PDA

View Full Version : Omniscience In Varying Degrees



yajvan
02 December 2007, 12:02 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

I was watching a program about a person that could see the future, yet only his future, the actions that involved him. That triggered a thought about what one can see and how it may be different then being omniscient.

I have not thought about this fully till today and thought others may have some idea or would care to critique this POV offered.

Omniscient or omniscience is having complete, unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving and knowing all things, all outcomes.

One part of omniscience is being able to see forward and backwards in time. For me, the person with omniscience has no time boundary at all, for it is always 'Now' for this being, but lets not go there for this conversation.


For the individual with this ability, lets call him a seer, it may be possible to see the future, the results of actions taken today, and how they sprout in the future. ( Future here can be days, weeks, years, hours, and perhaps lifetimes).

A basic premise
The future is the logical progression of a set of actions that takes place today and culminates in a conclusion. This conclusion can be big or small, but the notion here is it concludes and may be the input for a new set of actions.

So let me build this idea before coming to an opinion and POV at the end.

Lets start simple
Lets say I wish to set sail from point A to point B. It has a beginning and an end. I predict that I will fulfill this action of going from A to B without issue.

Now I ask someone who may have this ability, the seer, one with premonition, and ask what will transpire. If I were the seer I would ask , 'of which action would you like me to 'see forward' on? ' The reason why I say this, is all actions have a root action that starts the conditions to unfold or move forward. The first domino, if you will.


So I inform this seer I am going sailing from A to B. With that in the Seer says, 'yes you will arrive at point B, but be aware there will be some rough seas ahead and be sure to pack accordingly.'

The notion here is like dominoes - you set up the dominoes and tip over one, then the rest that are in line fall forward, knocking them down, yet all triggered by the initial push . The Seer, sees the first domino and the last, and all the actions in between, we do not. We just see the first domino and we want the last domino falling down at Point B.

That is one version of premonition. One action and the results that transpire, yet the seer cannot tell you the ending unless he knows the initial action i.e. sailing the boat as input for his premonition to work.

Pretty straight forward action as far as actions go and sailing. Lets say you ask the seer a bit more complex question

Next level of complexity
Now we ask the seer, I am starting a family ( lets call 'em Family A) . I am getting married and hope to have children, tell me what you see in 20 years time.

We have given the seer the input, but now we have increased the complexity manifold. We have added multiple rows of dominoes to the equation. There may be multiple Y's in the road (intersections) and the dominoes branch off left and right, and other Y's in the road are encountered and interact.

Now seeing the future is a bit more difficult ( to me ) because multiple first actions take place within the chain of domino's falling, yet they all have the same root action, the same initial domino chain that started it.

Pending the power of the seer to follow the chain he may say yes you are married, have 5 children, and at one junction point 3 children go to college the other two do not; you move to a new location, etc etc. The complexity is substantial for just one family. Now do I think this is omniscience? No, not yet.

Omniscience
Let stick with the dominoes analogy as it works well for the initial action and chain of events. The difference with Omniscience is, the Seer knows every possible action and every possible permutation that can happen for all actions, all beings, all the time with 100% certainty of the outcome of all ones actions. This is the omniscience I have thought of.

That is, every thought of '... well it depends' is comprehended in this Being's thinking without effort or fuss. All the intersecting points of Family A with any and every other Family, individual, person, place or thing on this planet is comprehended.

The next level of omniscience ( I am just building it to get an appreciation of this omniscience) is all the intersecting points mentioned above with Family A, and all other families of all species, persons, places, and things, but for the total universe, for all time to come.

This is why Krsna says unfathomable is the course of action ( Chapt 4.17 Bhagavad gita). There are so many dominoes that criss-cross that the permutations + combinations are innumerable.

We think actions are individual events, but on a grand scale there could have been muti-line triggers in the set of dominoes that we interact with, we just do not see it. The complexity and influence of actions is enormous.

So now who can possibly comprehend all this, and be able to see the final outcome of actions, individually and collectively? I say collectively as we as a world society have a collective consciousness and a collective set of actions that are far reaching.

That is the level of omniscience fully bloomed and its fullest is found in Isvara¹; omniscience in its infinite fullness.

For us, as humans we may have parts of this ability, rishi's and seers have various magnitudes of this blossoming. Even some people that are 'regular folks' have a sliver, a fraction of seeing one action and its conclusion. Yet the full expression Of this omniscience is the domain of Isvara. That is why Krsna can say the following with confidence, as this omniscience is in complete bloom within Him:

There never was a time when I was not, nor you, nor these rulers of men.
Nor will there ever be a time when all of us shall cease to be... Krsna to Arjuna Chapter 2.12

Any thoughts on this or your ideas are warmly accepted.


pranams

1. In Him (Isvara) the seed of Omniscience has reached its utmost development which cannot be exceed. -
Yoga Darśana of Pātañjali muni. Chapter I, Samadhi Pada, sutra 25

Bob G
02 December 2007, 10:05 AM
293

-----------------------

From "A New Model of he Universe". (page 494)

"There would be no possibility of thinking of the evolution of humanity, if the possibility did not exist for individually evolving men to go into the past and struggle against the causes of the present evil which lie there. This explains where those people disappear who have remembered their past lives.
From the ordinary point of view this sounds like an absurdity. But the idea of reincarnation contains this absurdity, or this possibility.
In order to admit the possibility of reincarnation into the past, it becomes necessary to presume plurality of existence, or again co-existence, that is to say, it becomes necessary to suppose that life of man, while repeating according to the law of eternal recurrence at one "place in time", if it can be put thus, simultaneously occurs at another "place in time". Moreover, it can be said with almost complete certainty that a man, even approaching the super-human state will not be conscious of that simultaneity of lives; and will remember one life or the life at one "place in time" as past and feel the other as present.
In the conditions of three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time, plurality of existence is impossible. But under the conditions of six-dimensional space-time it is quite natural, because in it "every point of time touches every point of space" and "everything is everywhere and always". In the space-time represented by two intersecting triangles there is nothing strange or impossible in the plurality of existence. And even an approach to these conditions creates for a man the possibility to "go the way of all the earth", to "be gathered to his fathers", which enables him to influence his ancestors or their contemporaries, gradually to change and to make more favorable the conditions of his birth and gradually to surround himself with people who also "remember". (...skipped some sentences here...)

...The privilege of the position of reincarnating into the past for the man who remembers what he has learned in his past life is explained by the fact that he knows the results, knows what has sprung from the actions of the people of the time into which he reincarnates.
This does not of course mean that everything or many things can be altered by one man being reincarnated into the past. The possibilities of altering external events are very small, but they must exist. If in every moment there were only one possibility we should live in a world of absolute predetermination, and nothing could be altered. But "moments" differ from one another very greatly in this respect. There are moments with only one possibility; there are moments with several possibilities; and there are moments with many and varied possibilities. ...(skipping some sentences here)...But in the case of reincarnation into the past this question is much simpler because only that man can reincarnate who has already attained great consciousness and power.
By this means, that is, by means of the reincarnation into the past of people who have reached a certain degree of inner development, a reverse current is created in the midst of the stream of life, this reverse current is the evolutionary movement, the movement which gradually makes life better and nobler, and itself returns enriched to the source from which it originated."

P.D.Ouspensky completed most of this in 1914, and revised it in the 1930's.
-------------------------------------------------

There is the contemporary saying of: "just go with the flow". While above we have the saying of: "a reverse current is created in the midst of the stream of life, this reverse current is the evolutionary movement".

yajvan
02 December 2007, 12:45 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~



Omniscience
... with Omniscience the Seer knows every possible action and every possible permutation that can happen for all actions, all beings, all the time with 100% certainty of the outcome of all ones actions. This is the omniscience I have thought of.


Namaste BG (et.al)

Thank you for your post... here is where I am thinking about this.
We have a Being that is omniscient. WE also understand that this Being is omnipotent and omnipresent.

I thought If I defined these characteristics then a conversation can take place regarding the following:

What qualities ( in part or in whole) can a humanBeing be able to develop or unfold?
This Being ,all knowing and all powerful, is the sum Σ of Brahma + Visnu + Rudra + Mother Divine +...; we can ask the question;
Why is there the impulse to create and for beings to come into existence? Many have said on this forum to live, work out or finish ones Karma. If this is the case , how can this be? In the very first creation , lets say this happens to be the 1008th creation of the total universe ( inside an infinite number that will be created). The very first creation , where was there karma of beings that was required to be be brought back if it were the first? We then can ask a few more questions.
And - since this Being knows with 100% certainty the outcome of every person , place and thing, and is the Creator of it, What is the purpose? I do not say this in a feudal voice. I mean to say if the Being knows the outcome, it must be for more then '...lets see how this goes this time' because He will know the outcome before even creating. See my point?
Last point - I can understand why there are the schools of monistic or adviati, dualistic or dvaita and mono+dualistic or Vishishtadvaita exist. When looking at this Great Being ( Brahman) how could one not have multiple views of this Greatness, of this Infinite Possible Being? Debating which one is right or more right, is a pass-time for humans!Any way, if this is of interest to some of the HDF members we can discuss. If not, there is no doubt I will continue to ponder this notion as it has the ability to stretch ones awareness... a upaya¹ thinking of upeya².

1. upāya उपाय - a method, technique, way of doing ; that by which one reaches one's aim , a means or expedient.
2. upeya उपेय to be striven after or aimed at , that which is aimed at.


ॐनमःिशवाय

pranams

Bob G
02 December 2007, 02:49 PM
Namaste Yajvan

Why? As far as some know Love is Why; or as some might say, "Spirit unto Spirit". There a song that never ends and is always new...all dance!

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=293

Om

Bob G
02 December 2007, 02:50 PM
(and I still haven't figured out how to post a picture with any size to it?)

yajvan
02 December 2007, 04:47 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste BG,


(and I still haven't figured out how to post a picture with any size to it?)
this may help... See ZN's post , How To Add Attachments post (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1677)




Why? As far as some know Love is Why; or as some might say, "Spirit unto Spirit". There a song that never ends and is always new...all dance!Om
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=293

Yes, I can see this, but for some reason it does not seem to me to be the whole reason. Is this reason not good enough ? Nope, makes sense, yet for some curious reason it does not completely 'scratch my itch'.

pranams,

Bob G
02 December 2007, 08:13 PM
"...but for some reason it does not seem to me to be the whole reason..."

That is good...because if anyone could ever reasonably put It into a box It would die.

Om

sarabhanga
02 December 2007, 11:06 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

The original karma was only kAma, and creation unfolds as a blissful reverie (a lIlA of shiva).

yajvan
03 December 2007, 09:30 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
Let me see if I can take this notion of Omniscieince and bring it to the next level , and offer a conclusion without too many words. Yet words assist to paint the picture I will try to be sparing! Lets see what you think of it.

Omniscience
...Omniscience is, the Seer knows every possible action and every possible permutation that can happen for all actions, all beings, all the time with 100% certainty of the outcome of all ones actions.

And what of humans? This comment is offered in post 1 above.

Omnipresence
We know this Being's ( Lets call this Being Brahman and follow the name we see throughout the Upanishads) presence to be everywhere. Every where there is akasha we can find this Brahman. And every where there is not akasha ( the transcendent, turya, the 4th, perfect awareness, pure consciousness) we find Brahman. This is not by personal experience as yet, but we will rely on the shastras for the truth on this matter.

This suggest that Brahman is all matter and non-matter. All things that are made from the mahabhutas ( the 5 elements), all that of made of spirit (the devata), all that made of or has Aham as their core being; all that is a function of consciousness e.g. intellect, ego, feelings, emotions.
That is there is no-thing that Brahman is not i.e. sentient or insentient ( with awareness or without awareness) on any level, at any time , before or after creation occurs.

And what of humans?
Our Omnipresence is somewhat limited while in ignorance or abuddha. Yet as one develops, this experience of being Universal is experiencee, yet it is not at the level being discussed here. Lets say the yogi establishes this state of being. It took this creation for one to realize this Universal status . With Brahman there never was a time when He was without this level of Universality.

The yogi rejoices in this discovery that "I am That", yet it happens in this creation in time, then s/he becomes timeless also.

Omnipotent
This Brahman is all powerful from the standpoint that everything originates in this Being. What ever the summation Σ of all power is, Brahman is. And he is the sum of all potential, that is power that has not risen. So he is both present energy and potential energy. That is Brahman can create , maintain and dissolve all of this creation i.e. Brahma + Visnu + Rudra.

And what of humans?
We can create maintain and destroy and we do this on a daily basis, yet at a fraction of the potential of Brahman.

We are constantly creating , maintaining and dis-solving thoughts. We create at work, at home with projects and ideas. Yet we do not create the raw materials for our creative use.
We know how to destroy, but what we are really doing is either breaking apart things, or converting material into another form of energy . Say we burn a log - we just converted the log to heat, and the log no longer exists in wood form, but is now in heat form that dissipates.

It is said with the yogi or yogini that is fully developed can create from seemingly nothing ( yet they really are working with consciousness). This is considered a siddhi that can be exercised.

And of destruction? Yes they can destroy too as needed or desired. Yet the one thing the yogi cannot do is dissolution; the complete annihilation of 'This' , all of creation, both seen and unseen back into the Absolute.

The above is the fundamental ground work describing this Being in part. Is there more we can add to this description? Sure, but for now I believe will be sufficient to come an opinion on this matter.

Conclusion offered
If Brahman is the sum of Omnipresence + Omniscience + Omnipotence, how can we not be this Being ourselves? We are part of the system that is Brahman.

If He is everything, in all places and all time, we are a 'thing' that exists in a place and a time, hence we are Brahman. We think and have forward thoughts ( pre-cognition of what we will do or say), we are the expression of this Being, we are this Being, just on a smaller scale.

To say we are not is to suggest that a wave that is found in the ocean is not part of the ocean; yet the wave's composition and origin is the ocean water itself.

It's to say that a leaf on a tree has come into existence without the nourishment of the sap that made the whole tree bloom and is the sap, just in a different form.

This is why the notion of I am That , Thou are That , all This is That, is so profound and is the goal of this life.

pranams

Bob G
03 December 2007, 10:22 AM
Yajvan: "the Seer knows every possible action and every possible permutation that can happen for all actions, all beings, all the time with 100% certainty of the outcome of all ones actions"

My quick take is that "Brahman" is not concerned with this...per-se, although to me you are speaking of the realm of Lord Brahma where all actions, all Beings, all time, along with all outcomes do take place!

Thus the Seer you speak of is really represented by Lord Brahma, if you will.

yajvan
03 December 2007, 01:06 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Yajvan: "the Seer knows every possible action and every possible permutation that can happen for all actions, all beings, all the time with 100% certainty of the outcome of all ones actions"

My quick take is that "Brahman" is not concerned with this...per-se, although to me you are speaking of the realm of Lord Brahma where all actions, all Beings, all time, along with all outcomes do take place!
Thus the Seer you speak of is really represented by Lord Brahma, if you will.

Namaste and Hello BG,

Thank you for your post and I see your point.

What I am considering as Brahman ब्रह्मन् is wholeness, fullness or Bhuma¹. this nirguna and saguna Brahman together.

Brahman from the root brh or to expand, greater then the greatest. We talk of divisions so one can get a handle ( somewhat ) on Brahman's greatness. The transcendental portion some call Paramasiva, some call the Absolute, and as mentioned nirguna Brahman is another.

As you mention Brahman is not concerned with this, assuming you are referring to Seer in the statement above. Brahma is the creative principle of this Being, of this fullness. I see no separation or compartmentalization of Brahman. What then happens too often is people begin to talk of Sanatana Dharama having 33,000 gods and all that. A nice concept, yet from my studies/observations is not the case. More divison and fractionalization of this samasta¹, or wholeness of Being for me increases the difficulty of comprehension.

Yet when we talk of 'divison' then the conversation becomes who is doing what and we have a Brahma, Visnu and Siva/Rudra conversation or Mother Divine, Durga or Tara or Tripurasundari conversations. All Great Beings, All Supreme, all worthy of our worship, yet collectively Brahman.

So some see this Brahman and this fullness as Siva, or of Mahavisnu, or as Mother Divine, and many other names. Yet all Brahman that is in ITs different forms.

Idam brahma, idam kshatram, ime lokah, ime devah, imani bhutani, idam sarvam yad ayam atma.
"This Source of knowledge; this source of power; all these worlds; all these gods; all these beings;- All this is just the Self." Yajnavalkya muni , Brihadaranyaka Upanisad

1. samasta समस्त a whole , the aggregate of all the parts; inherent in or pervading the whole of anything ; Bhuma
1.1 From the Brahma Sutras I.3.8 - Bhuma samprasadadadhyupadesat
Bhuma - the vast, the Infinite, the full; samprasadat adhi: beyond the state of deep sleep; upadesat: because
of the teaching.

pranams

Bob G
03 December 2007, 05:46 PM
Hello Yajvan,

To me "Brahman" is transcendent to the three omni's you mention. Although such is not separate or a division per-se, but more like a full octave on a scale.

Om

yajvan
03 December 2007, 07:01 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Hello Yajvan,

To me "Brahman" is transcendent to the three omni's you mention. Although such is not separate or a division per-se, but more like a full octave on a scale. Om


Namste BG,
Yes what you say makes sense... IMHO over time you will see that this Brahman extends beyond the transcendent. IT permeates every space ...perhaps we are saying the same thing.

He resides in agni as Bhuh, in air as Bhuvah, in the sun as Suvah, in Brahman as Mahah. He Himself becomes Lord (of all the gods). Lord of the mind, of speech, of the eyes, the Lord of the ears and of the intellect. Then He beccomes this, Brahman who has space (akasha) for His body. Whose nature is Truth (satyam) who sports in life (prana) whose mind is bliss, who is full of peace, who is immortal.
Taittiriya Upanishad - 6th anuvaka, sloka 1 & 2.


pranams

Bob G
04 December 2007, 08:53 AM
Good morning Yajvan,

That was a beautiful quote, namely the: Taittiriya Upanishad - 6th anuvaka, sloka 1 & 2. Thanks for sharing.

297

"perhaps we are saying the same thing" Agreed.

Om

yajvan
04 December 2007, 03:00 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Where does one go at this point in the conversation? It seems to me to look for guidance from the shastras. Where can we see a reference about this Great Being, that is not too esoteric and can compliment this conversation?

For me it is Purusha suktam and is found in the Rig Veda hymn 10.90.1 - yet this same hymm is also found in the Samaveda, Atharvaveda and Yajaurveda. A significant offering no doubt.

Sloka 2 & 3 says the following which I think is spot on for this conversation in this post:

purùsa evedam sarvam yadbhūtam yacca bhavam
utāmrtatvasyesānah yadannenātirohati

etāvānasya mahimā ato jyāyāmsca pūrùśah
pādo’sya viśvā bhūtani tripādasyāmrtam divi

Let me offer two translations, one from Swami Krishnananda and the other from Ralph T.H.Griffith

Swami Krishnananda
All this (manifestation) is the Purusha alone, - whatever was and whatever will be.
He is the Lord of Immortality, for He transcends all in His Form as food (the universe).

Such is His Glory; but greater still is the Purusha.One-fourth of Him all beings are, (while) three-fourth
of Him rises above as the Immortal Being.

Ralph T.H.Griffith
This Purusa is all that yet hath been and all that is to be;
The Lord of Immortality which waxes greater still by food

So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Purusa.
All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven.


We see that the risi Narayana is addressing the total, the Supreme Universal Being that is the foundation for everying thing, both Manifest and unmanifest.

This Purusa is (only) using 1/4th of His Being for this creation to occur, to take form. And this 1/4th is used for whatever was or will be. Hence This Purusa must be the origin of all yet never 'used up' - Immortal and Infinite.


So that sets the stage for the 1st sukta. That is:
om sahasraśirsā purùśaḥ sahasrākśah sahasrapāt
sa bhūmim viśvato vrtvā atyatistaddaśāngulam

Swami Krishnananda
Thousand-headed is the Purusha, thousand-eyed and thousand-legged.
Enveloping the earth from all sides, He transcends it by ten fingers’ length.

Ralph T.H.Griffith
A thousand heads hath Purusa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.
On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers¹ wide.

Note that the term bhū earth in the second verse is considered all of manifested creation. And for dasangulam¹ or 10 fingers wide, there is an in-depth post offered on HDF that gives some ideas on this 10.

The significance of 1000 heads and eyes and feet. The rishi is informing us that Purusa is everywhere , there is no place He is not. Is this suggesting that our eyes and feet are this Being? We need to remember we are talking the Seer and not the seen… the Seer is Consciousness, and how the rishi gives us this information is by sanketa, or metaphor of 1000's of heads and eyes of this Being.

The sukta points us to the fact that all beings are an extension of this Being. That of Consciousness, we are the limbs of this Great Being. This Being is the composite of everything, and the nature of That is consciousness.

It is said when one has reached kevalya or moksha, Tad Ekam ( That One) is perceived as the whole. While we remain in avidya then we see diversity and duality. With liberation, we are able to return to samasta²


1. See HDF Post on 10 fingers if there is interest: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=13877&postcount=6 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=13877&postcount=6)
2.samasta समस्तa whole , the aggregate of all the parts; inherent in or pervading the whole of anything ; Bhuma

pranams,

Bob G
04 December 2007, 05:49 PM
Chapter 11.
THIRTY spokes converge upon a single hub;
It is on the hole in the center that the use of
the cart hinges.

We make a vessel from a lump of clay;
It is the empty space within the vessel that makes it
useful.
We make doors and windows for a room;
But it is these empty spaces that make the room livable.
Thus, while the tangible has advantages,
It is the intangible that makes it useful.

Lao Tzu

Good day!

Bob G
05 December 2007, 12:33 PM
Hello Yajvan,

I didn't mean to shelf (so to speak) the serious Hindu studies and texts you are involved in and that you have also brought up or recommended in our conversations with me posting what may seem to you to be an unrelated Taoist verse (?)...but frankly I'm at the level of a beginner who has his hands more than full doing the basic karma yogas along with trying to follow the basic spiritual yamas while being in and fully dealing with the "world"; also, I'm "happy to be a human being" who gets to work on same. (Btw., I'm interested in a broad spectrum of spiritual teachings - thus I don't think I'll ever be a strict Hindu, especially since most Hindus apparently belong to religious and very sectarian orders, that often totally define their lives and all activities; and I recognize that that can be wonderful and rich for them! but not for me)

Om

yajvan
05 December 2007, 06:21 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Hello Yajvan,
I didn't mean to shelf (so to speak) the serious Hindu studies and texts you are involved in and that you have also brought up or recommended in our conversations with me posting what may seem to you to be an unrelated Taoist verse (?)...but frankly I'm at the level of a beginner who has his hands more than full doing the basic karma yogas along with trying to follow the basic spiritual yamas while being in and fully dealing with the "world"; also, I'm "happy to be a human being" who gets to work on same. (Btw., I'm interested in a broad spectrum of spiritual teachings - thus I don't think I'll ever be a strict Hindu, especially since most Hindus apparently belong to religious and very sectarian orders, that often totally define their lives and all activities; and I recognize that that can be wonderful and rich for them! but not for me)
Om

Namste BG,
No worries... you brought in akasa ( some write akasha) or space tattva , and that is my favorite. Its bija (or seed) sound is Hrim ( pronounced Hreem). Ākāśa आकाश is considered the body of Brahman, Akasa sariam¹


What I did not understand was 'Chapt 11' reference with no book mentioned.

re: I'm at the level of a beginner.
There is much offered here on HDF that will stimulate thought and inquiry. This allows the viewer to look at multiple ideas, perspectives, etc. and get more of a 360° view of this Sanatana Dharma. Can we be better at it? Sure.

Many here offer insights and knowledge that is well thought out and insightful. We are appreciative of their contributions. We try and minimize 'minutia', yet look to talk about any subject that brings insights, new POV's, and general interests. At times brain BTU's are needed to get the jest of the posts, which I think this is a good thing.


If you like this investigation we have started on Seer, Brahman, etc. and wish to go further , perhaps you may want to take a look at the Taittiriya Upanishad ( with commentary). There is some excellent reading there. What does it teach? All this is indeed Brahman.


1. Taittiriya Upanishad 1.6. sloka 1 & 2 : one of the 10 core Upanishads.



pranams,

Bob G
05 December 2007, 06:45 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

That was a fine reply from you and thanks.

In reference to the Chapter 11 quote, it is from the "Tao Teh Ching" by Lao Tzu. (a major teaching and text of Taoism)

It's not that I'm not interested in the Hindu studies that you mention, it's more like I already have all sorts of interesting stuff in my head that is not being acted upon very much, which is not so good.

See you around,
Om

yajvan
05 December 2007, 10:04 PM
It's not that I'm not interested in the Hindu studies that you mention, it's more like I already have all sorts of interesting stuff in my head that is not being acted upon very much, which is not so good.



Namaste BG,
The way I approach it is as student of life. For you now the world is coming to you in a certain way. This way is seen via the Narayana Dasa system of Jyotish. And how you react to the world around you is seen by the Vimshottari Dasa system e.g. You coming to HDF will be seen in the Narayana Dasa system, how you respond , Vimshottari system.

So there are themes in ones life, and various themes come in 'waves', that is what you are experiencing now. Hence being the student of life, one may recognize a theme to understand that portion of ones life that is unfolding.

Maybe the Hindu studies you mention above is not of its time; Maybe that is why you have the opportunity now to kick around a few ideas here on HDF.

Yet this Hinduism, for me Sanatanta Dharma is a better descriptor, is extremely robust.. It is not bound to one idea or one POV. Just spending time with the 6 (orthodox) schools of philosophy¹ expands the readers awareness to better comprehend the world.

This is the well kept secret... there are many that think a person needs to choose one of the 6 systems and that is your choice on your approach to the philosophy of life. The 6 are there to work in concert with each other, vs. having people defend one school over the other.

But one asks, do you follow Shaivisam, Shakta, or are you Vaishnavia? What of Vedanta, of Tantra, what of all this? For me, this is what makes this elegant Arsa Dharma so attractive... various views of the Supreme.

I am enamored with the knowledge of Siva, of Ram, of Krsna, of Tripurasundari, of Brahman; of the Veda, Upanishads, Agamas, Puranas and Vedangas. The Supreme is the sum total of all these and still there is no exhausting His greatness. Its a joy to know something about them, learn and study this wisdom as it is endless.

The spice of life is diversity, as so with wisdom.

pranams,


1. 6 systems of Indian Philosophy http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=584

saidevo
06 December 2007, 10:53 PM
Namaste Yajvan and others.



One part of omniscience is being to see forward and backwards in time. For me, the person with omniscience has no time boundary at all for it is always 'Now' for this being, but lets not go there for this conversation.

There never was a time when I was not, nor you, nor these rulers of men.
Nor will there ever be a time when all of us shall cease to be... Krsna to Arjuna Chapter 2.12


Even the nearest star is a few light-years away, and therefore what we on Earth see of the star is what happened there those many years back. This means that at successive points in the path of the light in space from the star, time has a graded existence from the now to the past. What is now here at one point in space is the past at a point afar. Then what about the future? I think future exists as a potential inside the star at all levels of its existence. Thus time in its triunity is the ever-present now at successive points in space. Perhaps hence Krishna's words to Arjun you have quoted.

To a consciousness that can span such vast spans of space and time, there is no past or future, only eternal now. Seers must be capable of some of this consciousness and hence their ability to look at the whole picture of which only a part appears to an individual as present.

The ability to see the shape of things to come exists as a divine gift among some people in all walks of life. Thus we call some statesmen visionaries. Some scientists can foresee future trends. Some sci-fi authors' predictions come to pass. Given the present appearance of a person, a talented artist can draw with great accuracy how the person would have looked in past during his/her childhood and later, and how the person will look in old age. Some people have premonition of things to come. All such abilities are essentially spiritual and can be cultivated, to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the level of the individual.

The difference between a seer and such talented people may be that the seer's consciousness sees things and events in their continuum, whereas for other people the visions are only unsustained flashes.

sarabhanga
07 December 2007, 12:16 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

vaidika philosophy has three concordant aspects: mImAMsA, nyAya and sAMkhya. And each of these has produced two schools of thought.

The vaidika texts are examined with the mImAMsA of jaimini.
The upaniSada are examined and the universal nature of brahman is considered with the brahma mImAMsA of bAdarAyaNa.

Truth is determined by logical argument with the nyAya of gotama, or with the vaisheSika nyAya of kaNAda.

The nature of reality is explained with the sAMkhya of kapila.
And communion with brahman (Ishvara) is achieved with the sAMkhya yoga of patañjali.

vaisheSika nyAya conflicts with other schools in assuming the eternally distinct nature of the nine substances (air, fire, water, earth, mind, ether, time, space, and soul).

And sAMkhya conflicts with brahma mImAMsA (vedAnta) by assuming an eternal distinction of prakRti and puruSa, and especially with advaita vedAnta by also assuming an eternal infinite multiplicity of puruSa.

Each discipline has wisdom to offer, but all six cannot be followed simultaneously without causing confusion!

atanu
07 December 2007, 08:55 AM
Namaste Yajvan Ji,

I intuit as below:

From an individual's point of view, Omniscience is simply impossible.

Ishwara is omniscient and omnipotent simply because He is the moment and He only creates the past and future and simply knows what is being created. Every act is happening in His consciousness (or in His Prakriti only), since He is the full.

RV Book 7 XLVI. Rudra.

---2 He through his lordship thinks on beings of the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial sway.

(There are variants to this translation but I adhere to this as it accords well with Upanishads).

-------------------------------

The point is: the creator of the past and the future is omniscient since He is aware of what He is thinking and bringing forth. For the same reason He is omnipotent also.

As discussed with Madhavan earlier, gaining Moksha cannot mean another omniscient one springing forth -- that way there should be only omniscients. After gaining Moksha, one and Eko are ONE. There are not two seers, but one seer alone, who is called Eko -- standing like a tree.

Om

izi
30 December 2008, 08:54 PM
Yajvan I argued this in a simpler form to a colleague at work yesterday. He couldn't comprehend it. He just kept responding "yes" to my questions.

I asked

"So god is omnipresent but is separate from us?"

he says "yes"

and I asked is god in an atom - "No" he says

"but he's omnipresent?" i said

"yes" he says

"then how is he not in an atom?" i say

"well an atom is the smallest thing" he says o_O

"no, quarks are much smaller" I say

"oh" he says

"if he's omniscient how can we have a free will?"

"because god created us that way for his pleasure" he says

"Why did he create the wicked?" i say

"to test us" he says

"So if god is omnipresent, omnipresent and omniscient, doesn't that mean he's also a little bit wicked for creating wicked things?"

:D


he couldn't answer....any of these. I thought then Christianity is a religion for dumbasses. But then as I looked at him I realized he was Siva and it was sort of funny. I think the world works fine as it is this way, for afterwards, he said that he liked talking to me because we wern't the same. Isn't that so true XD

yajvan
31 December 2008, 11:23 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~



Yajvan I argued this in a simpler form to a colleague at work yesterday. He couldn't comprehend it. He just kept responding "yes" to my questions.

Namaste Naomi ,
Thank you for your post... yes an interesting subject for contemplation let alone a discussion, yes?

You mention comprehension - yes, I see your point, that is key. As I have learned knowledge is a function of consciousness, hence comprehension is driven by how our 'container' expands to entertain different ideas and view points. I am sure your conversation with your friend has helped expand the 'container' in some way.

Let us know if this person returns with questions or anther POV - it will be interesting to hear.

praṇām

DavidC
12 November 2009, 06:14 AM
[...]If Brahman is the sum of Omnipresence + Omniscience + Omnipotence[...]

What about omnibenevolent?

Harjas Kaur
12 November 2009, 07:13 AM
What about omnibenevolent?The problem with describing the Divine in terms of omnibenevolence comes down to what humanity defines as benevolent. Would a benevolent God allow evil to happen? Would a benevolent God permit suffering and disease, warfare and oppression? Would a benevolent God create a world in which sin and evil, poisonous snakes and tsunamis disrupt it?

And the logical conclusion would be the Abrahamic response: "No! A benevolent God would do no such things." The existence of evil on Earth would require a Satan to explain it. Sanatana Dharma would become another Abrahamic philosophy of a good God perpetually warring against His direct Zoroastrian Satanic counterfeit. And then we are back to rejection of "satanic religions" and "satanic gods" and justifying suppression of "false worship" and becoming another Islam.

Self-serving definitions of God's Pure and infinite benevolence on human terms cannot account for a God of destructive capacity or the long-term justice of karma-dharma-reincarnation. If the blame of evil and sin is projected onto a counter deity like Satan, then the reward-punishment system of heaven and hell is sure to follow, since "why would human beings endure justice of karma if the devil made them do it?" And if they align with the evil devil, how can they be deserving of eternal life in a pleasure realm?

Omnibenevolence is an Abrahamic philosophy utterly opposed to Sanatana Dharma where the Divine is shades of grey rather than black versus white. How could we explain Left hand tantra marg or wrathful forms of the Divine in an "omnibenevolent paradigm?" We would have to throw out half of our religion to accept it.


Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". It is sometimes held to be impossible for a deity to exhibit this property along with both omniscience and omnipotence, because of the problem of evil... The term is patterned on, and often accompanied by, the terms "omniscience" and "omnipotence", typically to refer to conceptions of an "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful" deity. Philosophers and theologians more commonly use phrases like "perfectly good",[4] or simply the term "benevolence".

The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate deity, has raised certain atheistic objections, such as the problem of evil and the problem of hell...

The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence
sri-bhagavan uvaca:
kalo 'smi loka-ksaya-krt pravrddho
lokan samahartum iha pravrttah /
rte 'pi tvam na bhavisyanti sarve
ye 'vasthitah pratyanikesu yodhah //

The Lord said: "Time [death] I am, the destroyer of the worlds,
who has come to annihilate everyone. Even without your taking part
all those arrayed in the [two] opposing ranks will be slain!"
(Gita vs. 11.32 trans. after Swami Tripurari)

DavidC
12 November 2009, 04:49 PM
[...]Self-serving definitions of God's Pure and infinite benevolence on human terms cannot account for a God of destructive capacity or the long-term justice of karma-dharma-reincarnation.[...]

I am not so sure about that: cyclic existence, including the 'painful' parts, has a reason, and getting through it, which is supposed to happen to every being, is a good thing on the whole.


Omnibenevolence is an Abrahamic philosophy utterly opposed to Sanatana Dharma where the Divine is shades of grey rather than black versus white. How could we explain Left hand tantra marg or wrathful forms of the Divine in an "omnibenevolent paradigm?" We would have to throw out half of our religion to accept it.


I see. I guess a certain amount of relativism and then wrathful forms is okay, but I think it is okay to throw a little out.

In math there are different infinities, including 'infinite infinities.' Fortunately with some of the newest number systems I think they have been able to abbreviate '... infinite infinities,' as if there were infinite 'infinites' preceding, to two words. I do not recall the details and may be a little skeptical, but I think they generally had a clear idea. It is called 'aleph-aleph.' It contains all other numbers and combinations of numbers, so would it not best represent Parabrahm?

Then if it does, is not Parabrahm everything of everything? Actually I think this is a harder idea. Some Orthodox mainly describe God by what God is not, but one definition of Parabrahm is 'beyond God,' because it is beyond any form such as any Trimurti/Tridevi. So one may have to say what it is not even when it is everything and when it allows the Trimurti to be almost everything or maybe so if it is considered impersonally.

I do not think it is such a question about whether some form of religion is nice or not, but it is about how the universe works. If cyclic existence is good because it allows beings to evolve then the Divine is omnibenevolent. However there are different ideas on cyclic existence.

atanu
12 November 2009, 07:14 PM
What about omnibenevolent?

Well Turiyam is indeed called Shivam, which means All Good -- not in relativistic term, since the common good is accompanied by common evil. Shivam is the Goodness itself. It knows nothing that is not it. No action arises herein out of sense of another. So, it is Shivam.

Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence pertain to the saguna.

Om

richard silliker
13 November 2009, 05:42 PM
Naomi Ningishzidda


"So if god is omnipresent, omnipresent and omniscient, doesn't that mean he's also a little bit wicked for creating wicked things?"


Perhaps God is ambivalent and we are the manifestations of his divine ambivalence.

Do you feel that God could be trying to understand his situation as well. Much like we try to understand ours?

devotee
13 November 2009, 09:30 PM
Namaste David,


What about omnibenevolent?

Yesterday, I was discussing something similar to it with one of my friends. He said, if God is Shivam, compassionate, why does he allow sufferings & pains in this world ? How could he create such a world ?

I said, " No it is not God who is responsible for your pains, pleasures, sufferings & enjoyment. He clearly says in Bhagwad Gita :

Na Kartritvam, na karmANi, lokasya srijati prabhu l
Na karmphal sanyongam svabhavastu pravartate ll

====> Prabhu (God) doesn't create the desires to act, He does not create the action & he also doesn't create any result of those actions. It is the Nature which works. "

He said, "Then is it wrong to say that not even a leaf can shake without his wishes ?"

I said, " No, it is absolutely right. Nothing happens in this world without his permission. However, we must understand this in this way : The laws of Nature (Karma) within the waking & dreaming states were sanctioned by him on one time basis (that includes powerful illusion of Maya, good or bad chances in this world, feeling of pleasure, sufferings & pains depending upon Karmas, those laws also include divine intervention if needed, effects of prayers, grace etc.). So, even though he doesn't interfere on a case to case basis, everything goes as per his (one-time) approval only !"

OM

yajvan
13 November 2009, 09:36 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Richard,

Welcome to HDF , and thank you for your post. If I may let me offer an idea or two on your questions. Please note I am not the final authority on this matter; I found your questions interesting to ponder.


Perhaps God is ambivalent and we are the manifestations of his divine ambivalence.
Do you feel that God could be trying to understand his situation as well. Much like we try to understand ours?

Regarding ambivalence
If we use the term in its purest application ambivalence is defined as uncertainty or fluctuation, especially when caused by the inability to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite ( or conflicting ) things.
Yet I do not think this is your intent. I think you have offered ambivalence as 'neither caring or not caring' - a neutral position to the outcome of an action or actions. In both cases IMHO this does not apply to īśvara (supreme Being). How so?

If ambivalence ( either definition applies) is the notion, then there would be no direction - of the universe, people, nature. His intent and His direction is His will or icchā (wish , desire , inclination); If there is icchā there is intent. If there is intent there is the absence of ambivalence. Yet I am not one to suggest I know the mind or wishes of the Supreme; but if we observe the workings of ourselves and this known universe we get a glimpse.

Regarding trying to understand
I do not think īśvara has to try. Let me explain. That omniscience in īśvara is absolute and perfect; not even one iota of improvement or advancement can be made - it is anuttara - supreme and unsurpassable. Hence 'trying' suggests effort, or a lack, or a position of 'less then' looking to move to 'greater then' or at least to homeostasis ( ~ stability ~).

If we take this to be true ( as this is my position) then for Him there is no deficiency - no-thing to comprehend as if 'He does not get it'. What I do think He may be doing is seeing how many ways He can express Himself - how many permutations. For this He has created all human beings ( and perhaps others that I am not aware of) and offers them freedom to express themselves. This is another venue for Him expressing Himself.
Perhaps once and a while we bring Him delight and he says, 'now isn't that an interesting way of doing, thinking, acting, worshiping, growing, giving, living …. loving and being'

praṇām

DavidC
13 November 2009, 11:15 PM
Devotee, you said in reply to my question if you think Divinity is omnibenevolent:


[...]So, even though he doesn't interfere on a case to case basis, everything goes as per his (one-time) approval only !"[...]

That seems to support my question. If everything goes as per his approval (or also if divine intervention is possible, as you said) then Divinity acts equally towards all beings. The question is as simple as one of eutheism or dystheism. You could say both are true, but then dystheism would be true and Divinity would favour some beings and be cruel to others. However, you said Divinity does not do that because it does not interfere in any particular case. Divine intervention may make it seem that way, but you said this is allowed in the laws of the universe that were set up.

So, the question 'what about omnibenevolent' is just 'is Divinity good?' I would like to know what others think but am not sure why anyone could call Divinity bad--even wrathful forms. At least I do not know why if they think every living being will be liberated one day. If every being will be liberated that is proof Divinity does not interfere in any particular case, though Divine intervention also happens, and Divinity and even Parabrahm (beyond Divinity) is not responsible for the evil in the world. If every being will be liberated then every being achieves its ultimate good. If every being achieves what is good for it, then how can Divinity or Parabrahm possibly be evil? You can say Parabrahm contains evil, but that does not mean it is. A car in motion probably contains gasoline but that does not mean it is the car.

devotee
14 November 2009, 12:11 AM
Namaste David,

God by definition must be impartial to all ( it includes all that is in the manifested world). If God is partial to anyone, then it is most probably human & not God. As God is omnipotent, he cannot have any incentive to be partial or unjust. In fact, he must be impartial, just & compassionate even to an atheist.

So, God's neutrality is central to the very idea of a God. Now, the pains are there & sufferings are there too. Who is responsible for these ? You have given the example of a Car. I will give you an example of a burning torch. The torch can be used to spread light & also to burn someone's house or even burn oneself. Now, if I burn myself by that torch, shall I say that the person who made this torch is responsible for my getting burnt ? That would be ridiculous. The Torch-maker just made this torch. It is the nature of fire to burn. Now, if I burn myself with that, it is neither the fault of fire nor the fault of the torch-maker but it is entirely my fault. Yes, if I had no brains to think logically, I would be correct in blaming the person who gave me this torch in my hands ... but I have a brain which can think logically & which can decide what is wrong & what is right .... so, in that case I cannot blame anyone but only myself.

This whole creation is working under strict laws. No one is permitted to break these laws & no one can complain. The laws are there for everyone to follow. The Sun is is burning & shining on this earth & other planets for millions of years without complaining. The electrons are moving faithfully in the atomic orbits without complaining of boredom & tiredness since the time of creation. All animate & inanimate things are ceaselessly working as per the given laws. Those who have no freedom in choosing their actions, don't suffer pains or pleasure. However, depending upon degree of consciousness in each being , the degree of freedom of action is given to humans & some other intelligent beings. This degree of freedom must come at a cost & with added responsibility ... so there must be laws to reward & punish too, otherwise a fair & just administration will be impossible. Sufferings & pains are not due to the laws or due to God who created the laws for governing the waking & dreaming states .... it is because of our own irresponsible actions in violation of those laws.


OM

sunyata07
14 November 2009, 06:32 AM
Namaste everyone,

Interesting topic, although I sometimes wonder if maybe the idea of God as being at once omnipotent and omniscient isn't maybe something of a paradox. I remember this being pointed out in a small discussion before, this concept of theological fatalism in Christianity - i.e. that free will doesn't exist because ultimately God's prior knowledge of all events is completely incompatible with the choices that we make. In one sense could be we predestined to make the decisions we make?



Even the nearest star is a few light-years away, and therefore what we on Earth see of the star is what happened there those many years back. This means that at successive points in the path of the light in space from the star, time has a graded existence from the now to the past. What is now here at one point in space is the past at a point afar. Then what about the future? I think future exists as a potential inside the star at all levels of its existence. Thus time in its triunity is the ever-present now at successive points in space. Perhaps hence Krishna's words to Arjun you have quoted.



Excellent point you've made there, Saidevo. You reminded me of something I was going to bring up in this thread in relation to the Omniscient Being exempt from the time boundaries, because it can't be argued that to Omniscience is intrinsically tied in with Time, knowing past, present and future. Like Saidevo has pointed out, when we are looking at the stars at night, the light we see is already years old. In theory, you could even say you are looking at the past as a Seer yourself. :) To add another example to this, if we could send a man to Mercury and let him live there his whole life, by our planetary definition of year, he would age four times faster than a man would on Earth. If the Earth man could live till he was in his 80s, the Mercurian man would have lived well over 300 Earth years. This of course, is a simple example I'm giving. Our notion of time is then relative, and not a concept we can consider absolutely. Even from Einstein's principles of relativity, the observer of any event must be standing still, at a point which he can make an observation. Considering the objectivity of this prerequisite, how could a person with omniscience see through time if he has nothing absolute to anchor himself to make that observation? In one sense, is time nothing more than an illusion? Is it just a human construct by which we can give direction to the way we navigate our lives?

Frankly, I'm surprised that something as complex as omniscience hasn't been posted over in the Uttara section. It certainly has given me a lot to think about right now.

OM Shanti

yajvan
14 November 2009, 12:04 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté sunyata07


Frankly, I'm surprised that something as complex as omniscience hasn't been posted over in the Uttara section. It certainly has given me a lot to think about right now. OM Shanti

A good point. It is because of subject matter of this nature that the uttara (upper, higher, northern) folder was created.

I am glad some of these posts have stimulated deeper thinking for you , then they are reaching their purpose.

Just imagine - one new idea, an insight and you say 'ahh ha!' and a new door of perception is open. This is the blessing that comes with knowledge.

praṇām

Harjas Kaur
14 November 2009, 03:12 PM
So, the question 'what about omnibenevolent' is just 'is Divinity good?' I would like to know what others think but am not sure why anyone could call Divinity bad--even wrathful forms. At least I do not know why if they think every living being will be liberated one day.Respectfully ji, I don't believe you understood my answer. "The problem with describing the Divine in terms of omnibenevolence comes down to what humanity defines as benevolent. Would a benevolent God allow evil to happen?"

Good and evil are projections of human consciousness related to limitations of perception in the sansaara (created realm) also called duality consciousness. God is beyond duality. A Tsunami has no quality of good or evil. Yet, the destructive wrath of a tsunami's perceived power is considered "evil" by human beings. And this itself is independent of the element of "intent" since a tsunami by act of nature has no intent. Evil and good by definition require "intent." But God who is ultimate consciousness and intention acts through agencies which are incapable of either, as well as through agencies which are capable of both. And this goes to richard silliker Ji's comments about "Divine Ambivalence."

If we project onto Divinity an absolute quality such as "omnibenevolence" it also projects an absolute limit which negates Divinity could possess qualities human beings perceive as "evil,"even if those apparent "evil" qualities are intended for our higher "good."And this explains the meaning of wrathful forms. So an absolute concept such as "omnibenevolence" is putting a limit on God. And God per our definition is both limited (sargun) and unlimited (nirgun) but the Totality of the Divine is both, nirgun and sargun, hence beyond limits of human conception. Rather than moral absolutes as "good" or "evil" which are human qualities to define God, Sanathana Dharma defines God as ultimately beyond qualities (nirguna), and hence, operating from a perspective of ambivalent indifference in regards to what we value. Good by definition is "positive or desirable by nature." In a wrathful form, God is perceived as neither positive or desirable but terrifying and destructive to our ambitions although the outcome is our spiritual evolution which is both positive and desirable.

Just as Saint Augustine said, "Man proposes, God disposes." We build sand castles and God takes neither delight or sorrow in watching our dreams get crushed. I believe such Abrahamic concepts as Omnibenevolence to describe Divinity are related to Christian Theology which posits that the Divine Man, in the figurehead of Jesus, is the moral absolute. Thus projecting human conceptions of moral goodness and badness onto the Divine.
"When the camp of the heroic Pandava brothers is attacked one night by the sword-wielding Asvattaman, his deadly assault is seen as the work of "Kali of bloodly mouth and eyes, smeared with blood and adorned with garlands, her garment reddened, --holding noose in hand-- binding men and horses and elephants, with her terrible snares of death (Mahabharata 10.8.64-65). Although the passage goes on the describe the slaughter as an act of human warfare, it makes clear that the fierce goddess is ultimately the agent of death who carries off those who are slain." http://www.saisathyasai.com/india_hinduism_gods_goddesses/kali.shtmlWhen Devotee Ji described the counsel of Bhagavan Krishna Ji, you must bear in mind that Bhagavan Krishna is an avatar, and hence sargun manifestation. We approach the Divine through sargun agencies (Guru God), but at no time is the Absolute ever limited. And not saying Bhagavan Krishna (who is the MahaVishnu/Parabrahm/Absolute Divine) is ever limited, but that Krishna Bhagavan's counsel is in context given to limited human beings from His Divine perspective as Guru God and Avatar. Hence the God has aspects which are both personal and impersonal, perceived by us as both "good" and "evil." Devotee Ji is reminding us that God is personal and cares for us. This is the contextual meaning of God described as "Satyam Shivam Sundaram" The God is "truth, auspicious blessing and beautiful." Which is parallel to human conception of God as absolute, and not relative goodness. But that is not the same as the ontological Christian definition of the God as "Omnibenevolent" which precludes that the God could be "anything other" according to limited human perspectives.

If Kali's wrathful form is coming to destroy everything you love and move you away from human attachments with Her goad and snare you with Her noose to drag you away from your life, you may view it as "evil." Yet it is still the "Will of God." Nothing happens which is outside the Will of God/Divine Hukam. God is not the direct "doer" of the "evil" yet is allowing the evil so we can all learn/evolve/progress from it. Kali, as a wrathful non-benevolent form represents purgation. She purges us with violent force from all that is not pure. In the Divine symbolism, Kali is described as a "terror" to the demons. It is "we" the limited human beings She is after, "we" whose demonic qualities She destroys.

Within the many philosophies of Sanatana Dharma, God is ultimate indifference or "shades of gray" which is not the same as "uncaring," or "cruelty." And here is the reason per Devotee Ji: "In fact, he must be impartial, just & compassionate even to an atheist." Our human problem is that we don't perceive the "justice." We don't see the "compassion." We don't see the "impartiality." So what's going on? And the problem is simple. We perceive as human beings attached to our limited/finite identities and what we value as limited beings: our lives, health, homes, loved ones, etc. We are human. God is beyond the limitations of a human. God is not attached to what we value. God works through the agency of Mahakal, using Time to destroy everything we cling to. God views our atma (indestructible nature) as our ultimate reality. In the words of Sri Daya Mata Ji of SRF, "It's not what happens to us that matters. It's what we become as a result of what happens to us that matters."

So to God, even tortures we undergo are not even blink of an eye to the timeless transcended state. Only we are living in a nightmare world of suffering and death. God is beyond suffering. God is beyond "good" and "evil." God works through the agencies of "good" and "evil" to achieve the desired result of our spiritual evolution which is the meaning of karma and dharma. Our karma and our suffering is part of our evolution.

Today you are this person, but after this life who will you be? Will anything you have in this life which will fade away retain importance? Today you may live in a castle and in the next life you may be on the street begging. Today you may have beautiful wife and loving kids and in next life will you even know their names? God's reality is not our reality. And while God is Shivam, His Shivam may not be considered Shivam to us at the present state of our development

God's justice isn't equivalent of "human justice." We cannot fathom the depth of what God is working from the perspective of a human being. We only perceive as a human can, in terms of sorrow, hurt, loss, aggrievement. God is working through the natural agencies of the created order which are wholly indifferent to our sufferings, the actions and reactions of the gunas, and even the chaotic factors of intervening human intentions (evil capacity), such as the mind of a man who pulls the trigger of a gun. God is working. Because behind every act is the All-pervading Presence of God. Although God is not the actor, ultimately everything is only He. Devotee Ji was right, "This whole creation is working under strict laws. No one is permitted to break these laws & no one can complain." And also: "Nothing happens in this world without his permission. However, we must understand this in this way : The laws of Nature (Karma) within the waking & dreaming states were sanctioned by him..."

So in this paradigm, evil is just a human definition of something innately opposed to what we believe is good. God transcends and is unaffected by the concept of evil. God is beyond concepts or limits like "omnibenevolence."


ਦੁਖੁ ਦਾਰੂ ਸੁਖੁ ਰੋਗੁ ਭਇਆ ਜਾ ਸੁਖੁ ਤਾਮਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥
dhukh dhaaroo sukh rog bhaeiaa jaa sukh thaam n hoee ||
Suffering is the medicine, and pleasure the disease, because where there is pleasure, there is no desire for God.
~SGGS Ji ang 469

DavidC
14 November 2009, 07:21 PM
[...]I would like to know what others think but am not sure why anyone could call Divinity bad--even wrathful forms. At least I do not know why [since it is true that] every living being will be liberated one day.


Respectfully ji, I don't believe you understood my answer. "The problem with describing the Divine in terms of omnibenevolence comes down to what humanity defines as benevolent. Would a benevolent God allow evil to happen?"

Om Shanti, Harjas Kaur Ji. I am unsure you read my posts closely enough (I tried to clarify my quote above) and I am not sure what Devotee Ji's opinion really is. Different definitions of 'benevolent' exist.


Good and evil are projections of human consciousness related to limitations of perception in the sansaara (created realm) also called duality consciousness. God is beyond duality.Different definitions of good & evil exist. I do not think they (at least 'good') must involve samsara or that good must have a dual nature.


Evil and good by definition require "intent." But God who is ultimate consciousness and intention acts through agencies which are incapable of either, as well as through agencies which are capable of both. And this goes to richard silliker Ji's comments about "Divine Ambivalence."I do not think they require intent: they can be more objective. Omnibenevolence is like ambivalence if they both apply to all beings--when this is separate of any idea of good being an intent or having (much of) a dual nature.


If we project onto Divinity an absolute quality such as "omnibenevolence" it also projects an absolute limit which negates Divinity could possess qualities human beings perceive as "evil,"even if those apparent "evil" qualities are intended for our higher "good."And this explains the meaning of wrathful forms. So an absolute concept such as "omnibenevolence" is putting a limit on God. And God per our definition is both limited (sargun) and unlimited (nirgun) but the Totality of the Divine is both, nirgun and sargun, hence beyond limits of human conception. Rather than moral absolutes as "good" or "evil" which are human qualities to define God, Sanathana Dharma defines God as ultimately beyond qualities (nirguna), and hence, operating from a perspective of ambivalent indifference in regards to what we value. Good by definition is "positive or desirable by nature." In a wrathful form, God is perceived as neither positive or desirable but terrifying and destructive to our ambitions although the outcome is our spiritual evolution which is both positive and desirable.Does that not also refute omniscience-omnipotence-omnipresence? I do not yet fully understand the definition and usage of 'sargun' and 'nirgun,' but what you are saying is what I was saying. Your last sentence sums it up because spiritual evolution (to liberation, as I said) is 'positive and desirable.' It does not matter if people have to suffer 'evil' in their evolution--there is a reason for it and overall it is good.


[...]Hence the God has aspects which are both personal and impersonal, perceived by us as both "good" and "evil." Devotee Ji is reminding us that God is personal and cares for us. This is the contextual meaning of God described as "Satyam Shivam Sundaram" The God is "truth, auspicious blessing and beautiful." Which is parallel to human conception of God as absolute, and not relative goodness. But that is not the same as the ontological Christian definition of the God as "Omnibenevolent" which precludes that the God could be "anything other" according to limited human perspectives. I do not fully recall the 'ontological Abrahamic definition of omnibenevolent' and I do not really care. In Abrahamic religions, Satan is also merely a servant of the Divine (see the book of Job) and is even known as Sataniel, 'Satani-god,' in angel dictionaries, though most sects say he is not Satani 'El' any more.. Genesis has two parallel creation myths: from the viewpoint of Elohim(s) and YHVH, and I think both have Sammael and Sataniel, though Sammael is esoteric and only in Zohar. Sataniel is the being that makes humanity become intelligent/spiritual, and I do not think he is described as doing evil anywhere. You could say he is wrathul to Job, but he helps Job's spiritual development. I have gotten pretty off-topic: it was to give another viewpoint about if Mazdayasna (Zoroastrianism) has 'Satanic' dualism. In fact because Satan is God's servant--controlled by God and incapable as anyone else of going against Divine will which is for what is best--the Ophite (serpent) Gnostics likely have the best (non-dualist) Jewish viewpoint on good. They said, as did the Theosophists: Sataniel is God (evidence is in Kabbala and Semitic mythology.) It does not really conflict with the idea of good & evil because Sammael represents the evil in humanity. Of course that is probably another biased viewpoint against Sammael, whose name ends with 'El.' This all leads to different ideas and I am uninterested in the more accepted unfounded ones but how omnibenevolence may apply in various religions.


Within the many philosophies of Sanatana Dharma, God is ultimate indifference or "shades of gray" which is not the same as "uncaring," or "cruelty." And here is the reason per Devotee Ji: "
In fact, he must be impartial, just & compassionate even to an atheist." Our human problem is that we don't perceive the "justice." We don't see the "compassion." We don't see the "impartiality." So what's going on? And the problem is simple. We perceive as human beings attached to our limited/finite identities and what we value as limited beings: our lives, health, homes, loved ones, etc. We are human. God is beyond the limitations of a human. God is not attached to what we value. God works through the agency of Mahakal, using Time to destroy everything we cling to. God views our atma (indestructible nature) as our ultimate reality. In the words of Sri Daya Mata Ji of SRF, "It's not what happens to us that matters. It's what we become as a result of what happens to us that matters."Indeed.


So to God, even tortures we undergo are not even blink of an eye to the timeless transcended state. Only we are living in a nightmare world of suffering and death. God is beyond suffering. God is beyond "good" and "evil." God works through the agencies of "good" and "evil" to achieve the desired result of our spiritual evolution which is the meaning of karma and dharma. Our karma and our suffering is part of our evolution.

Indeed, but the Divine working through the agency of 'evil' to support spiritual evolution is good, though it may be a different good. People may think 'the agency of good' is reasonable, but order & reason contain 'good & evil' and order is ultimate good because there is a reason for it and the spiritual evolution within it... of course someone could regress in spiritual evolution, nevertheless the idea still is that every being will attain liberation, correct?


So in this paradigm, evil is just a human definition of something innately opposed to what we believe is good. God transcends and is unaffected by the concept of evil. God is beyond concepts or limits like "omnibenevolence."Ok... I think sometimes people just have a hard time seeing the nature of Parabrahm & Brahm and 'good & evil.' Your quotes right above may have to be reconciled with the one I said 'indeed' to.

Here is another idea I have to explain it.
--------
Omnibenevolence exists corollary to the lemma 'reality is good,' below.

This is direct proof reality is good.
Reality is.
Hence, reality is (non)existent (by definition of 'is.')
Hence, reality is that (no)things (non)exist: form = emptiness/void (as arbitrary (no)things.)
Hence, reality is (dis)orderly (because 'ordo ab Chaos (void);' 'Parashakti Parashiva.')
Hence, reality is (un)reasonable (because reason = order. 'Unreasonable is 'beyond reason,' not necessarily 'against reason.')
Hence, reality is understandable (because nous (mind) = Logos = divine reason, consciousness/Spirit understands or is the reason the rest does.)
Hence, reality is reliable, thus (relatively/conditionally) helpful, thus (absolutely or from the viewpoint of the unconditioned) good (because spirit(uality) controls any nous so (detached) optimism eventually enters it. Beyond attachment, reality and divinity are good from the viewpoint of spirit.)◻

Corollary (from the previous statement) to reality is good, omnibenevolence exists.◻
--------

I am unsure about 'reality is good' proof statement 4, referring to Buddhism, is exactly as Buddhism says, but you can say the above in three simpler sentences. I have used some Greek and Latin so should give definitions.

Did anyone consider my explanation of 'aleph aleph' ('infinite infinity?') I think that supports saying how anything has to do with Parabrahm and since from a viewpoint the Trimurtis/Tridevis are unbounded when there is not pralaya (and they are still in Parabrahm during that) that omnibenevolence makes as much sense as any other unboundedness (omni-/all-pervasive existence in some dimension of an idea.) I think I have the same idea as Harjas Kaur Ji and others but we all are limited by language and should not spend too much time on this. I am still interested in learning more in-depth about sargun Brahman and nirgun Brahman so I can discuss them if anyone ever asks me about spiritual topics in person, which is likely.

Shanti be to all beings.

Brahm · either Parabrahm or a god
Chaos · (Greek) Parabrahm and the root word for 'chaos.'
Devi Prakriti · 'Goddess Earth,' integration of Shaktis, thus sometimes symbolizes Mulaprakriti
nous · (Greek) mind or (capitalized) God.
'Ordo ab Chaos' · (Latin) 'Order out of Chaos.' (Order comes from Chaos because it exists so is definable and thus orderly.)
logos · (Greek) reason or (capitalized) God/Word/Pranava or some/all of divine Spirit (Greek.)
Mulaprakriti · the root of matter--not matter, but a symbol of it sometimes
Parabrahm · the Absolute
Parashakti · the Absolute, but a feminine term related to the Shakti Devi Prakriti
Parashiva · the Absolute
pranava · 'the divine sound,' Om
Shakti · 'energy,' first cause in the universe

Shanti be to all beings.

devotee
14 November 2009, 09:17 PM
Our human problem is that we don't perceive the "justice." We don't see the "compassion." We don't see the "impartiality." So what's going on? And the problem is simple. We perceive as human beings attached to our limited/finite identities and what we value as limited beings: our lives, health, homes, loved ones, etc. We are human. God is beyond the limitations of a human. God is not attached to what we value. God works through the agency of Mahakal, using Time to destroy everything we cling to. God views our atma (indestructible nature) as our ultimate reality.

That is an excellent post ! Thanks. :)

OM

devotee
14 November 2009, 09:29 PM
Namaste David,


I do not think they (at least 'good') must involve samsara or that good must have a dual nature.

As I see it, all notion of "good" & "bad" is Only within Samsara. Good (Bad) does have a dual nature ... there is nothing "good" or "bad" in absolute sense until we see through the tainted glass of our mind within waking & dreaming states.

Before any concept of Good & Bad, there must exist illusive duality ... what is good & what is bad from the view point of Non-dual SELF ?

OM

DavidC
15 November 2009, 12:04 AM
As I see it, all notion of "good" & "bad" is Only within Samsara. Good (Bad) does have a dual nature ... there is nothing "good" or "bad" in absolute sense until we see through the tainted glass of our mind within waking & dreaming states.

Before any concept of Good & Bad, there must exist illusive duality ... what is good & what is bad from the view point of Non-dual SELF ?

Om Shanti, Devotee,

You went a little off-topic. I still disagree, and earlier you said everything happems because of the Divine, which means there is a reason for everything. My definition of good was based on that there is a reason. Think about if everything was out of control of the Divine or maybe also (from my idea) if nonexistence was more real than existence. Then maybe that would not be good. However for non-existence it would not be true, because it happens in pralaya, but I meant if absolute non-existence always was, is, will be. The divine even exists in universal pralaya and maybe jivas do too, though I am unsure. Even though nothing may happen in universal pralaya--even if nothing exists to be under Divine control--there is still a reason for that, so it is good.

devotee
15 November 2009, 02:05 AM
Namaste David,


I still disagree, and earlier you said everything happems because of the Divine, which means there is a reason for everything.

Disagreement is normally a good sign if logically used. So, no problem. :)


Think about if everything was out of control of the Divine

There cannot be anything out of control of the Divine. The Prajna is Sarveshwara i.e. the Lord of all & in full command of the two states.


or maybe also (from my idea) if nonexistence was more real than existence. Then maybe that would not be good.

How can non-existence be real ? Actually, existence, as we perceive & non-existence as we perceive are only mental concepts ... it is no so in absolute sense. I am trying to understand what you are saying but I am still not sure whether we are on the same wavelength.


However for non-existence it would not be true, because it happens in pralaya, but I meant if absolute non-existence always was, is, will be.

Pralaya is not an end of existence ... it is simply an end of manifested existence in the waking state ( & may/may not be for the dreaming state ... Prajna & Turiya states anyway are never affected).


The divine even exists in universal pralaya and maybe jivas do too, though I am unsure.

The manifested universe as we know comprises of waking state & dreaming state {perception of gross objects through our sense organs in our life when we are awake (waking state) & perceiving subtle impressions of objects in mind without using our physical sense organs in dream/ after death (dreaming state)}. There are two more states ... the Prajna i.e. God state (the Lord of all) which is the origin & end of the previous two states & the Turiya (cessation of all activities, unborn, indescribable reality ... the untainted essence of all). So, at the time of Pralaya, everything in the waking state ( & may also be for dreaming state, if Pralaya is for that state too) will be merged into the third state of Brahman/SELF. All jivas shall remain as memory in Prajna, as this state is Sarvajna (omniscient ... knower of past, present & future) until the next cycle of manifested reality starts.


Even though nothing may happen in universal pralaya--even if nothing exists to be under Divine control--there is still a reason for that, so it is good.

Everything must be under divine control, otherwise how can it be called the Lord of all ? Yes, it is always called auspicious & good ... ( as you rightly said, it all for a good reason) but that is again a relative term.

OM

chandu_69
15 November 2009, 02:26 AM
Na Kartritvam, na karmANi, lokasya srijati prabhu l
Na karmphal sanyongam svabhavastu pravartate ll

====> Prabhu (God) doesn't create the desires to act, He does not create the action & he also doesn't create any result of those actions. It is the Nature which works. "Then,the following deduction appears to be incorrect.



Nothing happens in this world without his permission.

Cause it is explained in the next verse:

(5.15) The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody.


So, even though he doesn't interfere on a case to case basis, everything goes as per his (one-time) approval only !"


That directly contradicts the assertion that

Not a blade of Grass moves without his approval.

atanu
15 November 2009, 04:22 AM
It does not matter if people have to suffer 'evil' in their evolution--there is a reason for it and overall it is good.

Namaste DavidC,

That, i suppose, is the view from a perspective wherefrom evil or bad or punishment etc. are recognised. omnibenevolence, in that case is rationalisation (though also true).


I do not fully recall the 'ontological Abrahamic definition of omnibenevolent' and I do not really care. In Abrahamic religions, Satan is also merely a servant of the Divine (see the book of Job) and is even known as Sataniel, 'Satani-god,' in angel dictionaries, though most sects say he is not Satani 'El' any more.. Genesis has two parallel creation myths: from the viewpoint of Elohim(s) and YHVH, and I think both have Sammael and Sataniel, though Sammael is esoteric and only in Zohar. Sataniel is the being that makes humanity become intelligent/spiritual, and I do not think he is described as doing evil anywhere. You could say he is wrathul to Job, but he helps Job's spiritual development. I have gotten pretty off-topic: it was to give another viewpoint about if Mazdayasna (Zoroastrianism) has 'Satanic' dualism. In fact because Satan is God's servant--controlled by God and incapable as anyone else of going against Divine will which is for what is best--the Ophite (serpent) Gnostics likely have the best (non-dualist) Jewish viewpoint on good. They said, as did the Theosophists: Sataniel is God (evidence is in Kabbala and Semitic mythology.) It does not really conflict with the idea of good & evil because Sammael represents the evil in humanity. Of course that is probably another biased viewpoint against Sammael, whose name ends with 'El.' This all leads to different ideas and I am uninterested in the more accepted unfounded ones but how omnibenevolence may apply in various religions.
----but we all are limited by language and should not spend too much time on this. I am still interested in learning more in-depth about sargun Brahman and nirgun Brahman so I can discuss them if anyone ever asks me about spiritual topics in person, which is likely.



OTOH, the Mandukya Upanishad, the shruti (devoid of rationalisation), which within its short 12 verses deals with three divisions of time and what is beyond, describes the AUSPICIOUS. You may like to refer that, if you have not yet or even if you have earlier.

Om Namah Shivaya

Harjas Kaur
15 November 2009, 06:07 AM
I am unsure you read my posts closely enough (I tried to clarify my quote above) and I am not sure what Devotee Ji's opinion really is. Different definitions of 'benevolent' exist... Different definitions of good & evil exist.Well lets get on the same page and keep to standard dictionary definitions.
Benevolence: "Desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures. Antonym is Malevolence. Benefaction, acts intending or showing charity, kindness and good will. Desire to promote the welfare or happiness of others.We are talking about a Hindu definition of God who is nirguna, beyond qualities who cannot be limited to narrow ideals of materialistic human welfare or even happiness. While such may be the ideal of human societies, such relativistic qualifications applied to a universal and absolute concept like omnibenevolence only impose a limit on a Hindu definition of God who is without limits, without qualities such as benevolence.


Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". It is sometimes held to be impossible for a deity to exhibit this property along with both omniscience and omnipotence, because of the problem of evil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OmnibenevolenceSo the discussion hinges around the limitation placed on the Divine that He must conform to the human ideal/definition of benevolence absolutely as described by the term: "Omnibenevolence." And this is human idealism because the concept of benevolence relates to the relativistic emphasis on "good" according to human perceptions.
I do not think they (at least 'good') must involve samsara or that good must have a dual nature.Dear, please understand the concepts of duality and karma/sansaara. You are mixing Western theological concepts with Hindu philosophy and it just won't work. I'm trying to show you why. Let's analyze: "I don't think good must have a dual nature because different definitions of good and evil exist."

What is wrong with the above statement? If you understood the concept of duality, it would be immediately apparent. As Devotee pointed out,good is one of the counter-qualities of the duality universe whose correlate is "evil." Everything existing as a perceivable quality of this sansaar exists in duality. The whole world, universe, whatever the mind can fathom. This material world of forms was created in duality out of three gunas and with the power of shakti Maya. How can a concept of good not involve sansaara?

Harjas Kaur
15 November 2009, 08:20 AM
"Evil and good by definition require intent."
I do not think they require intent: they can be more objective.A philosophy of moral evil contrasted with moral good requires deliberation of conscious intent else it is an act of incapacity and thereby disqualified as evil. The definition of evil is "morally objectionable behavior," "morally wrong," "wickedness," depravity." One has to have capacity and intent to oppose the moral good. The difference between a predator who is a lion, and a predator who is a serial killer is this: One has capacity to form "evil intent" and thereby commits heinous crimes. The other has neither human intellect or opposition to conscience and is simply acting on natural inclination for survival. A serial killer is "morally evil," but a lion cannot be.

Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe what are seen as subjectively harmful deeds that are labeled as such to steer moral support. Evil is usually contrasted with good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil), which describes acts that are subjectively beneficial to the observer. In some religions, evil is an active force, often personified as an entity such as Satan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan) or Ahriman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahriman). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvilFrom a legal standpoint, if a medically incompetent person commits a crime out of incapacity he isn't considered "guilty." A tsunami isn't capable of forming intent therefore, the results of human suffering although evil to the sufferers, cannot be the result of an "evil" tsunami which has no moral capacity.

"Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm), to the desires and needs of individuals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm); whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist... By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
Does that not also refute omniscience-omnipotence-omnipresence? I do not yet fully understand the definition and usage of 'sargun' and 'nirgun,' but what you are saying is what I was saying. Your last sentence sums it up because spiritual evolution (to liberation, as I said) is 'positive and desirable.' It does not matter if people have to suffer 'evil' in their evolution--there is a reason for it and overall it is good.It does matter if we will be honest with the definition of Omnibenevolence. Omniscience-omnipotence-omnipresence pertain to the sarguna as Atanu Ji said. For one thing, these are finite concepts trying to define the infinite which we call nirguna. Japji Sahib says there are no words which can describe Him. Gurbani says the God is agochar "imperceivable through the material senses," He is alakh/"unknowable through the human mind." He is agam/"unapproachable." Nirguna is not the aspect which is a personal God, but the aspect of God who humans think is indifferent or even ambivalent because they can't perceive Him and don't understand His motivations in relation to the suffering of their lives. Omnibenevolence is essentially a Christian concept with derivative application to other Abrahamic religions.

Omniscience-omnipotence-omnipresence describe qualities of God in relation to how people perceive. The nirguna has no relationship to us because it is unapproachable and imperceivable. It can only be apprehended through the agency of a true Guru. Guru is the sargun perceivable manifestation of the unknowable infinite. When texts are describing Shivam, they are describing qualities of God, therefore sargun swaroop, since nirgun is beyond qualities. Shivam is also from Shiva who is the representation of Guru-God. As Guru preceptor it is Shiva's role to unite us with the nirgun

Vidyasamutthane svahbhavike khecari sivavastha
5. At the rise of natural (pure) Supreme Knowledge, the State of Shiva, residing in the Eather of God-Consciousness, is attained.

Gururupayah
6. For such attainment, the means is the Master, the Guru.
~Aphorisms of Lord Shiva by Swami Lakshmanjoo, English rendering of the Shiva Sutras by Sage Vasugupta http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:dptF0tZ4CEAJ:www.ksf.org/pub/aphorism.pdf+Shiva+guru+sutra&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXkaT1YykAkl91eUUqOG8lIx7LVW9rsk2vjxiTDwMRhfBXeMds07q4znsiXJtBqhG3K7XZvHT2A6wH58_jhi_IaV-PPEFMNkzNopdqOdFEZMyBPVNPztK2KQJ5jzMs4zhu6B0Q&sig=AFQjCNFt2SoPbM3KQy9EZ2e1_uKTglwxwQ

Harjas Kaur
15 November 2009, 08:21 AM
As I said is 'positive and desirable.' It does not matter if people have to suffer 'evil' in their evolution--there is a reason for it and overall it is good.What you have here is a contradiction with the definition of benevolence. Benevolence is that which benefits people through charity, good deeds, reflecting qualities of benefaction, munificence which in turn are aspects of materiality. Benevolence is the desire (Can God be said to have desires?) to promote the welfare and happiness of human beings.


Abhilasat bahirgatih samvahyasya
40. By the slight appearance of individual desire, one is carried far away from the state of God-Consciousness. ~Aphorisms of Lord Shiva by Swami Lakshmanjoo, English rendering of the Shiva Sutras by Sage Vasugupta http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:dptF0tZ4CEAJ:www.ksf.org/pub/aphorism.pdf+Shiva+guru+sutra&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXkaT1YykAkl91eUUqOG8lIx7LVW9rsk2vjxiTDwMRhfBXeMds07q4znsiXJtBqhG3K7XZvHT2A6wH58_jhi_IaV-PPEFMNkzNopdqOdFEZMyBPVNPztK2KQJ5jzMs4zhu6B0Q&sig=AFQjCNFt2SoPbM3KQy9EZ2e1_uKTglwxwQ Your definition isn't "omnibenevolence" because it adds the qualification of an evolutionary benefit by including Divine indifference to the material suffering of others. Yet the definition of benevolence is a condition of all goodness, charity, benefaction to support the welfare and happiness of human beings. The Hindu concept of spiritual evolution is a man discovers his true nature is God and is therefore freed from the bondages of being human. Such a philosophy was never envisioned by the theologians who coined the term "omnibenevolence" as it implicitly relates to a perpetual separation between God and ourselves.

Mohapratisamhatas tu karmatma
35. On the contrary, the one who feels the absence of God-Consciusness in the states of pain and pleasure, is an individual soul and a victim of recurring births and deaths.~Aphorisms of Lord Shiva by Swami Lakshmanjoo, English rendering of the Shiva Sutras by Sage Vasugupta http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:dptF0tZ4CEAJ:www.ksf.org/pub/aphorism.pdf+Shiva+guru+sutra&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXkaT1YykAkl91eUUqOG8lIx7LVW9rsk2vjxiTDwMRhfBXeMds07q4znsiXJtBqhG3K7XZvHT2A6wH58_jhi_IaV-PPEFMNkzNopdqOdFEZMyBPVNPztK2KQJ5jzMs4zhu6B0Q&sig=AFQjCNFt2SoPbM3KQy9EZ2e1_uKTglwxwQThe problem of evil is subsumed into shades of grey like the yin and yang symbol in the Hindu cosmology, rather than projected onto a symbolic disassociation from pure malevolence, the antonym of benevolence as in Abrahamic cosmologies. This entire definition of benevolence is based Christian concepts of material benefit, continued material existence, material happiness as a pleasure principle of receiving blessings. Benevolence is related to the terms benefaction and munificence.
Munificence: Generosity. Liberality in bestowing gifts, bounteousness, largesse, magnanimity, openhandedness.The Hindu concept of spiritual evolution is sacrifice and surrender, withdrawal from materiality. Abrahamic conceptions envision a heaven realm filled with material goodies and extravagance, alternately described as "streets of gold," and "gates of pearl." How does this word-view accommodate a Hindu spirituality of interior withdrawal from sense objects to promote a consciousness free from bondage to the duality of pleasure and pain, good and evil? It doesn't fit. The concepts are not related.

Sukha-dukhayor bahirmananam
33. Because such a yogi perceives the states of pain and pleasure only superficially, they, in no case, affect his state of Supreme Being Consciousness.

34. Hence he is liberated from the states of pain and pleasure and is uniquely established in his own nature. ~Aphorisms of Lord Shiva by Swami Lakshmanjoo, English rendering of the Shiva Sutras by Sage Vasugupta http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:dptF0tZ4CEAJ:www.ksf.org/pub/aphorism.pdf+Shiva+guru+sutra&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXkaT1YykAkl91eUUqOG8lIx7LVW9rsk2vjxiTDwMRhfBXeMds07q4znsiXJtBqhG3K7XZvHT2A6wH58_jhi_IaV-PPEFMNkzNopdqOdFEZMyBPVNPztK2KQJ5jzMs4zhu6B0Q&sig=AFQjCNFt2SoPbM3KQy9EZ2e1_uKTglwxwQ

Harjas Kaur
15 November 2009, 08:55 AM
There's a difference between the anand of samadhi, and the happiness and welfare of the human being experiencing material existence. Benevolence isn't defining a general "goodness." Rather, the construct of Omnibenevolence is defining a God whose Absolute aim is the benefit as a benefactor, is the welfare and happiness of embodied human beings. The Anand and auspiciousness implicit in Shivam relates to consciousness devoid of suffering conditions of mind. Benevolence may be implied to Shivam, but Omni-benevolence as an Absolute imposition of human moral values is not a Hindu definition of the God and neither does such appear in Sruti.

In the Hindu cosmology God is not defined strictly as Omniscient-Omnipotent-Omnipresent, which are qualities. Rather the God is defined by state of consciousness Sat-Chit-Ananda; True Reality which is eternal Consciousness and Bliss. This definition of God is independent of human agency or human morality. While karma-dharma is the ultimate human morality and the vehicle to arrive at Self-Realization which transcends suffering states of consciousness and the world of pakrti/3 gunas, maya and duality. An Absolute Benefactor who is Omnibenevolent is not even required as the separation between human and Divine ceases to exist with the liberation of consciousness.


I do not fully recall the 'ontological Abrahamic definition of omnibenevolent' and I do not really care. In Abrahamic religions, Satan is also merely a servant of the Divine (see the book of Job) and is even known as Sataniel, 'Satani-god,'Satan has become the personification of all that is NOT God. In the Hindu conception EVERYTHING is God. Therefore God cannot be omnibenevolent since it requires a projected personification of evil to explain what God is not, namely counter qualities of benevolence.


Once Uma asked Siva why he had foru visible faces. Siva explained that the eastern face conveyed the supernatural and the perennial practice of asceticism, the western face expressed the sustenance of the universe, and the northern face showed meditation of the Veda, the sum total of all knowledge. The northern and western faces were auspicious, whereas the southern face meant destruction of progeny. ~(MBh. 13, app. 1, no. 15, lines 278-81, 301-305http://books.google.com/books?id=O5BanndcIgUC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=Shiva+auspicious+puranas&source=bl&ots=x9v2BsIpnd&sig=ju0RZoF15oW8EsfFKLZ_tG2Lrsk&hl=en&ei=8f3_SsmSN5O8sgP94NSHCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCwQ6AEwCTgy#v=onepage&q=&f=false

atanu
16 November 2009, 12:31 PM
Then,the following deduction appears to be incorrect.
(5.15) The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody.
That directly contradicts the assertion that
Not a blade of Grass moves without his approval.

Namaste chandu,

Shri Krishna says that the indwelling Atma, which is paramatma, param purusha, is the seer, the enjoyer, and the permitter, as below:

13.13 Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah;
Paramaatmeti chaapyukto dehe’smin purushah parah.

13. 23. The Supreme soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Atman.

On the other hand, Lord also says;

Na kartritwam na karmaani lokasya srijati prabhuh;
Na karmaphala samyogam swabhaavas tu pravartate.

5.14. Neither agency nor actions does the Lord create for the world, nor union with the fruits of actions; it is Nature that acts.

Naadatte kasyachit paapam na chaiva sukritam vibhuh;
Ajnaanenaavritam jnaanam tena muhyanti jantavah.

5.15. The Lord accepts neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded.

Jnaanena tu tad ajnaanam yeshaam naashitam aatmanah;
Teshaam aadityavaj jnaanam prakaashayati tatparam.

5.16. But, to those whose ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of the Self, like the sun, knowledge reveals the Supreme (Brahman).

-------------------------
Lord is indeed the permitter for individual actions as the indwelling soul yet He does not seem to be the agency of any karma and neither He accepts the merit or demerit. How? The above paradox is settled here:

Svet. Upanishad
1,9 The Supreme Lord appears as Isvara, omniscient and omnipotent and as the jiva, of limited knowledge and power, both unborn. But this does not deny the phenomenal universe; for there exists further the unborn prakriti, which creates the ideas of the enjoyer, enjoyment and the object. Atman is infinite and all—pervading and therefore devoid of agency. When the seeker knows all these three to be Brahman, he is freed from his fetters.
-------------------------

So, untainted non-agent Brahman-Atman alone is acting in the roles of the permitter Ishwara and the bound Jiva, enjoying the ideas of enjoyer, enjoyement and the objects created through His/Her own Prakriti. Whose merit or demerit will Prabhu accept or reject?

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
16 November 2009, 09:04 PM
Namaste


Namaste chandu,

...

On the other hand, Lord also says;

Na kartritwam na karmaani lokasya srijati prabhuh;
Na karmaphala samyogam swabhaavas tu pravartate.

5.14. Neither agency nor actions does the Lord create for the world, nor union with the fruits of actions; it is Nature that acts.

Naadatte kasyachit paapam na chaiva sukritam vibhuh;
Ajnaanenaavritam jnaanam tena muhyanti jantavah.

5.15. The Lord accepts neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded.

Accepts: is the word used by Gambhirananda(or sanakaracharya?)

5:15 translation is
The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds
of anybody. The knowledge is covered by (the veil of) ignorance,
thereby people are deluded. (5.15)


If one uses the word accepts it contradicts lot of other verses in Gita itself.
Scholarly translation takes in to account other verses and apply the appropriate meaning.
Pulling up a dictionary and applying what the translator likes leads to nowhere but confusion.The various translations doesnt increase one's depth of understanding ,Btw.


No need to get in in to any upanishads or purananas unless there is a back ground story.
More translatons:

Prof radhakrishna:(15) The All-pervading Spirit does not take on the sin or the merit of any..
Prabupada:Nor does the Supreme Lord assume anyone's sinful or pious activities.
Prasad:The Lord does not take the responsibility for the good or evil deeds

yajvan
16 November 2009, 10:57 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté atanu



5.15. The Lord accepts neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded.



The word that is offered in the 5.15 śloka is nādatte or na ( not) + āda. So āda is key. We will not consider adat as that means toothless); yet we can consider 'at' as it means 'to obtain' and also 'tte' can be addressed.

If we consider the authority of Monier Williams Saṇskṛt to English Dictionary as a reasonable reference, āda is defined as follows:


1. ā is rooted in dā ; What is this dā ? It is giving , granting , offering , effecting , producing
2. ā-dá is defined as taking , receiving
3. And as mentioned previously, 'at' means to obtain
4. What of this 'tte'? As I see it, it is of the form 'tti' which is 'gift', and this too is rooted in dā ( So says Monier Williams Saṇskṛt to English dictionary)

Hence we have na ( not) + ā (giving or granting) ; and ādá is taking or receiving. It looks perfectly legitimate to then say that nādatte = not giving , not granting, not taking or not receiving, ~not accepting~.


I find concurrence from the following adepts - Abhinavagupta, Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī, Svāmī Prabhupāda , all use the word 'accepts'; Śrī Jñānadeva's Bhāvārṭa Dīpikā uses 'The Lord does not take …'

Hence we are in good company considering the defintion offered and the appropriate use of 'not accepts' or 'does not grant' or 'does not give' , used in this śloka

praṇām

chandu_69
16 November 2009, 11:55 PM
The word that is offered in the 5.15 śloka is nādatte or na ( not) + āda. So āda is key. We will not consider adat as that means toothless);

Adat is not toothless.Adant(अ-दन्त) is toothless.Anyhow that is of no relevence .



yet we can consider 'at' as it means 'to obtain' and also 'tte' can be addressed.
If we consider the authority of Monier Williams Saṇskṛt to English Dictionary as a reasonable reference, āda is defined as follows:
1. ā is rooted in dā ; What is this dā ? It is giving , granting , offering , effecting , producing The monier williams says so.]2. ā-dá is defined as taking , receiving

Taking,receiving?..are'nt they the exact opposite of giving/granting?


3. And as mentioned previously, 'at' means to obtainAny reference?.I didnt see it in monier williams.


4. What of this 'tte'? As I see it, it is of the form 'tti' which is 'gift', and this too is rooted in dā ( So says Monier Williams Saṇskṛt to English dictionary) ] Hence we have na ( not) + ā (giving or granting) ; and ādá is taking or receiving. It looks perfectly legitimate to then say that nādatte = not giving , not granting, not taking or not receiving, ~not accepting~.

ok,Let us say "Not accepting".Then next what?.
Not accepting, what?.

The merits(punyam) and paapam(demerits) ?.




I find concurrence from the following adepts - Abhinavagupta,
Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī, Svāmī Prabhupāda , all use the word 'accepts';

Prabhupada renders it as
"assume anyone's sinful or pious activities"..



Because as per the previous verse 5:14. it is not prabhuù who induces/"creates urge" towards ACTION.

Abhinavagupta, Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī..... no comments.everybody knows where they come from.

atanu
17 November 2009, 12:00 AM
Namaste
5:15 translation is
The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds
of anybody. The knowledge is covered by (the veil of) ignorance,
thereby people are deluded. (5.15)

If one uses the word accepts it contradicts lot of other verses in Gita itself.


Namaste,

With 'does not take the responsibilty' also there remains the huge contradiction with "He is the antaratma who enjoys, permits,----".

How can a permitter not assume the responsiblity? Only since,



1,9 The Supreme Lord appears as Isvara, omniscient and omnipotent and as the jiva, of limited knowledge and power, both unborn. But this does not deny the phenomenal universe; for there exists further the unborn prakriti, which creates the ideas of the enjoyer, enjoyment and the object. Atman is infinite and all—pervading and therefore devoid of agency. When the seeker knows all these three to be Brahman, he is freed from his fetters.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
17 November 2009, 01:36 AM
Namaste Atanu,


Anyway, I am giving the translation available for 5.15 ( Ref : www.bhagwad-gita.org (http://www.bhagwad-gita.org)) :

Rudra Vaisnava Sampradaya:Sridhara Swami's Commentary :

The sublime, transcendental Supreme Lord although the energiser and controller of all living beings in creation does not partake of the merits of piety or the demerits of sins from any living entity.

Brahma Vaisnava Sampradaya: Madhvacarya's Commentary :

The Supreme Lord being completely transcendental and independent to the material existence does not accept the pious merits or the sinful demerits of any human being and although He energises all of their activities He is never affected by them.

Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya : Ramanuja's commentary :

The atma or eternal soul never accepts anyone's sins or mitigate anyone's misery or suffering although the person may be dearly beloved. Nor does the atma take the pious merit and happiness which may come to a person that is hated.

Kumar Vaishnava Sampradaya : Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary :

Lord Krishna begins stating nadatte kasyacit papam meaning that He never accepts the sins of any being. He also never accepts the piety of any being either. So He is not connected to any merit or demerit they may incur by their actions.

OM

devotee
17 November 2009, 01:46 AM
Actually "NAdatte" is negative for the word, "Adatte". It has come from "Aadaan" ==> receive. The reverse of Aadaan is "Pradaan" ==> "Give".

This can be again verified by visiting this link :

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=take&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=ES

and this http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=aadatte&direction=SE&script=HK&link=yes

atanu
17 November 2009, 01:58 AM
Namaste Atanu,
Anyway, I am giving the translation available for 5.15 ( Ref : www.bhagwad-gita.org (http://www.bhagwad-gita.org)) :
------
Lord Krishna begins stating nadatte kasyacit papam meaning that He never accepts the sins of any being. He also never accepts the piety of any being either. So He is not connected to any merit or demerit they may incur by their actions.
OM

Namaste Devotee,
And as BG teaches in the very next verse to the verse in question (5.15):

5.16 Jnaanena tu tad ajnaanam yeshaam naashitam aatmanah;
Teshaam aadityavaj jnaanam prakaashayati tatparam.

5.16. But, to those whose ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of the Self, like the sun, knowledge reveals the Supreme (Brahman).
-------------------------

Brahman is appearing as Ishwara, Jiva, and the spandankari Shakti. Whose merit and demerit will it accept or take responsibilty for? Knowing the above irrefutably, throuh experience, is the freedom.

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
17 November 2009, 03:17 AM
Namaste,

With 'does not take the responsibilty' also there remains the huge contradiction with "He is the antaratma who enjoys, permits,----".

What contradiction?

Every body acts according their gunas(5:14).

Are you quoting this verse?


13.22:The Supreme Spirit in the body is also called the witness, the
guide, the supporter, the enjoyer, and the great Lord or
Paramaatma.



How can a permitter not assume the responsiblity? If the permitter intervenes in what you do in each and every step there is no freewill.A Jiva(finite) is responsible for his own actions.
No need to complicate things.Got it?

atanu
17 November 2009, 04:41 AM
What contradiction?
Every body acts according their gunas(5:14).

Are you quoting this verse?

13.22:The Supreme Spirit in the body is also called the witness, the
guide, the supporter, the enjoyer, and the great Lord or
Paramaatma.

Namaste,

Yes. So, taking your translation as THE standard, why should not the enjoyer (Param Atman) be held responsible? You enjoy but allow the ills to go to another? Is that Lord like?
------------------------

All translations of the 1.9 Svet. Upanishad, say Brahman is the all knowing Lord (Isha), the jiva/bound/servant of limited knowledge, and the Prakriti, who creates the relation between the enjoyer and the enjoyed. Only, the ISCKON translation speaks something absurd.

The free will bug of the christians have got many of us. They forget that the Omniscience of Ishwara goes againt the very idea of free will to Jiva. Either Jiva has a free will or the Ishwara has the omniscience.

Yes Jiva has a free will, either to insist that it has a great free will and suffer or it has a choice of surrendering. It is Nidhi -- the law. And Jiva has free will, when it is not different from Atman, as Jivan Mukta. Not otherwise. Even Agni will not be able to ignite a blade of grass, if Lord did not approve and support. Please refer to Kena Upanishad.

It is upto you.

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
17 November 2009, 05:32 AM
Clarification from Bhagavad gita:

The lord Indeed takes in to account the pious and sinfull deeds:

This clears confusion on verse 5:15 :)

Plenty of evidence from Bhagavad gita itself:

BG:3:37 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful(mahä-päpmä)enemy of this world.

BG:3:41 Therefore, O Arjuna, best of the Bhäratas, in the very beginning curb this great symbol of sin(päpmänam)[lust] by regulating the senses, and slay this destroyer of knowledge and self-realization.

Bg:5 :10 One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results unto the Supreme Lord, is unaffected by sinful(päpena) action, as the lotus leaf is untouched by water.

Bg 7:28 :Persons who have acted piously in previous lives and in this life and whose sinful(Päpam)) actions are completely eradicated are freed from the dualities of delusion, and they engage themselves in My service with determination.


Bg18:66 Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful((päpebhyaù)) reactions. Do not fear.


Clear as bright day light.

Om Namo Vasudevaya

chandu_69
17 November 2009, 06:07 AM
Regarding the confusion of word Aadatte:
Adatte(आदत्ते) also means TAKE., in addition to accepts
ref:http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=aadatte&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU


HENCE THE TRANSLATION

5:15 The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds
of anybody. The knowledge is covered by (the veil of) ignorance,
thereby people are deluded

the justification for taking :) आदत्ते as
take instead of accepts stems from the preceding verse 5:14
bg 5:14 The Lord neither creates the urge for action nor the feeling of
doership nor the attachment to the results of action in people. All
these are done by the (Gunas of) nature.

yajvan
17 November 2009, 12:43 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



Adat is not toothless.Adant(अ-दन्त) is toothless.Anyhow that is of no relevence .
ok,Let us say "Not accepting".Then next what?.
Not accepting, what?.
The merits(punyam) and paapam(demerits) ?.

Prabhupada renders it as "assume anyone's sinful or pious activities"..

Because as per the previous verse 5:14. it is not prabhuù who induces/"creates urge" towards ACTION.

Abhinavagupta, Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī..... no comments.everybody knows where they come from.

Thank you for your post chandu_69, even though I addressed it to atanu for his kind consideration. I guess you are inspired on this string and wish to exercise your knowledge - this is good.

Note that adat अदत् is defined as eating, and a second definition as adat is toothless . Source: Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary , page 18.

You ask for 'at' अत् also I think. Please look on page 12, Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary and you will find it there.
This 'at' is offered in the dictionary, 2nd derivation as 'to obtain' ; yet used as a prefix it means to imply 'surprise'.
This word is most versitle as it is also considered a contraction of 'ati' meaning 'extraordinary'.

Please provide your source for adant so that I too can enjoy what you have found.

All your other questions ' then what' etc. can be taken up with others on this post. My concern was on the verbiage used. I am quite comfortable and at ease with the 5.15 śloka.

I mention Abhinavagupta, Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī, Svāmī Prabhupāda , all use the word 'accepts'; Śrī Jñānadeva's Bhāvārṭa Dīpikā uses 'The Lord does not take …' It seems you may have issue with a few of these muni-s. I will not debate or comment on your POV or your attitude regarding this.

Yet I would ask you to look to page 287 of Svāmī Prabhupāda's review on the Bhāgavad gītā, where he translates nādatte as na- never and ādatte as accepts. These are the saṇskṛt words translated; if Svāmī Prabhupāda chooses to interpret the words as different then their saṇskṛt values, that is his choice. He tends to do that quite often throughout the Bhāgavad gītā.

praṇām

chandu_69
17 November 2009, 10:57 PM
Namaste,

Namaste,

Yes. So, taking your translation as THE standard

No, i apply my mind.The explanation for the translation i gave in post 60.


why should not the enjoyer (Param Atman) be held responsible? You enjoy but allow the ills to go to another? Is that Lord like?

He enjoys the offerings you made(not the chocolate you ate ;)) explained in gita 5:29 and more eloquently in gita-9:26- "patram,pushpam, phalam, toyam.When eat only the prasadam after offering to lord(naivedyam) you are declaring your steadfastness to be with god.

Since that kind of devotion/attachment is not possible in practical terms for most of the people Sri krishna offers another way that is Karma yoga.

[ quote ] All translations of the 1.9 Svet. Upanishad,...iskcon [/quote]

We will refer to upanishads when it is required(i.e. how they arrived at truth by asking "oh god lead us from darkness to light....Asatoma Satgamaya (http://archives.amritapuri.org/bharat/mantra/asatoma.php)).Leave the jokers iskcon .

Btw, the 1.9 Svet. translation you provided is from modern advaitan swami nikhilananda and not the original upanishad.


The free will bug of the christians have got many of us.

There is no free will in abrahamic religions.

Omniscience of Ishwara .

ishwara is omniscient but he chooses not to be one in human affairs.If the supreme lord knows what shirt i am going to wear tomorrow that means he fixed it.Do you understand this.If the lord predetermines everything there will be no KARMA for JIVA.


Either Jiva has a free will or the Ishwara has the omniscience. IT IS NOT EITHER, OR.Both are true.The supreme lord permits you to do what you do based on your gunas and karma.Now, that is a complex subject.the playing of karma and gunas and the net result.Let us not get in to this now.

atanu
18 November 2009, 01:21 AM
Clarification from Bhagavad gita:

The lord Indeed takes in to account the pious and sinfull deeds:


Namaste Chadu,

Surely. More so, since He also hurls back the hard hearted demonic ones to lower and lower hells. I know that. At the same time He teaches: BG 5:15 "The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody. -----." (I am using your translation). And, BG 13.22:"The Supreme Spirit in the body is also called the witness, the guide, the supporter, the enjoyer, and the great Lord or Paramaatma".

Why should the guide be not responsible at least for the faulty guidance? This IDEA of Good God and a separate evil is christian like. It is odd that even though the Lord is Omnipotent, in addition to being Omniscient, He allows evil and then punishes.

But actually the Lord is "I am that I am". Lord Krishna also says:I am the Self. Lord also says: Let a man lift himself by his own Self alone, let him not lower himself; for this self is the friend of oneself and this self alone is the enemy of oneself . (There are no enemies all around.:) )


Get some common sense.ishwara is omniscient but he chooses not to be one in human affairs.If the supreme lord knows what shirt i am going to wear tomorrow that means he fixed it.

I request you to refrain from personal judgements. You wish to change the meaning of omniscience? Omniscience means all knowing. Ishwara is omniscient because happenings proceed from Him and not from chandu or atanu. Neither you created nor you own so-called 'your' perceptive faculties.

As antaratma, the Prabhu, alone is the knower in particular mode and as Sarvesvara Pragnya, Prabhu is knower in general mode. Since Upanishad says: There is no knower but Him.


Om

atanu
18 November 2009, 02:10 AM
Brihadaraynaka Up.

III-vii-23: He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.’ Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.

Om

chandu_69
18 November 2009, 05:09 AM
To my post


The lord Indeed takes in to account the pious and sinfull deeds:

Atanu agrees and writes:




Surely.

and then

More so, since He also hurls back the hard hearted demonic ones to lower and lower hells. I know thatofcourse the demons have to be punished.The demons are indeed punished arent they?.Right from ramayana to kaliyuga.


At the same time He teaches: BG 5:15 "The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody. -----." (I am using your translation).I posted it several times and gave the explanation.


And, BG 13.22:"The Supreme Spirit in the body is also called the witness, the guide, the supporter, the enjoyer, and the great Lord or Paramaatma". explained in Post number 62
bg 9:26:
The lord enjoys what you offer with devotion.
patram , pushpam , thoyam(a leaf ,flower ,water)

sacrifices and austerities( sacrifices and austerities,(5:29)


Why should the guide be not responsible at least for the faulty guidance? Where did you get your idea that god gave faulty guidance?.In Gita?


This IDEA of Good God and a separate evil is christian like.
Where did i say there is a good god and bad god.


It is odd that even though the Lord is Omnipotent, in addition to being Omniscient, He allows evil and then punishes.
as said in 13:22 Lord is the

guide
when you reach out to him.

Enjoyer when you offer sacrificies

permitter who allows you to take responsibilty for your actions(karma).

atanu
18 November 2009, 05:34 AM
as said in 13:22 Lord is the guide when you reach out to him.

Namaste chandu,
(Note: Remember, I am trying to understand implications of your stand only. Please, do not blame me of attributing unthinkable attributes to God.)

Odd. So, God will not guide a child until he/she reaches out but will allow him/her to go to hell, though He is omnipotent?


Enjoyer when you offer sacrificies

Odd that God has such preference. Even sun shines equally on everyone. And also since Brahman is known to be bliss itself. Bliss does not diminish or increase bbecause of phenomenal acts. The fact is the doer of good karma gets closer to Brahman bliss. Brahman is known as Sat-Chit-Ananda. The ananda is not contingent upon some other thing. Else He is a mortal being.


permitter who allows you to take responsibilty for your actions(karma).

So, God permits a child to do bad and then punishes? And, as you said He will himself not take any responsibilty for individuals?

I did not know that God is such. Is this account any different from the account of God spread by missionary christians? There must be some misunderstanding.

Chandu, I reiterate that I do not know Lord or Brahman. Brahma Jigyasa is said to be auspicious, so I am enquiring only. Let us not make it into an argument. Let it be kimtadbrahma?


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
18 November 2009, 05:45 AM
Where did you get your idea that god gave faulty guidance?.In Gita?

Namaste chandu,

God does not. But your interpretation makes it appear so. You say He is the guide yet He does not take any responsibilty for wrongs commited by individuals?

You should remember that it is God who gulps the poison on behalf of the Universe. Please check against your ideas.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
18 November 2009, 06:05 AM
Dear Chandu,

I am a bit off that you disregarded the following altogether.

Lord says: Let a man lift himself by his own Self alone, let him not lower himself; for this self is the friend of oneself and this self alone is the enemy of oneself . (There are no enemies all around.:) )

Is this not the ultimate teaching on taking responsibilty and on absolute free will? What do you think? Can we discuss as friends and not as enemies? Since Lord says self alone can be the enemy.

Can we discuss as partners of Brahma Jigyasa, as I believe all of us are?

Om

atanu
18 November 2009, 11:38 PM
Namaste Yajvanji and Devotee,

The common translation of the verse: 'Naadatte kasyachit paapam na chaiva sukritam vibhuh; Ajnaanenaavritam jnaanam tena muhyanti jantavah', is: The 'Lord accepts/takes neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded', as opposed to the one proposed by chandu:

5:15 The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody. The knowledge is covered by (the veil of) ignorance, thereby people are deluded (by sh. chandu).

IMO, one may use accepts or takes interchangeably without harm but the insertion of "responsibility" creates irresponsibity. It makes the Lord irresponsible. How can the leader be so? One may contrast the second opinion (Sh. Chandu's) with the below and judge.

18.66. Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone; I will liberate thee from all sins; grieve not.

Actually Lord is taking the full responsibilty for all, whether sin or whether evil. A guru had given an example of a man travelling in a train carrying his luggage on his head. The train told the man: You are ignorant. Just put down the luggage. Evil or Good are actually the luggage like thoughts.

Om Namah Shivaya