Relationship between Atma(spirit) and the Body. [Archive]

saidevo

07 August 2008, 10:10 PM

Namaste Nirotu.

Just occurred to me! What is the relationship between Atma and manifested material body? Here is my point! Advaitins do seem to claim non-reality of the matter and its derivatives. Obviously, this lends itself to a conclusion that Atma alone is real without any attachment or relationships. If it is so, why at death the Atma that is liberated does get reincarnated? Why does it have to bear the burden of sins of material body even after being liberated?

Your fundamental premise is wrong. Atma is NOT LIBERATED at death of the physical body: it simply goes to live in its astral body; on death of the astral body it gets into its mental body and resides in the heavens to enjoy the fruits of good karma.

The cycle of death and rebirth is between these three bodies: physical, astral and mental. Liberation is the status where the Atma is able to shed all these three bodies as concomitant for its existence. Jivan Muktas experience the status of MokSha even while living in their physical bodies: their physical bodies might have shortcomings but their astral and mental bodies are pure, without the stain of karma, and this is why they attain MokSha or Liberation at death of the physical body.

Layers upon layers of material and karmic scum have accumulated in manifest Creation, over the cycles of yugas of time, upon the omnipresent and infinite substratum of Atman that is Brahman. Brahman's Universal Consciousness shines more or less through these pseudo-infinite, discrete units of material and karmic accumulations depending on their density of accretion. The problem is that like robots with A.I. these units pick up the distortions of the reflected Universal Consciousness, acquire individual selves and lead a life of their own, like the images on a movie screen. The units that are fed up with such life, seek the substratum and realize it, calm down into the pure white essence of bliss and are liberated.

nirotu

08 August 2008, 03:15 PM

Hari oṁ
~~~~~

Namaste nirotu (et.al)

The answer to your question can be found in the Mundakopaniṣad (along with many other śāstras and agamas).
Canto 3, valli 2, śloka-s 4 ,5 and 6.

The 4th śloka says ...and then his SELF enters into Brahman.

The 5th śloka says,
When the sage has attained the ātman they become satisfied with their knowledge ( j�āna-triptaḥ) their purpose is fulfilled; they become free from desire and are tranquil. Having attained the all-pervading ātman on-all-sides, and devoted to the SELF, they enter into everything ( i.e. Brahman).

The 6th śloka says,
...having purified their minds they attain the world of Brahman and at the time of death become fully liberated.

Nirotu, all has been accomplished , there is no motive or need to return to this level of existence.

The 8th sloka says the following
Just as the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing thier name and form, so also the seer freed from name and form go to the Divine who is greater than that great i.e. Brahman.

Yet if one wishes to know more about what happens after death then one must read what death, Yamarāja, has to say; for this you can review the Kathopaniṣad

pranams
Thank you, Yajavan. Perhaps, we can explore it a bit.

It seems to me from what you cite here is that the condition of liberated Atman is very much dependent upon the knowledge (Jnana). Aren�t you making the �truth� more of a result of perfect theological understanding than the experience of a deeper moral life? What about those who have no knowledge through books yet have their soul immersed in God? What about sudden transformations or conversion of spirit from among seemingly commonplace souls with astonishing elevation among men who have never learned morals from any outside source?

I would very much like to believe that the liberated Atman never redirected into another material manifested body. I do believe that liberated souls sometime smile at the irrelevance of the anxious questionings about the ceremonial propriety which worry those in the lower stage of life! But if reincarnation is true, then Atma must have some relationship that cannot be wished away even after liberation, not from Sages but, from ordinary souls like mine!

Blessings,

nirotu

08 August 2008, 03:18 PM

Namaste Nirotu.
Your fundamental premise is wrong. Atma is NOT LIBERATED at death of the physical body: it simply goes to live in its astral body; on death of the astral body it gets into its mental body and resides in the heavens to enjoy the fruits of good karma.

The cycle of death and rebirth is between these three bodies: physical, astral and mental. Liberation is the status where the Atma is able to shed all these three bodies as concomitant for its existence. Jivan Muktas experience the status of MokSha even while living in their physical bodies: their physical bodies might have shortcomings but their astral and mental bodies are pure, without the stain of karma, and this is why they attain MokSha or Liberation at death of the physical body.

Layers upon layers of material and karmic scum have accumulated in manifest Creation, over the cycles of yugas of time, upon the omnipresent and infinite substratum of Atman that is Brahman. Brahman's Universal Consciousness shines more or less through these pseudo-infinite, discrete units of material and karmic accumulations depending on their density of accretion. The problem is that like robots with A.I. these units pick up the distortions of the reflected Universal Consciousness, acquire individual selves and lead a life of their own, like the images on a movie screen. The units that are fed up with such life, seek the substratum and realize it, calm down into the pure white essence of bliss and are liberated.
Thank you, Saidevo for that beautiful presentation. I cannot agree more on that. That said, I like to caution that I(we) need to be little careful with play of words, especially the context to which my post was referring to. What I mean by liberation is only from physical human package! That five foot ten inch frame of a body is no longer living or breathing. I am referring to its relationship with the Atma upon liberation from that mortal body.

If I may belabor the point, I see how beautifully the Dvaita has been outlined in your response! Your reference to the veiling power of �layers of material�, �Karmic scum� point to Dvaita state we are all in. From an Advaitic standpoint this scum may not have any reality but it sure has the power to veil the Atma. That I call the reality of �Dvaita�.

Blessings,

yajvan

08 August 2008, 04:45 PM

Hari Oṁ
~~~~~

Thank you, Yajavan. Perhaps, we can explore it a bit.

It seems to me from what you cite here is that the condition of liberated Atman is very much dependent upon the knowledge (Jnana). Aren’t you making the “truth” more of a result of perfect theological understanding than the experience of a deeper moral life? What about those who have no knowledge through books yet have their soul immersed in God? What about sudden transformations or conversion of spirit from among seemingly commonplace souls with astonishing elevation among men who have never learned morals from any outside source?

I would very much like to believe that the liberated Atman never redirected into another material manifested body. I do believe that liberated souls sometime smile at the irrelevance of the anxious questionings about the ceremonial propriety which worry those in the lower stage of life! But if reincarnation is true, then Atma must have some relationship that cannot be wished away even after liberation, not from Sages but, from ordinary souls like mine! Blessings,

Namaste nirotu,

Recall your question was about the individul, the ātman of the liberated returning to this plane of existence. The śloka-s offered from the Upaniṣads clearly infom us there is no return, hence part one of the initial inquiry has been addressed.

Regarding Knowledge
I see your point and can understand your orientation. Let me see if I can add a few ideas before going deeper. It is not unusual to confuse 'knowledge' with book knowledge (even the vedas!). The knowledge that is captured in the śloka-s offered in my post is jñāna svarūpa - knowledge as essence, pure consciousness, pure Brahman.

Hence mukti = Brahman realization = full knowledge = pure knowledge = jñāna svarūpa.
Pure Consciousness is the essence of all knowledge, therefore it is considered full, complete, without a blemish, stainless. When a person is established in this consciousness it is said full knowledge occurs.

Why so? Because the seer, the object being seen and the method of seeing are all one , together without duality. There is nothing left to inspect as the fullness of the knowledge is experiential as one's own SELF ( not outside of one's experience).

Hence it is called the only complete way to know something in its Fullness ( bhuma); it is beyond book knowledge as you can see. Books are within duality; there is me and the book and oh by the way the method of percieving the book. This is no longer the case when one is established in Brahma Sakshtkara ( Self Realization) some like to call turiyatit chetana (sustained turya).

Happy to go further, yet these principles above are key.

pranams

saidevo

08 August 2008, 11:05 PM

Namaste Nirotu.

Thank you for appreciating and concurring with my expression of one facet of the Truth.

Yes, I agree that the term 'liberation' has different layers of meanings, one of which is ending the slavery of the soul to a physical body. Interestingly, the term 'liber' refers to a 'book' (its plural is 'libri', hence 'library'). 'Liberal arts' originally meant the subjects in the seven liberal arts of the Middle Ages--'trivium' (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and 'quadrivium' (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music). Thus liberation was the venture of making people equal in social status, economy and rights, by exposing them to the knowledge of these subjects.

In Sanatana Dharma, as Yajvan has pointed out very well, the knowledge obtained by a soul is not the 'bookish knowledge' even of the Vedas, but the realization of the Self, the pure knowledge which is the essence of consciousness, and getting established in that Self. This is obviously possible, and the birthright, of every soul (JIva); it is obtained not by looking at with physical eyes and processing the inputs with the mind but by looking in and through the mind with the inner eyes of the Buddhi or wisdom and finding the AtmA or the Self at the core that enlightens everything. To the extent this realization is done, the external, bookish knowledge is easily obtained by just tuning in to the source.

I would very much like to believe that the liberated Atman never redirected into another material manifested body. ... But if reincarnation is true, then Atma must have some relationship that cannot be wished away even after liberation, not from Sages but, from ordinary souls like mine!

The terms 'Atman', 'AtmA' and 'Brahman' are identical in Hinduism: they all refer to the Absolute Reality which is essentially Universal Consciousness. Individual souls are referred to by the term 'JIva'.

In the Advaidic sense, Brahman stands ever liberated because he is substratum and the world is only a mAyAvic projection over the Reality of Brahman. In the Dvaidic sense, Brahman is never liberated completely, perhaps only briefly after Pralaya, because the cycles of Creation are also eternal.

Your likely belief that the liberated soul (JIva) is never redirected into another material manifested body, advocates the Christian concept of one life, one death and then eternal heaven or hell: Souls that leave the physical body rest in an unknown destination until the Judgment Day; they never reincarnate.

'If reincarnation is true', then the JIva 'must have some relationship that cannot be wished away even after liberation' from physical body, for 'ordinary souls like mine!'

This perception is also based on the unrealistic Christian concept that the soul becomes either irrevocably virtuous or irredeemably sinful at death of the physical body. It cannot be so. A human soul that leaves its physical body is exactly the same as it was at the time of death, in its 'personality', according to the Hindu and Theosophical concept, which is far more realistic.

The human soul is covered by layers and layers of karma and vAsanas of previous births. While the fruits of good karma are experienced in the 'heaven' through the mental body, the 'fruits' of bad karma can be experienced only through a physical body, which is why souls reincarnate.

What about the astral body? Built up of our lower emotions, this is the storehouse of our vAsanas. When the human soul leaves its last physical body, it is aghast at its inability to experience the pent-up emotions, so it roams about the astral world, which for all practical purposes, is the 'hell' it has made for itself!

Because the soul is more desperate to experience its pent-up emotions, Theosophists like Bishop Leadbeater advocate abolition of capital punishment even to hardcore criminals; the legal system, in their opinion must try to 'educate' even such souls and allow them to have their natural death, by which time their emotions might well have run their course.

Upon death of the astral body, the soul gets into its mental body and enjoys the fruits of good karma. When these are finished, the soul has to descend to experience its left over karma and vAsanas. For this purpose, the divine forces (devas, angels) in the divine hierarchy shape up a new astral body and then when the time is come, a new physical body for the soul to experience the karmic balance.

If there is no bad karma left over, there would be no more concomitant physical/astral body, so no further reincarnation.

atanu

09 August 2008, 05:12 AM

saidevo

09 August 2008, 07:21 AM

Namaste Nirotu.

If I may belabor the point, I see how beautifully the Dvaita has been outlined in your response! Your reference to the veiling power of 'layers of material', 'Karmic scum' point to Dvaita state we are all in. From an Advaitic standpoint this scum may not have any reality but it sure has the power to veil the Atma. That I call the reality of 'Dvaita'.

An Advaitin does not deny the practical reality of Dvaita, however temporal it might be; or else he/she would not be worshipping Brahman in the form of Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Shanmukha, Shakti, Lakshmi, Sarasvati and so on. However, an Advaitin knows that such worship and his/her worldly life based on dharma are only niyamic steps in the inward journey of Self-Realization.

The Reality of Dvaita is the reality of a car perceived differently by different people: to a rider of the car, its reality is a vehicle, plush, cool, and comfortable inside, elegant and pleasing to the senses, specially the visual sense on the outside.

To a driver, the reality of a car comprises its steering wheel, clutch, gears, the dashboard with its light, horn and other controls, the glove compartment, fuel tank, the wiper on the windscreen, the sun-shades and the wheels and tyres.

The mechanic looks at a deeper reality of the car: to him, the brakes are northing more than the pedal, the fluid that transmits the foot pressure on the brake pedal, the lines and leverage and so on. Tyres are just rubber in the form of a tube and an outer coverage filled with air. In his perception, a car is more real in its carburetor and engine.

A mechanical engineer who designs the car and the scientist who is concerned with the laws and principles of physical science to design more efficient and comfortable cars look at still deeper realities of the car.

So what is the ultimate reality of a car? Can every user know about it? Should it be impossible to first know about it and then effectively use the knowledge it in daily life, if a user is really intent on seeking it?

This is the case with every instance of manifestation in Dvaita: layers of superficial, temporal realities that 'veil' the abstract reality underneath. In the Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) of computers, different perceptions of realities are 'abstracted' (selected out), 'packed' into 'classes', and suitably 'exposed' using simulated real world 'objects' for the user that are driven by a deeper layer of programming objects used in the software.

The Advaidic Reality of Absolute Truth of Consciousness is the only Reality that drives all the superficial, temporal, and conditional realities of Dvaita. This Absolute Reality does not just lurk inert inside, but shines and radiates its nature all through with all its power. As it shines, the reflections of its light of knowledge and consciousness in different layers of matter create units of temporarily localized intelligence that we call the individual selves, souls, or JIvas.

Most humans swim and surf and sail on the ocean and think that they know all about the ocean. Small fish stay at the superficial levels of the ocean and think that there is all to it. Whales live in deeper levels and know more about the reality of the ocean. Oysters realize the pearl of the pure reality and preserve it for the world. Beings that live at the floor of the ocean know of nothing more than the bliss and peace, which is the ultimate reality of the ocean.

atanu

09 August 2008, 11:48 AM

From an Advaitic standpoint this scum may not have any reality but it sure has the power to veil the Atma. That I call the reality of “Dvaita”.

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

I hope you will be able to accept that this veiling is from you or my mind's standpoint. You or me, do not know Atma's viewpoint since you and me, do not know the atma, which does not care to declare to the universe "Hey folks, see, I am not deluded". :blah: Advaita merely points this out.

But, IMO, you put this simple point beneath the carpet again and again, since you have a deeply etched bias. You impose a view point of ignorant mind upon the Atma, and then believe that the imposition has blinded the Atma. It is for the mind to find out, for its own joy, that atma is mind's master, is immortal and is ever free, since it is one and thus without any foe and fear.

Om

nirotu

11 August 2008, 03:40 PM

Namaste Nirotu,

I hope you will be able to accept that this veiling is from you or my mind's standpoint. You or me, do not know Atma's viewpoint since you and me, do not know the atma, which does not care to declare to the universe "Hey folks, see, I am not deluded". :blah: Advaita merely points this out.

But, IMO, you put this simple point beneath the carpet again and again, since you have a deeply etched bias. You impose a view point of ignorant mind upon the Atma, and then believe that the imposition has blinded the Atma. It is for the mind to find out, for its own joy, that atma is mind's master, is immortal and is ever free, since it is one and thus without any foe and fear.
Om

Dear Atanu.

I am bit surprised by the way you try to establish supremacy based solely on scriptural reference by taking it in isolation. First of all, please pay attention to where I am approaching from. From a very theoretical point of view, every thing you say is correct but when you approach it from a standpoint of �creation�, which to me is real, the meaning differs. Here again, I hope, I am trying to present my views without assuming adversarial role.

In creation, a �human package� has come into being that consists of mind and body and in that there is a spark of consciousness that exists called �Atma�. This unit of consciousness (pure and self-luminous) is buried under the veils of matter and is released (liberated may be a wrong choice of word!) upon death. Unlike your understanding, this Atma is individualized by this human package. It assumes the identity of that package, which in turn colors it with different level of consciousness. That is why we have packages like Ramana Maharishi, Buddha, Jesus Christ etc, when compared to you and me.

Thus, the �Atma� is not contaminated (tainted may be a wrong choice of word) or blinded (like you want to call it) but buried or masked under the veils of mind (matter). Just as when you come out of a swamp, you may think you are out of it but, the stench lingers on. Thus, if re-incarnation is true, the released �Atma� has not been able to shake it off and therefore, revisits another human package.

If you believe in re-incarnation then you must accept the fact that there must be a driving force (call it Karma) that brings the �Atma� to re-incarnate. That is because, the freed Atma (free from any residual karma) must not re-incarnate! Here, there is no perception of mind or �Avidya� but simply the affirmation that re-incarnation does take place. Thus, such a notion implies �avidya� must be real.

If Brahman is self-luminous consciousness, untouched and undefiled, why should the Brahman get obstructed or covered by AvidyA? If you consider that to be only false impositions of ignorant mind it should be clear that these impositions go away upon release at death. On the other hand, if you believe in re-incarnation theory, the buried Atma attempts shake-off impositions, which is a clear sign that Avidya is real.

If you affirm re-incarnation takes place, then the imposing �Avidya� must be real! Don�t you think so? If it is real, no amount of knowledge is able to remove it but knowledge only serves to disclose it.

Blessings,

saidevo

12 August 2008, 12:18 AM

Namaste Nirotu.

You have presented your ideas with more clarity of thought and expression. For instance, I notice that you have used the word 'released' (instead of 'liberated') and ('contaminated' instead of 'tainted').

My impressions on your key ideas here:

From a very theoretical point of view, every thing you say is correct but when you approach it from a standpoint of “creation”, which to me is real, the meaning differs. Here again, I hope, I am trying to present my views without assuming adversarial role.

This puts Advaita in the realm of 'possible reality' and Dvaita in the realm of 'practical reality'. This in other words is that, Advaita is experienced only from the point of view of the Atman (Self), how many Jivas (selves) have realized the Atman, so Dvaida is more practical reality, since it has come into existence by Creation.

Firsly, you would agree that something can be eternally real only if it is unchanging. Are the manifestations of Dvaita so unchanging, even during their conditional, temporal reality?

Secondly, if Advaita is only a theoretical reality, where is the Dvaita gone in deep sleep? Where are the Personal Gods, their army of Devas/angels, the opposing forms of evil forces and so on, gone in that state? And deep sleep is a state every human experiences daily, without any sAdhana!

Thirdly, the state of Advaitic unity, peace and bliss is experienced by every one of us between one breath and another; between one thought and another; at dawn and dusk; and in the interval between any dualistic vibration that is systaltic-diastolic in nature. Surely, our experiencing that state in units of micro and nano time does not rule out its practical existence?

Anything that is cyclic is dual in manifestation but trinal in nature to complete the cycle where the opposites of duality merge. This is why even the most primitive divine sound AUM, the Word, has three parts, the silence of 'M' linking and sinking the duality of 'A' and 'U'. The linking third part is the Advaitic sum total of the other two: like Shiva and the Holy Ghost in the Hindu and Christian Trinity. And the sum total of the three parts is Brahman, the Advaitic Unity of Existence, Consciousness and Bliss.

Unlike your understanding, this Atma is individualized by this human package. It assumes the identity of that package, which in turn colors it with different level of consciousness. That is why we have packages like Ramana Maharishi, Buddha, Jesus Christ etc, when compared to you and me.

Saying that AtmA is 'individualized' by the 'human package' is akin to saying that a beam of light is individualized by the darkness surrounding it. If I light up just one pixel on the computer screen I see only one dot; if I light up a pattern of dots, I can bring up a letter; if I fill up whole matrix of dots with shades of light, I get a colorful picture. In all these sofware-created 'packages' of light, there is only one thing that unites them all and stays constant: the formless light. Even the purest, primitive, Omkara sound is known only through the form of a word, AUM, whereas light for ever stays primitive, divine and white, though its sheen is diluted, distorted or hidden by layers of matter.

'Packages' like RamaNa Maharshi, Buddha and Jesus Christ have seen and experienced the self-illuminating source of light, unlike the rest of us, and this is the only difference between us and them.

If Brahman is self-luminous consciousness, untouched and undefiled, why should the Brahman get obstructed or covered by AvidyA? If you consider that to be only false impositions of ignorant mind it should be clear that these impositions go away upon release at death. On the other hand, if you believe in re-incarnation theory, the buried Atma attempts shake-off impositions, which is a clear sign that Avidya is real.

If you affirm re-incarnation takes place, then the imposing “Avidya” must be real! Don’t you think so? If it is real, no amount of knowledge is able to remove it but knowledge only serves to disclose it.

I think you are correct in your statement in the second paragraph above that knowledge only serves to disclose AvidyA, not remove it. But the statement that AvidyA hides JnAnA, knowledge because it is as real as the other one is incorrect, I think.

There is a verse in Bhagavad Gita, where Sri Krishna expounds their nature:

अज्ञानेनन आवृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः ॥ (५.१५)
ज्ञानेन तु तदज्ञानं येषं नाशितम् आत्मनः ।
तेषाम् आदित्यवज्ञानं प्रकाशयति तत्परम् ॥ (५.१६)

aj~jAnenana AvRutaM j~jAnaM tena muhyanti jantavaH || (5.15)
j~jAnena tu tadaj~jAnaM yeShaM nAshitam AtmanaH |
teShAm Adityavaj~jAnaM prakAshayati tatparam || (5.16)

In verse 5.15, Krishna says that Knowledge is enveloped by Ignorance, so Beings are deluded.

In the second verse, Krishna says, "But to those whose ignorance is destroyed by the Knowledge of the Self, Knowledge reveals the Supreme Brahman like the Sun to them.

The word 'AvRutaM' that Krishna uses here has the meanings: covered, veiled, hidden, clothed, surrounded, filled with. The 'veil' has only as much reality as a shadow! A fully transparent glass of veil transmits sunlight in full, without distorting it. If the glass is stained, it surely veils the sunlight. If the glass is cut and 'packed' into the shape of a prism it surely distorts the colorless sunlight into a sprectrum of colors!

In the case of individual selves that are projected as 'packages' on the Light of Consciousness of Brahman, the light has to come from within; the extent it can be known and seen and experienced depends on the density of the layers of veils that form the sheath of package.

How to seek the inner light through the layers of veils that continue in rebirths and is never transparent enough? Sri Krishna provides an answer in verse 10.11 of His Gita:

"Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling within their hearts, destroy the darkness born of ignorance by the luminous lamp-of-knowledge."

The compassion Krishna speaks of here is not the grace of God of Christianity that is available only those who accept Jesus as God. Of Course, Krishna says that absolute surrender to him is necessary for his grace to act, but Krishna by this statement only means surrendering to the Self and not to him as a Personal God.

Kanchi Paramacharya explains this verse thus:

"To show mercy on the bhaktAs who always sing and think only about me and melt by those acts in their hearts, I as the jnAna rUpi (form of knowledge) enter the state of mind that remains akhaNdAkAram (not fragmentary, entire, whole) and is known as AtmabhAvam (state of the soul), reach the prati-bimbam (reflection), strengthen the jnAnam and set aside (the veil) of ignorance.

"In other words, svarUpa jnAnam by itself will not set aside ignorance. It only notifies its presence. But if the same svarUpa jnAnam is reflected by the mano vRutti (mode/nature/state of mind) that results from continued experience of the state of meditation on the Vedanta Maha Vakhyas after studying and reflecting on them, that will immediately burn the ignorance. Even if the sun has the svabhAva (inherent nature) to burn cotton, it burns the cotton only when the rays touch it through a special lens!"

(Ref: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=17979&postcount=5)

(The Gita translations and explanations are from Swamy Chinmayananda, which can be read here: http://www.journeytothetruth.com/toc.pdf).

The term avidyA literally means 'not knowledge'. AvidyA, ignorance is always equated with darkness (tamasoma jyotirgamaya). Thus AvidyA like darkness is anirvchanIyam (maya, illusion, indescribable) and is beginningless (which is why the accounts of creation in most texts including Rig Veda, start with the waters of darkness). And darkness is not an entity in itself, only absence of light, AvidyA.

Finally, do we experience darkness or light in deep sleep? My idea is that we experience the pure, self-shining light of the Self but are not able to carry over the experience to our waking state.

atanu

12 August 2008, 03:14 AM

Dear Atanu.

I am bit surprised by the way you try to establish supremacy based solely on scriptural reference by taking it in isolation. -

Blessings,

Dear Nirotu,

In fact, I am surprised that you see the angle of supremacy in statement of facts? Why?

I just pointed out that the premises are different. Gita clearly says that Atma is ever untainted, na lipayate, untouched by karma. Is pointing this thing an act of claiming supremacy?

When you presume that the Atma is released or liberated, I must point out that the presumption is not valid, as per our scripture. Is that pointing out an act of claiming supremacy?

Gita definitely says that forgetfulness of one's true nature is death. Sage Ramana thus asks us to examine and find out as to who is under bondage? You cannot assume a priori that the Atma is in bondage when you or me do not know the Atma.

The continuous remembrance of the true nature of I as subtle awareness (as when a man is in deep sleep devoid of body and universe sense) in contrast to the waking and dream state awareness of "I am this body', helps to keep things in clear perspective.

"I am this body' is not true but is held to be true. Whereas "I" surely exists devoid of the body and the Universe. It is unfortunate that in Christian scripture there is nothing equivalent to Mandukya Upanishad, or there is nothing that examines the nature of the being in deep sleep state. That the "I" remains without a body and without the Universe is not even considered worth little bit of introspection.

To make a long story short, I just wish to point out that "I" is an independent entity that exists without support from the Universe and a limiting body. And this "I" is untainted pure -- of Sat guna. Forgetfulness of this is the taint of the ego which thinks "I am this body".

Atma is uncuttable and ever untainted as per Gita and Sanatana Dharma scripture. If you insist that we must put aside scripture and only consider the waking state sensual perceptions, then I do not agree. The purpose of the scripture is to awaken the mind to the Sat, beneath the apparent sensual perceptions.

Om

atanu

12 August 2008, 03:39 AM

Namaste Nirotu.
Finally, do we experience darkness or light in deep sleep? My idea is that we experience the pure, self-shining light of the Self but are not able to carry over the experience to our waking state.

Namaste Saidevoji,

Brihadaraynaka Upanishad is a beautiful upadesha on the above apparent unknowing and unknown dark state.

What can one whole see or feel? If there is nothing other than you; if there is nothing other than you to see, to smell, to hear etc, what will you see, smell or hear? Reflecting on the above, one knows the full wholeness of one's being. If there is no boundary to you then what can you see? This is the pristine pure whole being, which is always true. This is the Purusha and the light - Usha, is later than this.

The "I" exists without the body and the universe, which are dependent on the "I" and not the other way around. This is the beauty of the Upanishads -- to show the crack in understandings that are merely based on sensual perceptions.

I feel very sad that Sri Nirotu never accepts that there is immense value of meditating on the Upanishadic teachings. He never accepts that Shri Krishna actually teaches that "Atma Na Lipayate".

That full being is ever true, whatever the state of its Pragnya. And to abide, without break, in this advaita fullness of Sahaja Samadhi, is Upadesha of Shri Ramana and most Advaita masters. A man can do this much only. Rest is grace of Him who is beyond the Tamasa.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

12 August 2008, 05:33 AM

Dear Atanu.
If Brahman is self-luminous consciousness, untouched and undefiled, why should the Brahman get obstructed or covered by AvidyA?

Namaste Nirotu,

Brahman has not said that Brahman is covered by Avidya.

If you consider that to be only false impositions of ignorant mind it should be clear that these impositions go away upon release at death. On the other hand, if you believe in re-incarnation theory, the buried Atma attempts shake-off impositions, which is a clear sign that Avidya is real.

If you affirm re-incarnation takes place, then the imposing “Avidya” must be real! Don’t you think so? If it is real, no amount of knowledge is able to remove it but knowledge only serves to disclose it.

Blessings,

Here again you are presuming that Atma incarnates. In fact, Atma is unborn. It is ever untainted by the process of so-called birth. So, Shri Krishna says: Atma Na lipayate.

It is the desire of mind that incarnates and that has a name called Death. Avidya is neither real nor unreal. Like in a dark room, it is not possible to say "There is a chair" or "There is no Chair". When there is light then only a conclusion can be drawn. So, a declaration of "Atma incarnates' or 'Atma is liberated' issued from an ignorant mind has no value in the face of scriptural injunction that "Atma Na Lipayate".

Om

Sudarshan

13 August 2008, 02:52 AM

Hi folks!

Just occurred to me! What is the relationship between Atma and manifested material body? Here is my point! Advaitins do seem to claim non-reality of the matter and its derivatives. Obviously, this lends itself to a conclusion that Atma alone is real without any attachment or relationships. If it is so, why at death the Atma that is liberated does get reincarnated? Why does it have to bear the burden of sins of material body even after being liberated?

Join in!

Blessings,

Namaste nirotu,

You do bring up some thought provoking questions dont you? Nice to see that you still prefer discussing with Hindus inspite of differences of opinion.

I have studied almost systems of Hindu philosophy to some detail and have come to a point where I think no one system has all answers. Each has its good points and negative ones which is to be expected in matters that we cant verify by direct perception.

I have long asked this question to myself-

Why is there a samsAra at all because every religion in the world makes out the creator to be all knowing and all poweful. Can we say that the all powerful God uses his power only to have fun at the expense of the suffering of others?

Dualism of all kinds somehow end up saying that God is unable to/or does not want to end the suffering of all humans. If God did not create us, we had no existance. So why even bother about creating me if I cannot enjoy, Matters get even worse when religions like christianity high handedly claim that God saves only those who worship him and is not bothered with others( and even worse casts them into an eternal hell). Does this God have some inferiority complex to demand any worship from his creaiton?

After examining many similar issues I have come to the conclusion that God must view things very differently from us. The world of differences, cruelty and misery as we see it is incompatible with an all knowing and an all powerful God. The real nature of the world must be as perfect as God himself without which God must necessarily face the charges of cruelty, partiality and negligence. A perfect being can never give rise to anything( becauyse it has no needs) , and if it does so the creation must be equally perfect.

If the world's nature is different from what we see, then what is its true nature we do not know now? Christianity did not teach you the answer. Vedas teach very clearly that this universe is non different from God. Whatever that exists is God only and hence is perfect. This frees the creator from all the abive charges.

This world is like a matrix ( have you seen the film?) which has its own set of laws but it is a make believe world, and cannot be said to be absolutely real. God has created only such a world because the omnipotent lord cannot create real misery and suffering to anybody. But to know that it is a matrix you have to come out, as long as you are in you are a bound soul.

There is a final blow vedanta delivers. Whom has God put into this virtal world? No one external to himself , except the Lord himself assumed many names and forms and explored this matrix he created in various ways. The body we have is part of the matrix and not absolutely real, but the chaitanya in it who experiences the show is the Lord himself. Being perfect himself and since he knows this is not absolutely real, he is not affected.

There is even more to it if you explore the consequences of the omniscience of God. An omniscient being experiences no changes and is beyond time itself. God knows all the past, present and future so what is there that is new to God with respect to time? Creation and destruction cycles happen only from those subject to the influence of time. For the supreme Lord there is really no notion of creation at all because he is all knowing. This is why the very creation is necesarily a lower truth experienced only by those subject to the influence of time. This is the significance of ajAti vada which says nothing is ever born, How can anything be ever born from God's perspective which assumes that God is not omniscient?

Everything in the world is predestined due to the omniscience of God yet people think that they are punished or rewarded by God according to thier actions. Does not mean God does not see in advance all of the future?

Freewill is an illusion and it is only the divine will acting through you. It is the LOrd's will that prevails everywhere and everytime. To say that this person is evil or that person is good is a conditional truth. Everything happens by God's wish and the way to liberation is to fully understand this truth and submit to his wishes uncondiitonally.

Sudarshan

13 August 2008, 06:11 AM

Secondly, if Advaita is only a theoretical reality, where is the Dvaita gone in deep sleep? Where are the Personal Gods, their army of Devas/angels, the opposing forms of evil forces and so on, gone in that state? And deep sleep is a state every human experiences daily, without any sAdhana!

Does that mean that Dvaita is false because a coma patient does not see the personal gods or any dualty? No sAdhana is need to get into coma too!

Daily Deep sleep( non REM sleep) is a state of complete ignorance and the absence of knowledge in that state is not proof of the non existance of the world. I think this is a very poor example chosen by many advaitins.

Deep sleep is not moksha, not even close to it. Does a mukta/jnani see this world? The scriptures say yes. Without that imparting knowledge to others would be impossible and all knowledge would reduce to bookish knowledge. But he understands them in a way different from the unliberated/unenlightened folks.

atanu

13 August 2008, 12:09 PM

Namaste nirotu,

You do bring up some thought provoking questions dont you? Nice to see that you still prefer discussing with Hindus inspite of differences of opinion.

I have studied almost systems of Hindu philosophy to some detail and have come to a point where I think no one system has all answers. Each has its good points and negative ones which is to be expected in matters that we cant verify by direct perception.

I have long asked this question to myself-

Why is there a samsAra at all because every religion in the world makes out the creator to be all knowing and all poweful. Can we say that the all powerful God uses his power only to have fun at the expense of the suffering of others?

Dualism of all kinds somehow end up saying that God is unable to/or does not want to end the suffering of all humans. If God did not create us, we had no existance. So why even bother about creating me if I cannot enjoy, Matters get even worse when religions like christianity high handedly claim that God saves only those who worship him and is not bothered with others( and even worse casts them into an eternal hell). Does this God have some inferiority complex to demand any worship from his creaiton?

After examining many similar issues I have come to the conclusion that God must view things very differently from us. The world of differences, cruelty and misery as we see it is incompatible with an all knowing and an all powerful God. The real nature of the world must be as perfect as God himself without which God must necessarily face the charges of cruelty, partiality and negligence. A perfect being can never give rise to anything( becauyse it has no needs) , and if it does so the creation must be equally perfect.

If the world's nature is different from what we see, then what is its true nature we do not know now? Christianity did not teach you the answer. Vedas teach very clearly that this universe is non different from God. Whatever that exists is God only and hence is perfect. This frees the creator from all the abive charges.

This world is like a matrix ( have you seen the film?) which has its own set of laws but it is a make believe world, and cannot be said to be absolutely real. God has created only such a world because the omnipotent lord cannot create real misery and suffering to anybody. But to know that it is a matrix you have to come out, as long as you are in you are a bound soul.

There is a final blow vedanta delivers. Whom has God put into this virtal world? No one external to himself , except the Lord himself assumed many names and forms and explored this matrix he created in various ways. The body we have is part of the matrix and not absolutely real, but the chaitanya in it who experiences the show is the Lord himself. Being perfect himself and since he knows this is not absolutely real, he is not affected.

There is even more to it if you explore the consequences of the omniscience of God. An omniscient being experiences no changes and is beyond time itself. God knows all the past, present and future so what is there that is new to God with respect to time? Creation and destruction cycles happen only from those subject to the influence of time. For the supreme Lord there is really no notion of creation at all because he is all knowing. This is why the very creation is necesarily a lower truth experienced only by those subject to the influence of time. This is the significance of ajAti vada which says nothing is ever born, How can anything be ever born from God's perspective which assumes that God is not omniscient?

Everything in the world is predestined due to the omniscience of God yet people think that they are punished or rewarded by God according to thier actions. Does not mean God does not see in advance all of the future?

Freewill is an illusion and it is only the divine will acting through you. It is the LOrd's will that prevails everywhere and everytime. To say that this person is evil or that person is good is a conditional truth. Everything happens by God's wish and the way to liberation is to fully understand this truth and submit to his wishes uncondiitonally.

Namaste Sudarshan,

I must applaud this beautiful post. Congrats.

After examining many similar issues I have come to the conclusion that God must view things very differently from us. The world of differences, cruelty and misery as we see it is incompatible with an all knowing and an all powerful God. The real nature of the world must be as perfect as God himself without which God must necessarily face the charges of cruelty, partiality and negligence. A perfect being can never give rise to anything( becauyse it has no needs) , and if it does so the creation must be equally perfect.

I like the above the best. Lord indeed says in Gita:

3.34. Attachment and aversion for the objects of the senses abide in the senses; let none come under their sway, for they are his foes.

9.4. All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest aspect; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in them.

9.5. Nor do beings exist in Me : behold My divine Yoga, supporting all beings, but not dwelling in them, is My Self, the efficient cause of beings.

9.6. As the mighty wind, moving everywhere, rests always in the ether, even so, know thou that all beings rest in Me.

---------------------
Approximately like a screen that supports the pictures playing on it but no picture ever penetrates the screen. Neither the screen enters any picture but due to the screen alone the pictures come out living and make people cry or laugh. Lord is never an object and never abides in any object with attachment.

Om

atanu

13 August 2008, 01:39 PM

-
Daily Deep sleep( non REM sleep) is a state of complete ignorance and the absence of knowledge in that state is not proof of the non existance of the world.

Namaste Sudarshan

Partially correct only. Sat-Chid-Ananda is never missing. Sleep is not a state of ignorance except for the mind, else one would not know that one slept. Knowledge is the continuous thread that binds the states. Knowledge is the underlying greatest commonality and is Brahman. Shri Krishna thus says what is night for the ignorant is day for the yogi.

I think this is a very poor example chosen by many advaitins.

The following is the Advaita position on omniscience which is beyond sleep and which cannot be attained without knowledge of nature of sleep.

Chapter III – Adavaita Prakarana
34
One should know the behavior of the mind which, being endowed with discrimination and free from illusions is under control. The condition of the mind in deep sleep is not like that but is of a different kind.
35
The mind is withdrawn in deep sleep, but it is not so when the mind is controlled. The controlled mind is verily the fearless Brahman, the light of whose omniscience is all—pervading.
36
Brahman is birthless, sleepless, dreamless, nameless and formless. It is ever effulgent and omniscient. No duty, in any sense, can ever be associated with It.
37
Atman is beyond all expression by words and beyond all acts of the mind. It is great peace, eternal effulgence and samadhi; It is unmoving and fearless---------

So, Advaitins do not choose the example of sleep as an example of the ultimate goal. But deep sleep does provide a clue as to the real nature of a being as pure Prajna (which is hidden due to ignorant nature of sleep itself). Conscious effort to attain that state, while waking, is meditation. And reflection on the nature of deep sleep state also reveals why only the waking and dreaming states have pains but deep sleep state is never known to be painful.

The contention that Advaitins seek the dumb state of sleep is a ignorant belief of ISKCONITES and of Dattaswamy (as far as I know). As shown above, Advaita goal is the still/silent controlled unmoving mind, which is pure Sattwa. Beyond that is beyond effort. Beyond that is grace of gunatita Lord.

Om

6.25. Little by little let him attain to quietude by the intellect held firmly; having made the mind establish itself in the Self, let him not think of anything.
6.26. From whatever cause the restless, unsteady mind wanders away, from that let him restrain it and bring it under the control of the Self alone. Om

atanu

13 August 2008, 02:14 PM

On the true nature of deep sleep and the way beyond

Brihadarayanaka Upanishad

IV-iii-24: That it does not smell in that state is because, though smelling then, it does not smell; for the smeller’s function of smelling can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can smell.

IV-iii-25: That it does not taste in that state is because, though tasting then, it does not taste; for the taster’s function of tasting can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can taste.

IV-iii-26: That it does not speak in that state is because, though speaking then, it does not speak; for the speaker’s function of speaking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can speak.

IV-iii-27: That it does not hear in that state is because, though hearing then, it does not hear; for the listener’s function of hearing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can hear.

IV-iii-28: That it does not think in that state is because, though thinking then, it does not think; for the thinker’s function of thinking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can think.

IV-iii-29: That it does not touch in that state is because, though touching then, it does not touch; for the toucher’s function of touching can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can touch.

IV-iii-30: That it does not know in that state is because, though knowing then, it does not know; for the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can know.

IV-iii-31: When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell something, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something.

IV-iii-32: It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the sphere )(state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yajnavalkya instruct Janaka: This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.
--------------------

Om

atanu

13 August 2008, 02:25 PM

Relationship between Atma and the Body

Brihadarayanaka Upanishad

This self is That which has been described as �Not this, Not this�, �It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered � It never feels pain, and never suffers injury.

Om

saidevo

14 August 2008, 07:05 AM

Namaste Sudarshan.

Does that mean that Dvaita is false because a coma patient does not see the personal gods or any dualty? No sAdhana is need to get into coma too!

Falsity and Reality are always in degrees: if falsity is likened to darkness, its degress are the gray shades; similarly, the degrees of reality are the spectral colors of a ray of light. The degrees and shades of Reality merge into the Absolute Reality of Advaita, just as the spectral colors merge back into a ray of light when it emerges out of the prism.

Nirotu's opinion seems to be that the Absolute Reality of Advaita is only theoretical vis-a-vis the practical reality of Dvaita. I mentioned the state of deep sleep only to show that Advaita is also a practical reality, not to deny the practical reality of Dvaita.

A person in coma may not necessarily be in the state of deep sleep. Many doctors and researchers are of the opinion that a comatose person also dreams. In this respect, coma cannot be equated with the state of deep sleep which is absolute.

Daily Deep sleep( non REM sleep) is a state of complete ignorance and the absence of knowledge in that state is not proof of the non existance of the world. I think this is a very poor example chosen by many advaitins.

Sages like Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj have extolled the state of deep sleep, which I think is everyperson's daily mokSha. Atanu has also given the reference from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. You are right in the sense that ignorance, not realization prevails in deep sleep. Here is how deep sleep differs from mokSha: http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/bhaktimala/august98/vedantabmaug98.htm

A discussion about Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's statements is at:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18812&postcount=141

Deep sleep is not moksha, not even close to it.

As explained in the Dattapeetham link above, deep sleep repeats, mokSha does not repeat. In deep sleep the experience is one of Ananda which is not felt then and there because of the absence of Sat and Chit aspects of Self-Realization. It is my opinion that efforts of cultivating awareness in the state of deep sleep could make our dream life more profitable and make the niyamas of sAdhana easier to practice.

atanu

14 August 2008, 01:46 PM

Namaste All,

Thank you, saidevoji for the nice links. This is the best: (The knowledge - that the body of the person who is in the state of Sushupti is present - belongs to a person who is in the wakeful state. It is not the experience of the person in Sushupti. As far as he is concerned, it must be said that the body is not present.)

A few comments on nature of deep sleep follow.

Satchidananada IS, whatever anyone may say. That anyone can say anything is because of satchidananada. Brihadarayanaka starts with Asva (which only creates the quarters etc.) but it has its stable and source in the sea.

Water, which is some unknown entity, is known as liquid, ice or vapour. Similary during waking, the Atma which is not perceivable is perceived as a solid body and the universe. Same Atma is as if made of light in dream state. In shushupti it is Prajna ghana (wisdom without break) and thus does not see any other.

To know the true nature of the self, one must experience the true nature of all these three states and Mandukya Upanishad describes benefit of coming to know each state separately. For Shushupti, the following is said:

11. Prajna seated in the state of deep sleep is m, the third letter (of Om), because of his being the measure or the entity wherein all become absorbed. He who knows thus measures all this and absorbs all.

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

I feel like repeating just two paras from Brihadarayanaka Upanishad:
IV-iii-30: That it does not know in that state is because, though knowing then, it does not know; for the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can know.
IV-iii-32: It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the sphere )(state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yajnavalkya instruct Janaka: This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.
So, the deep sleep is not an ignorant state as commonly believed but actually there is nothing other than ONE SELF to know. Ignorant do not know this. They think that due to absence of mind and senses nothing is known. They forget that the Father of mind and senses is awake. Never slumbering Rudra keeps awake. How can He not know? He is the immortal knowledge. Not knowing this real nature of sleep is the real ignorance associated with deep sleep and such ignorance prevails due to non-enquiry.

It is not possible to exert any effort in deep sleep to know the real nature of deep sleep, as presence of an exerting ego is contraindicated in deep sleep. Thus, as correctly pointed out by Sudarashana, no one gets jnana by going to deep sleep. The effort must be there in the waking state through meditation on form and then on full prajna. And then leave it to God.

Yet, it is beautiful to question why in deep sleep one is not worried, though one definitely exists then. Why the waking period is often stressful? If the person in sleep and person in waking are same then worry should be same? Or else, what is that which worries in waking state? Is that worrier not the one who has decided that Atma is bonded?

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

Any other dharma other than sanatana dharma probably has nothing equivalent of : "Brahma Jigyasa Auspicious". Yet those who are specifically taught not to enter into any enquiry (there is one such injunction in Quran) because of their Rajasic-Tamasic guna predominance, usually try to agressively teach and convert others. Or they become trouble fomenting militants. IMO, a particular scripture is not at fault. It is the nature of Guna mixture that prevails. Other scriptures probably reveal only that much as is necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of a particular guna mixture.

But Upanishads contain pure honey.

Om

nirotu

14 August 2008, 03:25 PM

Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your beautiful post. For most part I do agree with you. For the purpose of discussion let me elaborate on points of disagreement.

This puts Advaita in the realm of 'possible reality' and Dvaita in the realm of 'practical reality'. This in other words is that, Advaita is experienced only from the point of view of the Atman (Self), how many Jivas (selves) have realized the Atman, so Dvaita is more practical reality, since it has come into existence by Creation. At the outset, let me clarify one simple point here. When I say theoretical, I do not imply �Advaita in theory�. No, not at all. While, I agree Advaita is of the highest reality, I am merely referring to the points being made in our discussions that are very theoretic in nature. I find, most of the arguments are based on theoretical inferences without referring much to the direct practical significance, IMO. That may be because, the perspective I come from is the �human package� in creation, which I consider real and not a perception of mind.

IMO, there are two selves in human package: lower-self (ego based I) and higher-self (non-ego based I). In creation, the spark of consciousness has manifested in human being as Atma. Many call this higher-self (Atma) as Ramana�s (I-I), Christ Consciousness etc, Thus these two selves have always been present. It is not awakening to the higher-self (as Advaitins believe) but rather moving towards the higher-self from the lower-self. The whole movement takes within the �self�. It is all because of the fact that the �Atma� exists in a created soul is not a perception but a reality. Moreover, the unit of consciousness is only a unit within the body and not continuous and homogeneous as the substratum. Therefore, for the Atma, it is not a matter of waking up to one-ness but moving to one-ness.

Secondly, if Advaita is only a theoretical reality, where is the Dvaita gone in deep sleep? Where are the Personal Gods, their army of Devas/angels, the opposing forms of evil forces and so on, gone in that state? And deep sleep is a state every human experiences daily, without any sAdhana!The dream world itself is only an illusion in the dreamer. So long as the seeker finds himself in the world, the duality seems to be always existing. Again, let me reiterate that while you do seem to recognize Dvaita in a subtle way in the manifest creation while being more emphatic on Advaita, I do recognize Advaita as highest of realities and, at the same time, give credence to Dvaita.

'Packages' like RamaNa Maharshi, Buddha and Jesus Christ have seen and experienced the self-illuminating source of light, unlike the rest of us, and this is the only difference between them and us.
That is excellent and I do agree with you. If I may add, the abnegation of lower-self in their case was evident in their entire life.

The compassion Krishna speaks of here is not the grace of God of Christianity that is available only those who accept Jesus as God. Of Course, Krishna says that absolute surrender to him is necessary for his grace to act, but Krishna by this statement only means surrendering to the Self and not to him as a Personal God. If the self recognizes itself as the Advaita-Atma and Atma recognizes itself as Brahman, then, I think, your last statement is flawed! As for your earlier statement, here is how I view it. When it comes to words like �grace� and �holy spirit� there seems to be great mis-understanding not just between different faiths but also among Christians. These words do not necessarily hold any single religious propriety and therefore it must be interpreted as universal. For example, when you read carefully Luke 11:13 �If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?� or Proverbs 3:34,�He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble�, you will get the idea that these verses do not discriminate people based on cast, religion or faith. Regardless of your faith, the Grace is there for the asking!! The only requirement is that you be humble before God!

Blessings,

nirotu

14 August 2008, 03:30 PM

You do bring up some thought provoking questions dont you? Nice to see that you still prefer discussing with Hindus inspite of differences of opinion.

dear Sudarshan:

Thanks and welcome back!

I have long asked this question to myself-
I do get the feeling that this topic is going on a tangent! Nonetheless, I would like to respond to you.

Why is there a samsAra at all because every religion in the world makes out the creator to be all knowing and all poweful. Can we say that the all powerful God uses his power only to have fun at the expense of the suffering of others? Good question! But, does anyone know the answer? The issue of pain and suffering is very complex one and I do not pretend to know the answer. The very existence of pain and suffering is more of a mystery than a problem. It is one thing to theorize about suffering when we are doing fine, but it is quite another thing to do it when we are actually suffering in pain! Having said that, I do believe there are great many lessons we can learn from those who, in spite of suffering, have brought out good in themselves and ultimately good in God! Therefore, our not knowing all of God�s good purpose for pain and suffering does not mean there are no good purposes in Him.

Matters get even worse when religions like christianity high handedly claim that God saves only those who worship him and is not bothered with others( and even worse casts them into an eternal hell). Does this God have some inferiority complex to demand any worship from his creaiton?As I understand, people have different ideas about God and also ideas about his purpose in us. However, in my view, your notion about Christianity is somewhat skewed. Nothing else is more clear to me than the verse that I read in the Bible. Hosea 6:6,�For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.� He only wants us to know Him intimately and nothing else (no amount of worship, meditation, mantra) matters to Him. If you know Him then you will do His will. That is exactly what Jesus demonstrated in His earthly life, just doing His Father�s will. Here is another very revealing verse! 1 John 2:17,�The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.� If one reads this and understands it and lives accordingly by not going along with the ways of the world (living in the world but not of the world), he will have no regret at the end of his physical life, knowing that he is already in the place of eternity.

Everything in the world is predestined due to the omniscience of God yet people think that they are punished or rewarded by God according to thier actions. Does not mean God does not see in advance all of the future?

Freewill is an illusion and it is only the divine will acting through you. It is the LOrd's will that prevails everywhere and everytime. To say that this person is evil or that person is good is a conditional truth. Everything happens by God's wish and the way to liberation is to fully understand this truth and submit to his wishes uncondiitonally.
I agree with you and, if I may point out that the act of God is conditional upon man�s free will. The question of human free-will and divine-sovereignty assume great importance in Christian view of God and man. Yes, God� s sovereign will declares what is good and what is bad, supplies souls with bodies, gives them power to employ them. Yet, when you see so much misery and suffering, it is not God that is responsible for it, but man, who has the power to work for good or evil. That I call man�s free will, which is never violated by God.

If God had forceably prevented man from sinning, man's will would not be free. Without free choice, love is impossible. God's ultimate plan is to perfect those who choose to be perfected. Only (and all) those who overcome sin and evil by choosing to live by God�s side, rather than to live for self, can enter into this perfect state. The perfecting process takes place via the interaction of our will and Divine will in opposition to Satan's will. Thus, as you have correctly said, submission to the Divine grace� of God unconditionally is the key to successful spiritual life. This is exactly what Jesus demonstrated as we read from Hebrews 5:7,�During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.� (NIV)

Blessings,

atanu

15 August 2008, 12:09 AM

Namaste Nirotu,

Though I have not been addressed, I am recording my views, since I may not be able to participate for a long period. I always sense that beneath your gentle writing is a very fixed christian hidden. On one side you say:

Good question! But, does anyone know the answer? The issue of pain and suffering is very complex one and I do not pretend to know the answer.

Then you, with utmost certainty, state your belief as the only true one as below.

It is not awakening to the higher-self (as Advaitins believe) but rather moving towards the higher-self from the lower-self.
or

He only wants us to know Him intimately and nothing else (no amount of worship, meditation, mantra) matters to Him.

I do not see much humbleness here, on the contrary, it seems that that you have a hotline to God.You are not ready to even consider the teachings of sanatana dharma with an open mind, brushing them aside as merely theoretical. As a spiritual person you should know that the theory (subtle) is a precursor to the matter (gross) and accordingly without right understanding, the submission you tout so loudly time and again is just an act of ego. Just a shade lighter than the so-called submission of some Moslems, whose religion is Islam (submission) yet some of them go about killing innocent people with bombs planted here and there. Has such cowardly act any thing to do with real submission (Islam)? Similarly, IMO, christians converting poor people, armed with money gained from business of warfare machinery, are also mere egoists and submission is not that.

Regarding all the Bible verses you provide to prove your point, I wish to point out that a reward or punishment dispensing God is an idea from within Guna Prakriti. They are surely practical, since no Sanatana Dharma scripture ever exhorts us to follow the dictates of Tamasic or Rajasic Guna Prakriti. But Sanatana Dharma scriptures do have another level. Shri Krishna teaches: "Arjuna be a yogi", which indicates that Arjuna is yet not a yogi. In the 5th Chapter of Gita, Lord says as below:

Fifth Chapter, Gita
Na kartritwam na karmaani lokasya srijati prabhuh;
Na karmaphala samyogam swabhaavas tu pravartate.
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.
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.
16. But, to those whose ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of the Self, like the sun, knowledge reveals the Supreme (Brahman).
Tadbuddhayas tadaatmaanas tannishthaas tatparaayanaah;
Gacchantyapunaraavrittim jnaana nirdhoota kalmashaah.
17. Their intellect absorbed in That, their self being That; established in That, with That as their supreme goal, they go whence there is no return, their sins dispelled by knowledge.
Vidyaavinaya sampanne braahmane gavi hastini;
Shuni chaiva shvapaake cha panditaah samadarshinah.
18. Sages look with an equal eye on a Brahmin endowed with learning and humility, on a cow, on an elephant, and even on a dog and an outcaste.
Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah;
Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.
19. Even here (in this world) birth (everything) is overcome by those whose minds rest in equality; Brahman is spotless indeed and equal; therefore, they are established in Brahman.
Na prahrishyet priyam praapya nodwijet praapya chaapriyam;
Sthirabuddhir asammoodho brahmavid brahmani sthitah.
20. Resting in Brahman, with steady intellect, undeluded, the knower of Brahman neither rejoiceth on obtaining what is pleasant nor grieveth on obtaining what is unpleasant.
Baahyasparsheshwasaktaatmaa vindatyaatmani yat sukham;
Sa brahma yoga yuktaatmaa sukham akshayam ashnute.
21. With the self unattached to the external contacts he discovers happiness in the Self; with the self engaged in the meditation of Brahman he attains to the endless happiness.
Ye hi samsparshajaa bhogaa duhkhayonaya eva te;
Aadyantavantah kaunteya na teshu ramate budhah.
22. The enjoyments that are born of contacts are generators of pain only, for they have a beginning and an end, O Arjuna! The wise do not rejoice in them.
Shaknoteehaiva yah sodhum praak shareera vimokshanaat;
Kaamakrodhodbhavam vegam sa yuktah sa sukhee narah.
23. He who is able, while still here in this world to withstand, before the liberation from the body, the impulse born of desire and anger—he is a Yogi, he is a happy man.
Yo’ntah sukho’ntaraaraamas tathaantarjyotir eva yah;
Sa yogee brahma nirvaanam brahmabhooto’dhigacchati.
24. He who is ever happy within, who rejoices within, who is illumined within, such a Yogi attains absolute freedom or Moksha, himself becoming Brahman.
I find, most of the arguments are based on theoretical inferences without referring much to the direct practical significance, IMO. That may be because, the perspective I come from is the "human package" in creation, which I consider real and not a perception of mind.

The feelings and reactions thereof are perceptions of your or mine conditioned minds but the reality is reality. Your perceptions will be known as most impractical when the truth be known to you. Before that you can only assert again and again that Advaitins do not know.

14. Neither agency nor actions does the Lord create for the world, nor union with the fruits of actions; it is Nature that acts.
15. The Lord accepts neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded.
16. But, to those whose ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of the Self, like the sun, knowledge reveals the Supreme (Brahman). --------------
The truth is that Brahman is ever rersplendent and that grace is not contingently given to some or withdrawn from some other. The ignorance has to go. And Lord clearly states that Atma Jnana is the knowledge that dispels the ignorance. He outlines the method of continuous abidance in Brahman, which you say is useless by brushing aside meditation.

Are you ever ready to open up and say that "may be I have been too closed"?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

15 August 2008, 06:31 PM

Sudarshan

16 August 2008, 01:58 AM

Namaste Sudarshan.

Sages like Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj have extolled the state of deep sleep, which I think is everyperson's daily mokSha. Atanu has also given the reference from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. You are right in the sense that ignorance, not realization prevails in deep sleep. Here is how deep sleep differs from mokSha: http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/bhaktimala/august98/vedantabmaug98.htm

A discussion about Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's statements is at:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18812&postcount=141

As explained in the Dattapeetham link above, deep sleep repeats, mokSha does not repeat. In deep sleep the experience is one of Ananda which is not felt then and there because of the absence of Sat and Chit aspects of Self-Realization. It is my opinion that efforts of cultivating awareness in the state of deep sleep could make our dream life more profitable and make the niyamas of sAdhana easier to practice.

I think we must not mix between enlghtened deep sleep and ignorant deep sleep( I have seen many people do that). The daily deep sleep is nothing but a state of swoon where a small part of the svarUpa Ananda is experienced by us, The yogic samAdhi also takes you to deep sleep ( which happens before turya is reached) which is the deep sleep state that is eulogized by the scrupture and is equivalent to residing in brahma-lOka. This is certainly not in the realm of practical experience.

There is some difference between moksha and the 'enligheened deep sleep' as moksha once attained is permanent, while shushupti is not. In the daily REM sleep AnandAnubhava is still there but it is still insignificant with the infinite bliss of Atma.

Sudarshan

16 August 2008, 02:31 AM

I agree with you and, if I may point out that the act of God is conditional upon man�s free will. The question of human free-will and divine-sovereignty assume great importance in Christian view of God and man. Yes, God� s sovereign will declares what is good and what is bad, supplies souls with bodies, gives them power to employ them. Yet, when you see so much misery and suffering, it is not God that is responsible for it, but man, who has the power to work for good or evil. That I call man�s free will, which is never violated by God.

The implications of what you have said is that God is not all knowing including the future actions of man.

Let me put a simple question to you:

A child is born. According to you, the child grows up and makes many voluntary choices in life materially and spiritually. My opinion is that there was never such a choice present to us - they are all happening only by God's will.

When a child is born we do not for eg know if he will become a doctor or an engineer. If you ask a layman he will say that it depends on how the child studies, how hard working he is etc whether he gets admission in colege etc. If you go to as astrologer he will look at the prArabdha karma and try to predict which is more likely. But what about God? Will he also say that he does not know but it depends on the actions of the child? Does that mean that God is also ignorant whether the child will go on to become a doctor, engineer etc? If you accept this, the all knowing nature of God is gone for good. This is why there can be really freewill only from the perspective of the jIva but not from that of God. Without accepting the concept of two perspectives, you can never reconcile this problem.

If God had forceably prevented man from sinning, man's will would not be free. Without free choice, love is impossible. God's ultimate plan is to perfect those who choose to be perfected. Only (and all) those who overcome sin and evil by choosing to live by God�s side, rather than to live for self, can enter into this perfect state. The perfecting process takes place via the interaction of our will and Divine will in opposition to Satan's will. Thus, as you have correctly said, submission to the Divine grace� of God unconditionally is the key to successful spiritual life. This is exactly what Jesus demonstrated as we read from Hebrews 5:7,�During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.� (NIV)

Blessings,

Who is to force whose will on whom? I have told you that the Hindu scriptures do not say that anything external to God has ever existed in reality. So how can God hate himself, or you hate yourself? These are just a big drama in the scheme of God.

God certainly does not force anything on you as long as you think you are a conditioned being and gives you enough freedom. He has given enough freedom to be an atheist, a murderer, a saint or whatever you want with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that you can only choose what he has chosen for you in this birth. Without this knowledge God is as ignorant as anyone else who has really no knowledge of what is yet to come. Why, even rishis of India will be able to say what will happen in future, so should I even speak for God?

The moment you accept predestiny from the POV of God you have to conclude that God has to be equal towards all because it is his own will that acts anytime. To say that God does not interfere with our freewill is tantamount to saying that our freewill is beyond he control and knowledge of God which virtually puts an end to the dualistic way of thinking. On the other hand if you say that God had apriori knowledge of all the misery that was to come and yet allowed it happen is illogical- because it shows him in very poor light. The only way to solve these problems is by admitting that there is only one will in the universe - that of God, this is the absolute truth. This way God has full knowledge and control over every event in the past, present and future. What we call as freewill is a conditional truth - it is true as long as you remain ignorant of the Atma.

Sudarshan

16 August 2008, 03:28 AM

Namaste Nirotu,

dear Sudarshan:

Thanks and welcome back!

I do get the feeling that this topic is going on a tangent! Nonetheless, I would like to respond to you.

I believe your topic was how the Atma is related to the body. I think I attempted to answer more with logic since you do not believe in our scriptures. So I had to take a detour to explain why any connection between Atma and the body cannot be absolutely real because God is capable of severing it in a moment's wish with his unlimited power. The apparent connection therefore is due to God's will and therefore severing the connection is also subject to his will. Of course, God will not do it for us for free - we have to undergo the right yogic sAdhana with faith and devotion and must be willing to sacrifice allluring earthy treasures. I dont understand why you try to sweep away the importance of the Hindu way of sAdhana involving shravaNa, manana and dhyAna. I think you need to be bit open minded.

Good question! But, does anyone know the answer? The issue of pain and suffering is very complex one and I do not pretend to know the answer. The very existence of pain and suffering is more of a mystery than a problem.

I would more easily admit that there is no God than to admit that some omnipotent God created such an awful world with full fore knowledge. Many atheists I have talked to told me that they just could not reconcile the world and God.

You know, in the past I would have agreed more with you. But when I shifted from mere book reading to actual practice of religion, my views have changed.

It is one thing to theorize about suffering when we are doing fine, but it is quite another thing to do it when we are actually suffering in pain! Having said that, I do believe there are great many lessons we can learn from those who, in spite of suffering, have brought out good in themselves and ultimately good in God!

Practically speaking you are right. An ordinary person making the claim that 'I am Brahman' is like the seed of the tree claiming itself to be the tree. A seed would eventually grow into a tree - this is theory. But during the process of transformation from seed to the tree it has to be mindful of its present state too. That does not mean the theory has to be totally discarded.

Therefore, our not knowing all of God�s good purpose for pain and suffering does not mean there are no good purposes in Him.

What purpose? You had no existance without God giving you an existance. Why would a perfect being create something like this? Why dont you admit God has not created anything really bad, but it is your own limitedness at this time to understand only this much!

Pain and suffering certainly make us think about God. They certainly serve a good purpose. But had God wanted so, even this was completely unnecessary. To put a mouse in a cage and asking it to beg and love you to get its freedom. Aren't you reducing God to your level with this kind of theory? This is why we have to admit that creation is something very different from what we see. To know God and his nature, you have to grow to his level - no short cuts.

As I understand, people have different ideas about God and also ideas about his purpose in us. However, in my view, your notion about Christianity is somewhat skewed. Nothing else is more clear to me than the verse that I read in the Bible. Hosea 6:6,�For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.� He only wants us to know Him intimately and nothing else (no amount of worship, meditation, mantra) matters to Him. If you know Him then you will do His will. That is exactly what Jesus demonstrated in His earthly life, just doing His Father�s will. Here is another very revealing verse! 1 John 2:17,�The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.� If one reads this and understands it and lives accordingly by not going along with the ways of the world (living in the world but not of the world), he will have no regret at the end of his physical life, knowing that he is already in the place of eternity.

We do not know him now. It is because of our unstable mind wandering here and there. We know God when we control our mind and direct it only on God. For this purpose we certainly need worship, meditation, mantra etc. You are trying to dilute religion with your kind of philosophy. A Hindu does not generally blindly believe or surrender to some unknown thing. To surrender to God you need to know him. To know him you need the yogic practice. What you are really talking about are some of the prelimnary stages in sAdhana to which I have no objection. But I request you to also go through the Hindu viewpoint more thoughtfully.

Most people talk about humility and surrender to God but little realize that they are the most arrogant people when they preach humility and surrender to others, as if God has appointed them for that purpose. They think they are capable of doing what God himself cannot do. Why are people throwing the gospel around? Are they afraid that God is unable to reach people directly? The real humble person is the one who sliently seeks the self within without expecting any rewards or honors. Those who preach others without realizing God themselves are really hypocites. It is like blind leading the blind. It is like a self taught person performing a neurourgery!

A Hindu does not preach unless he has been told to do directly by God, i.e one who has himself realized the truth.

Sudarshan

16 August 2008, 06:20 AM

Namaste,

Has Atma said that it is bonded-liberated and re-incarnated and is bearing the burden or is it an imposition? How can the mind decide whether the imposition is valid or not?

I have seen many Hindus finding great practicality in Nirotu's questions. Whereas, I see, for the last two years, the same question cropping up again and again in new incarnations and this, IMO, is pure Vedanta bashing and nothing else.

For doubters the following is cited:

Chapter 2 Gita
(22) Just as a person casts off worn-out garments and puts on others that are new, even so does the embodied soul cast off worn-out bodies and take on others that are new.

(23) Weapons do not cleave this self, fire does not burn him; water does not make him wet; nor does the wind make him dry.
(24) He is uncleavable, He cannot be burnt. He can be neither wetted nor dried. He is eternal, all pervading, unchanging and immovable. He is the same forever.
(25) He is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable and unchanging. Therefore, knowing him as such thou shouldst not grieve.

---------------------------'Unchanging' means that in truth the changing bodies do nothing to deform the spirit that is equally everywhere. The all pervading and immovable clause used by the Lord, dispels all doubts that the Atma is EKO-ONE.

Why He takes up the bodies, we do not know. But He surely does not do it to bear the burden of the body, as presumed by Shri Nirotu in his questions. Such presumptions of 'Atma in pain and in ignorance' is used very often by Vedanta hater Christians (and borrowed there from by some Hindus also -- mainly ISKCONITES). This knowledge of Atma is the very basis of removal of all pains and all doubts, but Shri Nirotu labels this knowledge as impractical and irrelevant.

Om

Nice post Atanu.

The whole experience of pain, sorrow and enjoyment is made possible by something we call Time. jIva has limited knowledge of time so it thinks that whatever it experiences is truth.

In reality, there is nothing such as past, present or future. There is only present and that is Brahman. Past and future are contained in the present from the point of view of God and hence no changes ever take place in Brahman. The world of changes is therefore an appearance which is due to the limited knowledge about time. trikAla jnAnins never percieve any changes and are absorbed in the eternal unchanging bliss of Atma,

To give an analogy, the whole of reality exists like a DVD. The DVD itself never changes. But if we play the DVD on a movie player we get the appearance of seeing a movie - but nothing ever changes on the DVD itself. The real knowledge is the whole unchanging DVD but due to the play of the Lord jIva sees the DVD through a veil of time and gets the impression of a changing world. But the changing world exists only in the mind - DVD never changes!

The Atma has never been in bondage because there is no time at the level of absolute truth. What happens if an instant of time ( i.e zero seconds) were dilated into millions and millions of years in a slow replay? That is the world. Become a sThita prajna as lord Krishna says - and overcome time. Then there is no more misery to be found anywhere. Without this knowlege, people have created very abominable versions of God who punishes and tortures people as if he had no other job to do.

atanu

16 August 2008, 10:22 AM

Nice post Atanu.

The whole experience of pain, sorrow and enjoyment is made possible by something we call Time. jIva has limited knowledge of time so it thinks that whatever it experiences is truth.

In reality, there is nothing such as past, present or future. There is only present and that is Brahman. Past and future are contained in the present from the point of view of God and hence no changes ever take place in Brahman. The world of changes is therefore an appearance which is due to the limited knowledge about time. trikAla jnAnins never percieve any changes and are absorbed in the eternal unchanging bliss of Atma,

To give an analogy, the whole of reality exists like a DVD. The DVD itself never changes. But if we play the DVD on a movie player we get the appearance of seeing a movie - but nothing ever changes on the DVD itself. The real knowledge is the whole unchanging DVD but due to the play of the Lord jIva sees the DVD through a veil of time and gets the impression of a changing world. But the changing world exists only in the mind - DVD never changes!

The Atma has never been in bondage because there is no time at the level of absolute truth. What happens if an instant of time ( i.e zero seconds) were dilated into millions and millions of years in a slow replay? That is the world. Become a sThita prajna as lord Krishna says - and overcome time. Then there is no more misery to be found anywhere. Without this knowlege, people have created very abominable versions of God who punishes and tortures people as if he had no other job to do.

Dear Sudarshan,

I am amazed at your maturity. Our heated discussions of past have been worthwhile and have borne good fruit -- for both of us.

Your DVD analogy is good. In an earlier discussion of omniscience, it suddenly struck me that how can God be not omniscient and omnipotent? Time begins from Him; so He is the creator of all that happens in time. He unfolds scene after scene, subtly before they take gross shapes. So, He is the director who knows before the scene is known to the mind and the senses.

While rummaging through my things, I have come across a small booklet called "Have you heard of four spiritual Laws?", written by Bill Bright of "Campus Crusade for Christ". The four laws are:

1. God loves you and offers you a wonderful plan for your life

2. Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life

3. Jesus Christ is man's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life

4. We must individually recieve Jesus Christ as saviour and Lord.
Regarding the last point it is said that a Christ directed life is to be adopted after discarding the Self-Directed life. Self has to be dethroned and Christ allowed to sit on the throne.

Till one knows nothing more than the ego self, the prescription is OK and the prescription appears to me to be just that -- for the beginners. Most of it is OK but are preliminary and falls way short of acute insight, characteristic of Vedanta knowledge.

For those who have throned God as the real Self, does the prescription apply? This point the Christian campaigners are not willing to even consider. They have one prescription for all.

Second point is regarding a picture in the book. It shows two separated circles, one marked as Holy God and another as Man. And the caption reads: "Man is separated". Our scriptures also state that certain actions lead to sense of separation between the ego-mind on one side and Atma on the other side. This sense of separateness is very unhappy but actually there can be no separation since God in our understanding is Vishnu -- all pervasive.

In nutshell, IMO, such campaigns represent nothing but arambha vada, but I believe that most such campaigners being not Self-Realised, retain strong ego sense and thus are are very aggressive.

And being very aggressive most such campaigners are Vedanta bashers, since they find in Vedanta more than they can offer and more than they are willing to open up to. It is the saga of Ego -- to borrow the title of a famous old thread.:)

Om

Sudarshan

17 August 2008, 03:07 AM

Dear Sudarshan,

I am amazed at your maturity. Our heated discussions of past have been worthwhile and have borne good fruit -- for both of us.

Your DVD analogy is good. In an earlier discussion of omniscience, it suddenly struck me that how can God be not omniscient and omnipotent? Time begins from Him; so He is the creator of all that happens in time. He unfolds scene after scene, subtly before they take gross shapes. So, He is the director who knows before the scene is known to the mind and the senses.

Yes I have benefitted vastly from all our heated debates in the past. I never debate to score points but only to understand the truth. Whatever I feel is correct I stick by it and I dont mind shedding any long held beleifs if I suddenly find them unacceptable.

While rummaging through my things, I have come across a small booklet called "Have you heard of four spiritual Laws?", written by Bill Bright of "Campus Crusade for Christ". The four laws are:

1. God loves you and offers you a wonderful plan for your life

2. Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life

3. Jesus Christ is man's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life

4. We must individually recieve Jesus Christ as saviour and Lord.

I accept all these laws.;)

I dont think anyone will disagree with (1). (2) is also correct at our level ( although incorrect from the absolute standpoint) - we are indeed sinful due to the accumulated kArmic baggage, and this is the reason why we do not know God yet. (3) is Ok as long as Jesus is not construed as the historical Jesus but as the 'eternal son of God' who cannot be associated with specifc times or places. Jesus is synonymous with Guru ( or Devata) of our traditions without whose grace no redemption from sins is possible. (4) is also acceptable with the definition of Jesus given above.

Regarding the last point it is said that a Christ directed life is to be adopted after discarding the Self-Directed life. Self has to be dethroned and Christ allowed to sit on the throne

The ego centric life ( self directed life) has to be dethroned and Christ ( representing the eternal Atma) has to be allowed to sit on the throne.

Till one knows nothing more than the ego self, the prescription is OK and the prescription appears to me to be just that -- for the beginners. Most of it is OK but are preliminary and falls way short of acute insight, characteristic of Vedanta knowledge.

For those who have throned God as the real Self, does the prescription apply? This point the Christian campaigners are not willing to even consider. They have one prescription for all.

Second point is regarding a picture in the book. It shows two separated circles, one marked as Holy God and another as Man. And the caption reads: "Man is separated". Our scriptures also state that certain actions lead to sense of separation between the ego-mind on one side and Atma on the other side. This sense of separateness is very unhappy but actually there can be no separation since God in our understanding is Vishnu -- all pervasive.

In nutshell, IMO, such campaigns represent nothing but arambha vada, but I believe that most such campaigners being not Self-Realised, retain strong ego sense and thus are are very aggressive.

True. As long as scripture is read like a story book without understanding the deeper meanings and supported by one's actual spiritual experiences obtained through meditation, the above conclusions are inevitable. I think all this is God's willl we will leave it to him...:)

I see only one thing missing in the christian philosophy. They accept God as holy and Satan as unholy and consider these as two eternal opposing forces. Had they even little pondered over the consequences of God's omniscience and omnipotence it does not take long to realize that the very Satan could have originated only from God and his actions can never be against God's will. Good and evil are relative and God is responsible for both and for God there is no difference between these two.

From our level Satan is a formidable force to deal with and he has the power to separate you from God( by sending you into a succession of repeated births) like the sons of Diti and Danu. To overxome this Satan, we must seek the hand of Aditi and her sons who will help us unite with God. Christianity is quite correct in many practical things...but they certainly miss the bigger picture. Maybe lmowing eveything isn't necessary to attain God after all, as long as one is steadfast in his path.

yajvan

17 August 2008, 11:31 AM

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

The last post suggested the following:

God loves you and offers you a wonderful plan for your life
Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life
Jesus Christ is man's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life
We must individually receive Jesus Christ as saviour and Lord.
I find it a bit obtuse to the knowledge that is offered in Sanatana Dharma.
- God offers us a wonderful plan - that is fine, but suggests there are 2. Myself and God. The shastras suggest there is only One.
- Man is sinful. That suggests so may be God. The greatest sin is ignorance, avidya and not moving to rid one of the mala's ( blemishes) that remedies this issue.
- Jesus is the only provision for man's sin. Based upon the definition given I can see the POV, yet different words could then be chosen. The SELF within us is the greatest guru. The physical guru is the extension of this SELF.
- Individually receive Jesus...again see the point, yet at the end of the day it is the SELF that realizes itSELF, this brings moksa.

Debating about Jesus has only brought ill-feelings here on HDF. Passions tend to rise - and I choose not to be part of the diatribe when this occurs.

That said, many of my friends are Christians - good people and I would like to surround myself with more people that exhibit the same behaviors of friendliness, honesty, faith and fairness, the world would be a better place. I think Christianity is a good religion, yet just not congruent with the principles I believe that capture the Supreme Knowledge ( anuttara).

Sanatana Dharma is rich, wealthy with knowledge, history, avatara, guru's and teachers that teach the truth; Let one choose the path that suits them - Krsna says the same , these are not my words.

pranams