PDA

View Full Version : An Original Thought



yajvan
22 March 2008, 04:01 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

I was just thinking ( oh no!) http://www.cybergifs.com/faces/bigthink.gif

Many of the ideas and thoughts we have are borrowed or taught...
Many of us stick to ideas we have been given by our families or spiritual advisors.

I was just wondering. Have you had an original thought? something that is new to you and not 'picked up' that you have thought through or pondered? Doesn't matter how obtuse it is or eccentric or even plain 'ol common.

Any thoughts on this? I had one or two but thought to ask you if you wish to offer one up... not so much for debate, but just to stimulate how one thinks or observes or 'computes' the world around oneself....FYI this is no right answers as you can tell.

All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become - Buddha

pranams

devisarada
22 March 2008, 10:54 PM
Namaskar,

what came to mind immediately, was not an original thought that I had, but that my brother had as a toddler. He used to ask me to tell him about the time when he was a girl and I was a boy.

Out of the mouths of babes!

Do you think that he may have had a vague memory of a previous lifetime?

What makes it more amazing, is that he turned out not to be very macho, or "manly" in many ways, and I became a woman who is not seen as very feminine in the traditional sense.

devotee
23 March 2008, 12:32 AM
Namaste yajvanji,

My experience has been something of a reverse kind ! It has been very difficult for me to accept which is not logically correct & blind faith has not been my cup of tea since my childhood. So, there were many questions in my head & there was no one to answer them .... as the traditional answers were useless for me because for them I had to stop thinking logically for which I was not ready.

One day ( at the age of 25, perhaps), I was just sitting and seeing people enjoying Holi festival. Suddenly an idea flashed in mind, " Most of our desires are cyclic in nature & they can never be satisfied in a manner that they won't arise again. Therefore, it is foolish to run after them.". This was a great revelation to me but later on I learnt that it was already discovered by many great saints including Buddha that "Not only "Most of" but all our desires are cyclic in nature which cannot be satisfied so that they can never arise".

Similarly, one day, while strolling in my garden, an idea flashed in my mind, that Laws of Universal Gravitation & chemical reactions proved beyond doubt that all so called non-living things are also full of conciousness. Later on, when I discussed with you on this line, you told me that you already knew it through your Guru !

.... So, sir, in my case, it has been just the opposite ! I discovered something only later to be told that it was already discovered ! Ha, Ha !!

Regards

yajvan
23 March 2008, 10:35 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste devotee,

Very interesting post... you mention the following, and also allude to Buddha later in the post:



My experience has been something of a reverse kind ! It has been very difficult for me to accept which is not logically correct & blind faith has not been my cup of tea since my childhood. So, there were many questions in my head & there was no one to answer them .... as the traditional answers were useless for me because for them I had to stop thinking logically for which I was not ready.

He said the following:
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense



Most of our desires are cyclic in nature & they can never be satisfied in a manner that they won't arise again. Therefore, it is foolish to run after them.". This was a great revelation to me but later on I learnt that it was already discovered by many great saints including Buddha
Yes, but the thought was original to you and valuable.


Similarly, one day, while strolling in my garden, an idea flashed in my mind, that Laws of Universal Gravitation & chemical reactions proved beyond doubt that all so called non-living things are also full of consciousness. Later on, when I discussed with you on this line, you told me that you already knew it through your Guru !

Yes, I see your point. I too have a similar experience, which is tangential to this notion. Let me offer it as one of my 'original thoughts' but am sure some others on this good earth thought of it.

When we say we are infinite , without boundaries. This notion is very appealing, yet how does one get their mind around this notion?
The way I have thought about it , or the 'flash' that came to me was in this following manner.


What do I know that is infinite, without bounds? Akasha.
Akasha has no limits and penetrates every thing, in every direction. It is considered the body of Brahman.
Now with the infinite , perfect, untainted space, add awareness.
This awareness fills this akasha , it is ubiquitous, and fills this akasha to the brim.
This now has the personality of the SELF, of Atman. In all places, all times. So the reason one can be infinite is to experience this akasha+Awareness in ones self as the SELF.
There is no place it is not, so ones personal experience is Unboundedness, without constraints, Infinite.
To me this insight helps me better understand what Moksha is, and its possibility. It takes it from the mystical , to the plausible and real.

Now did someone else think of this? Most likely yes; for me I put the components together to form a construct that allowed greater appreciation of boundlessness.

I hope others continue to add their ideas...

pranams,

satay
23 March 2008, 10:49 PM
Here is mine for what it's worth:

I always wonder if the God we think as 'ONE' is not one but many. That is, what if there are many gods one for each religion. Is it so bad to have multiple gods one for each religion? How does it matter to anyone if there is only one god or multiple gods?

:headscratch:

sarabhanga
24 March 2008, 12:13 AM
Namaste Satay,

Polytheism is not a new idea. :rolleyes:

However, if God is not One, then the veda and vedAnta are false.

Any monotheistic religion that claims eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence, and perfection, for its Godhead, must be considering exactly the same ultimate Deity.

And any suggestion of multiple Godheads simultaneously denies all of the above.

satay
24 March 2008, 01:29 AM
namaskar,



However, if God is not One, then the veda and vedAnta are false.


Yes, I know and thus as a hindu my original or not so original thought is false. :)

saidevo
24 March 2008, 02:28 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga.



However, if God is not One, then the veda and vedAnta are false.

Any monotheistic religion that claims eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence, and perfection, for its Godhead, must be considering exactly the same ultimate Deity.

And any suggestion of multiple Godheads simultaneously denies all of the above.


What about the hierarchy of multiple godheads under and as manifestation of Brahman, the One God (for example the Hindu Trimurti brahmA-vishNu-shivA)? What about their powers (of omnipotence etc.) vis-a-vis each other and Brahman? And what about the powers of 'avatArAs' and 'jnAnis' considered on par with the Absolute?

devisarada
24 March 2008, 09:09 AM
Here is mine for what it's worth:

I always wonder if the God we think as 'ONE' is not one but many. That is, what if there are many gods one for each religion. Is it so bad to have multiple gods one for each religion? How does it matter to anyone if there is only one god or multiple gods?

:headscratch:

Namaste Satay,

I don't think it's so bad to have one (or more)gods for each religion. But, I believe that it is not true. As Sarabhanga says, the belief that there is only one God is contrary to the Vedas. I do believe, however, that each religion perceives that same God differently. God is the UltimateTruth. There can only be one Ultimate Truth.

This brings me to my original thought. A few years ago, when I was having some heated arguments with people about the nature of God and Truth. I contemplated about the nature of God for some time. God is beyond attributes, infinite, and cannot be understood by the logical human intellect.

Suddenly the analogy came to me that God/Truth is like an immense, many faceted diamond (in limited human terms):

The Diamond has many attributes, and many facets, it flashes many colours of light, As we look at it from different angles, it's shape changes. No one can see all of the facets of the diamond at the same time with the naked eye.

Therefore, as each of us from his own vantage point perceives only part of the diamond, so too,many religions teach about only part of God.

Only those who have become enlightened can experience God as a whole, and that experience can not be explained in words.

Since many relgions rely only on words to spread their message, how can they pass on the whole experience to their followers?

devotee
24 March 2008, 11:20 AM
Namaste,



When we say we are infinite , without boundaries. This notion is very appealing, yet how does one get their mind around this notion?
The way I have thought about it , or the 'flash' that came to me was in this following manner.

What do I know that is infinite, without bounds? Akasha.
Akasha has no limits and penetrates every thing, in every direction. It is considered the body of Brahman.
Now with the infinite , perfect, untainted space, add awareness.
This awareness fills this akasha , it is ubiquitous, and fills this akasha to the brim.
This now has the personality of the SELF, of Atman. In all places, all times. So the reason one can be infinite is to experience this akasha+Awareness in ones self as the SELF.
There is no place it is not, so ones personal experience is Unboundedness, without constraints, Infinite.Excellent insight !


I always wonder if the God we think as 'ONE' is not one but many. That is, what if there are many gods one for each religion. Is it so bad to have multiple gods one for each religion? How does it matter to anyone if there is only one god or multiple gods?

If no offence is taken, I would say that God never was, never is or will never be One ... it is always one each for every individual. The Krishna I know and worship is different from what Meera worshipped or what others worship. Will it be blasphemy to say that "I am the creator of my God/god" ?

God is a concept which is a creation of mind & that is why it has various names, forms, characteristics, nature, likings & dislikings. God changes with the concept of the devotee. The reality is devoid of all those attributes. That, "What Is", has no name, no form, no attribute what we may think of through our mind and senses. Reality takes the form and the name devotee/seeker wants to give It. It becomes YHWH for the Jews, Jesus for the Christians, Buddha for the Buddhists, Shiva for the Shaivites, Vishnu/Krishna/Rama for the Vaisnavas, Mother Goddess for the Shaktas.

"O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship Devas other than me with faith, they also worship Me, but in an improper way because I am the Supreme Being. I alone am the enjoyer of all sacrificial services (Seva, Yajna) and Lord of the universe." (Gita: 9:23)

( ===> Can anyone enlighten me why Lord Krishna chooses the word, "improper way" & not "sinful" here ? )

If we believe NDEs, it can be seen that the experience of a Christian is completely different from that of a Hindu. In fact, it is slightly varying from one individual to the other even within the same religion & thus makes a strong case for individual Gods !

IMHO, all concepts of God are within the realm of mind ... Reality which is One ( saying it One is also incorrect as there nothing to compare/count) without a second is beyond that !

yajvan
24 March 2008, 03:23 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

I find many of the posts most interesting and good reading.

My mind keeps pulling me back to this:

Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi DIrghatamas (rishi dirghatamas), Rig Veda I.164.46
or Truth is One, (the) sages call it variously



pranams

satay
24 March 2008, 04:49 PM
Namaskar yajvan,


My mind keeps pulling me back to this:

Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi DIrghatamas (rishi dirghatamas), Rig Veda I.164.46
or Truth is One, (the) sages call it variously


Yes, so does mine yet isn't that due to 'conditioning' that you mentioned in the OP?

yajvan
24 March 2008, 05:23 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaskar yajvan,

Yes, so does mine yet isn't that due to 'conditioning' that you mentioned in the OP?

Namaste satay,
rightly so. Yet from the standpoint of 'truth' it seems to resinate well with me and comes from a good source.

There are other things that have been 'taught' to me, that I completely discount. One is positive thinking and positive outlook.

I think it is healthy, and a preferred state, yet keeping positive thinking as a contrived state, without any roots in satyam, or turiya, or being happy is without a rudder, without foundation... to me its whimsical. So I discount the use of it.
Like that , I think its key to examine things we are given and discount the things that do not pass ones common sense test. I have many more, but will stay within the bounds of the OP.

A good point brought to the conversation...thank you.


pranams

satay
24 March 2008, 10:36 PM
namaskar devotee,


If no offence is taken, I would say that God never was, never is or will never be One ... it is always one each for every individual. The Krishna I know and worship is different from what Meera worshipped or what others worship. Will it be blasphemy to say that "I am the creator of my God/god" ?


No offence taken. In fact, I used to subscribe to the same notion that you have, almost exactly the same. However, a few years back a personal experience has changed that notion for me.




IMHO, all concepts of God are within the realm of mind ... Reality which is One ( saying it One is also incorrect as there nothing to compare/count) without a second is beyond that !

On a certain philosophical level perhaps, it is easier to say that God is within the realm of mind.

However, for me, I no longer believe that God has no names, no attributes or is a concept and creation of our minds. Maybe that is his ultimate being as scriptures tell us yet personal experience for me at least, is hard to deny but also impossible to prove.

I see your point though.

devisarada
24 March 2008, 10:48 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

I find many of the posts most interesting and good reading.

My mind keeps pulling me back to this:

Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi DIrghatamas (rishi dirghatamas), Rig Veda I.164.46
or Truth is One, (the) sages call it variously



pranams


Yes, so does mine yet isn't that due to 'conditioning' that you mentioned in the OP?
__________________
satay


This "conditioning" may be a part of those who grew up in a Hindu environment, or those who have studied Hindu scriptures / with a knowledgeable Guru for some time. And I know that this a truth that has stood the test of milennia.

But for me, at the time, it came like a bolt out of the blue!

As a Christian, I used to believe that there were many gods. Because one of the 10 commandments says:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me!" KJV

And now I am starting to realize that often what people worship is not God at all, but some self-serving notion, or idea that they believe to be God.

yajvan
25 March 2008, 01:09 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

This "conditioning" may be a part of those who grew up in a Hindu environment, or those who have studied Hindu scriptures / with a knowledgeable Guru for some time. And I know that this a truth that has stood the test of milennia.

But for me, at the time, it came like a bolt out of the blue!

As a Christian, I used to believe that there were many gods. Because one of the 10 commandments says:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me!" KJV

And now I am starting to realize that often what people worship is not God at all, but some self-serving notion, or idea that they believe to be God.

Namaste devisarada

you offer some valid points... knowledge that withstands the test of time is most notable and worthy of ones deliberation.

The 'test of time' is not just the eons that pass, but the challenges the knowledge/truth may engage in over that period and still not wither.

I mention this because many of our astute HDF members will offer examples where things stood for centuries, yet turned out to be untrue e.g. the earth is flat, the sun goes around the earth, etc. Yet these 'truths' were challenged first by logic ( observation, deduction, etc), insight, and common sense then by direct measures of the phenomenon in question.

We take this for granted that the earth rotates about the sun... yet if many of us were not offered this knowledge [ taught] and asked what our thoughts are about this phenomenon most if not all would conclude , just by looking up that the sun goes around the earth.

The same for many of our spiritual revelations - the rishi's enlightened vision shows us the way to the spiritual truths of our existence.
From there we can use the knowledge as a springboard to go further as we wish.

Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality. All men have eyes, but few have the gift of penetration...

Niccolo Machiavelli circa 1500

pranams,

devotee
25 March 2008, 09:07 PM
Namaste satay,



I used to subscribe to the same notion that you have, almost exactly the same. However, a few years back a personal experience has changed that notion for me.

... I no longer believe that God has no names, no attributes or is a concept and creation of our minds. Maybe that is his ultimate being as scriptures tell us yet personal experience for me at least, is hard to deny but also impossible to prove.

This makes me curious to hear from you your experience, if you would like to share. :)

However, my journey has been from the form to the formless but let me clarify here that it cannot be said that form is "not-true". It cannot be said to be "true" or "untrue". It is beoynd both .... because our concepts of "true" or "untrue" are again bound by our limitations of mind. "Form" is necessary to begin with as it makes the things easier for the mind ( as the nature of mind is to grasp things with forms easily). That is what Lord Krishna says in Chapter-12 of Bhagwat Gita.

I will quote from the Vishnu Purana :

"Meditate on Vishnu, the Dweller in the heart of all beings, seated on a lotus within the rays of the sun, his body luminous, adorned with diadem, necklace, earrings & bracelets of great lusture and holding conch shell and mace in his hands.

Then the wise man should meditate upon the luminous, benign form of Lord, without the conch shell and mace but adorned with ornaments.

As the mind becomes concentrated on the form, he must then keep his mind on the form without ornaments.

Then he must meditate upon his oneness with the luminous form of the Lord.

Lastly he must let the form vanish and meditate upon the Atman. "

For Ramkrishna Paramhans, Goddess Kaali was as real as any other human being. He talked to her, ate with her & shared everything with her as if she was in human form. However, the same form proved to him the biggest hurdle in attaining choiceless samadhi until Saint Totapuri helped him. Finally, he had to cut the form (in his mind) into pieces with the sword of descrimination to enter the choiceless samadhi.

Form helps but the problem with form is that its limits end with the limits of mind. It cannot take us where mind cannot go .... and the Reality is beyond mind.

OM

devisarada
26 March 2008, 11:46 AM
Form helps but the problem with form is that its limits end with the limits of mind. It cannot take us where mind cannot go .... and the Reality is beyond mind.


Namaskar Devotee,

Indeed, the Supreme Reality is beyond mind.

Formlessness itself is also a conceptual limitation. This is what Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa realized.

Brahman is beyond form and formlessness, beyond gender, beyond time, beyond attributes.

Brahman is "neti, neti" Brahman just is.

Worshipping a form of Brahman or Brahman as formless, are both parts of the path to enlightenment.

When one is in constant realization that Brahman simply Is; when one constantly experiences the presence of Brahman in every thing, every sound, every feeling, etc.; when one constantly experiences that "Soham"; then one will have achieved the goal.

Descartes statement "cogito, ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am", did not go far enough. What he should have simply said is: "I am."

Here among us in HDF Puri, are many who have experienced moments of this consciousness.

I would venture to say that among us are also some who are in constant conscious realization.

yajvan
26 March 2008, 12:24 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

I thought to post another 'original thought' - i.e. original to me. See what you think.

Many talk about this universe coming to an end, pralaya ( prālāyā or prAlAyA) - A re-absorbtion.

For some reason the notion that all of the universe comes back to a point and is absorbed back into the Absolute.

My notion or 'flash' was , the universe just keeps on expanding. Since akasha (AkASa) or pure space has no end and is infinite, of what need is there to re-collect all the matter and energy that is here today. There is no housekeeping needed. Surely Siva has no need for this...

So this universe continues to expand to such an extent that by pure distance all things finally come to a halt in a zillion billion zillion years, a resting pace, a place of balance and same-ness ( sama); It is then up to Siva to decide to take this matter-energy back, but there is no 'physics-need' to do so. It is up to His free will some call this svatantrya, otherwise all this matter and energy returns back to the state of akasha all by it self as the entropy, energy, gravity-and-attraction has gone to zero.

Well then what happens? Siva creates again.. another 'puff of creation¹' comes from Him and the process starts again.
Then one can ask, how many 'puffs of creation are in front of us that came a zillion billion zillion years ago and is now slowed to stop and being re-absorbed, or just left alone, going back to its most steady-state of akasha.
O------------------>O--------------------->O--------------->O.... etc.

The O ( fullness, bhuma) is creation manifesting, coming into being; the dashes is time in zillions -billions-googles of years.

Another original thought ...if I may - this is my daughters.

When my daughter was 5 years old, I gave her a watch , and was hoping to teach her the concept of time... She was not much interested in time even to this day, 20 years later.

So, I asked her, Well Sarah, what time is it? She looked at the watch and had to pause, she then replied, it's NOW.
For me, a most profound observation of the truth. What do seconds, minutes and days we count measure? That of Now, of the Infinite. We keep count of how much 'Now' has passed by.
'Now' will never end , even if the universe comes to an end, and even it it never re-emerges, it will always be now, and my daughter innately felt 'Now' as the most natural state of time.


pranams

1. Some call this rest and activity of creation umesa and nimesa - the opening and closing of Siva's eyes - expansion and absorption. This is the greatness of MaheSvara.

devisarada
26 March 2008, 12:55 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

As they say "out of the mouths of babes...."

Your daughter Sarah really was on to something. It is shame that we often lose our easy access to this direct perception as we become covered by the veneer of so-called "maturity". I believe that we all need to rediscover this child like quality.

devotee
27 March 2008, 07:07 AM
Namaste devisarada,


Indeed, the Supreme Reality is beyond mind.
Formlessness itself is also a conceptual limitation. This is what Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa realized.
Brahman is beyond form and formlessness, beyond gender, beyond time, beyond attributes.
Brahman is "neti, neti" Brahman just is.
Worshipping a form of Brahman or Brahman as formless, are both parts of the path to enlightenment.
When one is in constant realization that Brahman simply Is; when one constantly experiences the presence of Brahman in every thing, every sound, every feeling, etc.; when one constantly experiences that "Soham"; then one will have achieved the goal.
Descartes statement "cogito, ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am", did not go far enough. What he should have simply said is: "I am."
Here among us in HDF Puri, are many who have experienced moments of this consciousness.
I would venture to say that among us are also some who are in constant conscious realization.

Thanks for a nice post ! What you say is absolutely right ! Yes, "formlessness" is as good a mental concept as "form" ... both are within the realm of mind ... and Reality is neither. That is exactly what the scriptures say.

My answer was pertaining to Satay's this statement, "I no longer believe that God has no names, no attributes or is a concept and creation of our minds." and so my emphasis in that post was more on the "form" & its limitations & therefore there was slighly poor selection of words. Thanks for pointing that out. :)

Regards

devisarada
27 March 2008, 07:23 AM
Pranam Devotee,


Thanks for the kind words.

My intention was not to "point out" any flaws in what you said, rather, I wanted to expand on the thought that you had started. I enjoy reading your posts.

yajvan
27 March 2008, 12:20 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Yes, "formlessness" is as good a mental concept as "form" ... both are within the realm of mind ... and Reality is neither.


Namaste devotee (et.al)

Yet this formless takes form again and again, yes?

Lets consider a flame, the first flame or agni¹. Lets say this is a really big flame, a camp fire with lots of energy and light.

Now from this fire, we take a candle and light it from the camp fire. We essentially passed the light from the fire to the candle. We now take that candlelight and pass it to another and another… untill there are millions.

In each case the original light from the Source is passed on to each candle. The Divine passing on its prAkaSa (light of consciousness) to each being. Yet there is no seperation/difference from the original to the candles as I see it. But we see a candle or millions of them.

Formless becoming form. Just an analogy, but at times helps one consider how this pure consciousness may be considered, as we are not too good with formless. This is also seen in murti's or mUrti (from mur to encompass, entwine , bind together) we find in our mandirs, yes? THe mUrtis bind the formless to a form we can adore.


http://bp1.blogger.com/_poozp2TeXhg/R-vHWipGNqI/AAAAAAAAA-U/5B79UR8rsRA/s320/Yagya3-1.jpg (http://bp1.blogger.com/_poozp2TeXhg/R-vHWipGNqI/AAAAAAAAA-U/5B79UR8rsRA/s1600-h/Yagya3-1.jpg)

ॐनमःिशवाय


pranams

1. Many think this agni is Rudra-Siva. Some think it is Visnu . Personally, I see both as the Supreme Presence, or Cosmic Being, permeating every thing.
From the Rudra-Adhyaya also called Satarudriya
yo rudro agnau yo apsu ya oṣadhīṣu
yo rudro viśvā bhuvanāviveśa
tasmai rudrāya namo astu
-or-
That Rudra who is in fire, who is in water, who is in (medical) herbs,
that Rudra who has entered all the worlds,
to that Rudra be prostration.

devotee
28 March 2008, 10:04 AM
Namaste devisarada,


My intention was not to "point out" any flaws in what you said, rather, I wanted to expand on the thought that you had started. I enjoy reading your posts.

Thanks for your nice words. I too like reading your posts. :)

Regards

devisarada
28 March 2008, 10:10 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

Your explanation of the divine flame, and how spiritual light passess from one to another, is just one more example of your beautiful writing skills and your depth of understanding.

devotee
28 March 2008, 10:15 AM
Namaste yajvanji,


Lets consider a flame, the first flame or agnią. Lets say this is a really big flame, a camp fire with lots of energy and light.

Now from this fire, we take a candle and light it from the camp fire. We essentially passed the light from the fire to the candle. We now take that candlelight and pass it to another and another… untill there are millions.

In each case the original light from the Source is passed on to each candle. The Divine passing on its prAkaSa (light of consciousness) to each being. Yet there is no seperation/difference from the original to the candles as I see it. But we see a candle or millions of them.

A very good example ! However, may I express it this way ? :-

" The fire (source) is fire but candles are also fire. Their "existence" as candles is only under the influence of Maya. They attain their true nature (their fire-nature) once the blinding Maya is removed by the grace (energy) of the source ( i.e the big fire)".

Regards

yajvan
28 March 2008, 10:25 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste yajvanji,

A very good example ! However, may I express it this way ? :-

" The fire (source) is fire but candles are also fire. Their "existence" as candles is only under the influence of Maya. They attain their true nature (their fire-nature) once the blinding Maya is removed by the grace (energy) of the source ( i.e the big fire)".

Regards

Very nice... the value of HDF is to connect new neurons and new ideas.
Thank you for this POV.

pranams

Ganeshprasad
28 March 2008, 07:09 PM
Pranam

Just a thought what is the purpose of all this?

How does formless assume form and then claim to be formless.

How can nirguna have thought, I assume this is where original thought arises.

These thoughts just don’t go away

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
28 March 2008, 09:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Pranam

Just a thought what is the purpose of all this?

How does formless assume form and then claim to be formless.

How can nirguna have thought, I assume this is where original thought arises. These thoughts just don’t go away

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad,

The Manduka Upanishad says, the Purusha alone is all that exists. (Canto 2.1.10)
It then goes on in 2.2.1 - In Him is centered all that moves, breathes and winks. Know this as what is all that has form and that is formless which is to be adored by all, which is beyond the reach of man's knowledge and the highest of all.



For me and my POV on this, all is composed of the Formless ( Brahman), there is no-thing that is not fully IT. Yet we see form. We see this form, this boundary due to us ( me only perhaps) that does not see the interconnectedness of all things via my eyes. This is a real experience say the wise , and attested by a few people I have met. That the 'glue' of everything this madhu¹, this honey, that interconnects ( some have called this infinite correlation) is a real experience one can have.


pranams

1. From the Brihadaranyaka, Madhu Brahmana, part of the Madhu Kanda.

devotee
29 March 2008, 04:17 AM
Namaste Ganeshprasad,


Just a thought what is the purpose of all this?
How does formless assume form and then claim to be formless.
How can nirguna have thought, I assume this is where original thought arises.
These thoughts just don’t go away


Let me express my POV :

1. What is the purpose of all this ? ==> We are accustomed to think that there must be some purpose of anything & everything. Whatever we see, experience, whatever is happening is all due the Nature of the Supreme Being. There is no purpose involved, IMHO. However, if we want to see it all connected with some "purpose', I will say, " Action is better than "No-Action". It is also popularly reffered to as "Leela" ( means a "drama" for the purpose of entertainment).

2. How does formless assume form and then claim to be formless ? ===> Formless can assume form & that is quite simple. Matter ( form ) can be converted into energy (formless) & vice-versa. I think your question goes even deeper than that. It is perceived as "form" & yet it is "formless", right ? That is both the possibiliies seen simultaneously !

The form is completely dependent on the nature of mind. In fact, there is neither "form" nor "formlessness". I have explained myself this dilemma with the following example :

When you see a man, you perceive a solid structure without any gap therein. Now let's see the same man with the help of x-rays. Then man disappears & what is seen is just a skeleton. That shows that the structure of man what we see with our ordinary eyes is mainly due to limitations of our eyes & mind to see things which are "seen" by using visible range of light. If we would had the capability of "seeing" with x-rays, we would have seen only the skeleton & not the man. So, what is the strutcure of the man, "skeleton" or "the complete human body as we see" ? Neither. Because there is no direct perception of things ... our perception is dependent on the limitations of our sense organs, mind etc.

We can take another example. Say, we see a rock. If we "see" the molecular structure of the rock we find that the seemingly solid rock is full of space & there is very little matter inside. Let's move further & see the same rock at atomic/sub-atomic structure level. We find that 99.99 % of the rock is really space & there is hardly anything which can be called solid. Science has not been able to go beyond that but if we can find some means to go even beyond quarks & anti-quarks there is every possibility that we may find that the whole rock was nothing but space !

So, is rock solid or just space ? Neither !

3. How can nirguna have thought ? Again you are seeing things in your conditioned way i.e. through mind. Mind tells you that Nirguna is like this & not that ..... can have thought/cannot have thought etc.

It is not like that. Nirguna is just Neither ... Neti-Neti. It is beyond all we know or we can know.

Regards

OM

Ganeshprasad
29 March 2008, 10:51 AM
Pranam Yajvan ji, Devotee ji and all

Thank you for your reply, I have no desire to debate this subject, I was merely expressing my thoughts, the thought that sprout from this wretched mind, I know its limitation and its vivid imagination. How can I operate beyond my condition way? Confined in a particular environment I can not, but operate within this boundaries.

Question is how does one reach that is, as yajvanji quotes, which is beyond the reach of man's knowledge and the highest of all.

B.G 13.
He is the perceiver of all sense objects without the senses; unattached, yet the sustainer of all; devoid of the Gunas, yet the enjoyer of the Gunas.
He is inside as well as outside all beings, animate and inanimate. He is incomprehensible because of His subtlety. He is very near as well as far away.

Jai Shree Krishna