace. A man in sleep may achieve all these and be with God because he has transcended all these material instincts. But when he wakes he sure becomes a devil by bringing himself back into the world of material instincts.

Blessings,

Bandhu,

If turning to grace requires some special technique, which you alone know and which you do not want to document, then there is no reason to discuss.

You will note that all writers here sense an undercurrent in your writing. Who has here (except Sudarshan perhaps and you of course) negated the knowledge: Self choses one who has chosen the Self.

Turning away from all sensual diversions one must first be content in the Self, since the Self is God. I accept that I have failed everyday.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
21 April 2007, 12:39 PM
Bandhu,

If turning to grace requires some special technique, which you alone know and which you do not want to document, then there is no reason to discuss.


namaste!

That the 'special technique' is documented in the bible. A man can only get God's grace by accepting Jesus as his only saviour.

I am waiting for nirotu's confirmation on this but that is my understanding. If he doesn't believe that himself then he is not really following jesus' teachings.

isn't it nirotu?

atanu
21 April 2007, 02:05 PM
namaste!

That the 'special technique' is documented in the bible. A man can only get God's grace by accepting Jesus as his only saviour.

I am waiting for nirotu's confirmation on this but that is my understanding. If he doesn't believe that himself then he is not really following jesus' teachings.

isn't it nirotu?

Namaste,

Actually Jesus is the word -- the son. OM is the word and Ganesha is the son. Om, the akshara word can only take one to the goal.

Om Namah Shivaya

nirotu
23 April 2007, 04:46 PM
Do you believe that surrender to GOD can only happen if one accepts jesus as his only saviour? Do you believe that if a hindu surrenders to GOD ignoring Jesus' teaching, that in your opinion he is surrendering to false gods as taught by bible? What if it's a sikh person, do you think that a sikh can not surrender to the word or GOD unless he accepts jesus as his saviour?

First, give us your personal opinion and then if possible tell us what the bible teaches. You are after all, representing christianity or trying to convey Jesus' message.

Perhaps the members will appreciate it more if you were open to us instead of dancing around the message you are trying to convey.

Dear Satay:

My friend, there you go again! First of all, I just don’t understand where you are getting all this from! I have repeatedly stressed that I am more interested in sharing spiritual journey, which is identical for all to reach the goal, whereas, you are interjecting religion to our discussion. Because, it is the hall mark of true spirituality and not merely labels of religion. Until you rise above these religious labels, none of what I am discussing here will matter to you.

Satay, if you were to peel of all religious garbs of Christianity, you will undoubtedly find hidden gems of wisdom, timeless spiritual truths spoken by Jesus. When one keeps an open mind like many saints have done (Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogannanda) and leaders of our times like Gandhi, Bhave, Radhakrishnan have done, he will undoubtedly embrace Jesus Christ and his message. Because, I do believe that Jesus Christ has given enough evidence to convince open-minded, not enough to overwhelm the free will of those wishing to cling to their close minded dogmatic views.

Once again, if you can remove the filter of your own religious bias and read with an “open mind”, you will grasp any message of this simple truth discussed here. Until that happens there is no point in discussing with you regarding my personal views.

Blessings,

nirotu
23 April 2007, 04:51 PM
If turning to grace requires some special technique, which you alone know and which you do not want to document, then there is no reason to discuss.

My good friend Atanu:

That is the beauty of what I have been emphasizing all along. It has no technique associated with it. It is so simple and that is why, eluding your mind, which is looking again for a branch to cling to. It seems to want to know knowledge, technique and what not!

The simplicity of the first-step is that there is no branch, nothing for mind to hold on to. There is only the simple knowingness and childlike trust in the hand of grace. When there are no crutches then the knowingness will dawn.

When Atanu wakes in the morning and knows that he is Atanu that will feed and clothe himself, he did not require any special technique to understand this simple fact. It was intuitive and instinctive knowingness. That simple knowingness needs no karmic concepts. That level of knowingness is what I am talking about, my friend. Otherwise, mind is making it too complicated with too many branches to hold on to!


You will note that all writers here sense an undercurrent in your writing. Who has here (except Sudarshan perhaps and you of course) negated the knowledge: Self choses one who has chosen the Self.

Yes, Atanu. my first-step is negating the knowledge. I consider that as a branch too. Look, how many branches mind wants to hold on to.

Blessings,

satay
23 April 2007, 11:34 PM
Namaste Nirotu,


Dear Satay:


So in your opinion, is Grace of God available without embracing Jesus or not?

grames
31 August 2009, 07:25 AM
Oh yeah ! :)

Thanks u are still active here.
I am reading most of the posts here !
Will respond when required.

:)