PDA

View Full Version : Does science have all answers?



Pages : [1] 2

nirotu
01 August 2006, 10:19 AM
Dear all:

When we look at the history one might conclude that the greatest forces in human civilization are not nuclear weapons or massive armies, but ideas. The ideas have propelled people engaging in revolutions, wars etc, these ideas have also been very influential that have developed in the sciences. They have rocked the world with intellectual revolutions.

Ideas have evolved in which creativity is deemed constructive as well as destructive. The development of science can be viewed from both perspectives. I believe greatest revolution in science took place with the invention of “plow machine” that put humankind on a different level. Man began to cultivate land and develop new ideas about using land for food. Since then, we credit many of our blessings to the results of science all shaped by simple ideas.

Along the lines, we theists have begun to understand God a little better through science. Yet, science is not fully adequate when it comes to explaining the nature of God. It is because we have developed ideas in our mind that objectivity is crucial in determining the truth in anything that is seen in this universe, which is believed to be accomplished through Science and scientific means. I would like to extrapolate this idea to the unseen. Can we explain God and His handiworks through science? How far can we push science to reconcile God? Science in and of itself is not wrong but may not be fully equipped in its current status to explain God.

Personally, I do believe that science is developing, in that more we know science, more of God will be revealed to us. Until then there is a place for mystery when it comes to the knowledge of God.

Here is what I read from different forums:
We know that the Universe exists and is real. Every rational person—including atheists and agnostics—must admit this point. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” If a thing cannot create itself, then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe, therefore, is a contingent entity since it cannot cause or explain its own existence. If the Universe did not create itself, it must have had a cause.

There are only three possible answers to this question:

(1) the Universe is eternal; it always has existed and always will exist;

(2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; or


(3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing, but instead was created by something (or Someone) outside of, and superior to, itself.
These three options deserve serious consideration.

I have seen numerous debates between atheist and theist on this subject on various forums. Most of theistic approaches have been Biblical in nature. I would like to put a twist to that. Perhaps, its time to see the take on this stemming from other theistic beliefs. On this note, I would like to know if there is any coherency among various theistic approaches. I mean, do people of different religious faiths come to agreement on the issue of creation vs. evolution science? It would be interesting to see different perspectives coming from different faiths and see if there is any connect between them.

This is free for all discussion.

Blessings,
nirotu

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 01:39 PM
Namaste Nirotu,

Nice to see you after a long time:

You can add one more option to your list:

4. The Universe does not exist, but it appears to exist!


There is no way science can explain this according to me.

Hinduism has disposed off

1. the Universe is eternal; it always has existed and always will exist; (and)
2. the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing;

so the only options from our end is
3. the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing, but instead was created by something (or Someone) outside of, and superior to, itself. (jAti vAda)
4. The Universe does not exist, but it appears to exist! (ajAti vAda)

3) does not have direct evidence(pratyaxa), but it can be inferred from a potter/pot analogy, but this analogy may not be correct for the question on the universe. Hence the only evidence is scriptural testimony, which is beyond the realm of material science.

4) also has neither direct nor inferential evidence, and hence must be trace only to scriptural testimony. ( words of the wise).


You may want to ask yourself: If God alone existed before the universe, what did he create the universe with? If you say that God created the universe out of nothing, you have not answered the third question, and it is equivalent with the second. So, if it were created by God, it must have created out of God as well - material causalty, by a process of modification( or other cause).

Hinduism does offer a scientific way to determine the cause of universe - the practice of one of the means of Yoga. But when the Yoga culimates you are no longer intersted in the answer, because you just found something far more important. The universe is almost insignifcant to the question "Who am I?". when you know who are are, you know what God is, and know the answer to every question. Without Yoga, material science would be helpless to uncover the secrets of the universe, however much it may advance.

nekozuki
02 August 2006, 11:31 AM
Personally, I believe that science will never have all the answers. After all human minds are working behind science and humans are fallible, therefore science will always have errors.:Cool: But science is wonderful when understanding the physical realm.

nirotu
03 August 2006, 10:57 AM
Dear Sudarshan:



Hinduism has disposed off

1. The Universe is eternal; it always has existed and always will exist; (and)
2. the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing;
Agreed!





3. The Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing, but instead was created by something (or someone) outside of, and superior to, itself. (jAti vAda).

You may want to ask yourself: If God alone existed before the universe, what did he create the universe with? If you say that God created the universe out of nothing, you have not answered the third question, and it is equivalent with the second. So, if it were created by God, it must have created out of God as well - material causality, by a process of modification (or other cause).
This point is well taken! It begs the investigation.

You have posed a good question. Holding the proposition 3 requires that we prove #2 is not a possibility. This can be achieved by holding two entirely different views of God. Let me rephrase the question:

DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE OUT OF NOTHING or OUT OF PRE-EXISTENT MATTER?

I would propose two views of God:

View 1:
God is powerful who set the universe with all its laws in motion such that even God Himself is not able or powerful enough to bend or violate any laws of nature. If this was the way He intended and created the universe then He must not have violated any physical laws that govern the universe including the “first law of thermodynamics”. Thus, to be consistent, He must have created the universe out of matter that already existed before the universe. Such a view is upheld among Mormons. They do believe that God does not have the power to create out of nothing the materials for the creation.
View 2:
God is all powerful and omnipotent in that there is nothing impossible for God. He is not limited by matter or limited in His capabilities. Such a God is truly omnipotent in that nothing is impossible for Him. Since, the universe is the “effect” of the “cause”; it can never be greater than the cause (God). Thus it places God above everything in His creation. Also, it puts Him apart from the laws He created to govern the universe because God indeed is supernatural and is above natural laws. This would lead me to conclude He can be above the law if He so desires. The violation of any natural law is possible with God if He chooses to do so.
Clearly, the first view presents God limited in his capabilities. He is limited by the matter that allegedly already existed, matter that was co-eternal with him. Because he is limited in his capabilities he is not all powerful.

The second view, for obvious reasons, I am comfortable with. Therefore, universe did not create itself out of nothing because it is the effect but God created universe out of nothing because He is the cause.

Given these two views, what would you choose?




also has neither direct nor inferential evidence, and hence must be trace only to scriptural testimony. ( words of the wise).
The only thing I had to believe was that God is Omnipotent and all powerful! This would be in line with theistic belief regardless of scriptural support.


The Universe does not exist, but it appears to exist! (ajAti vAda)
Being a realist, I have trouble accepting this simply because of the real world I live in. I do feel my toothache! I wish I could brush that off as an illusion! If my senses (any one of five) can perceive then it is real to me. That which exists is real.

This brings us to yet another point(s) to ponder on!

Why did God create the universe in the first place?

What is the purpose of creating a man?

If God can violate physical law at will, then where did physical law itself come from? Did it exist before he created matter - and if so, in what sense could laws governing matter exist while matter itself does not?

It would be interesting to discuss this from different angle!

Blessings,

sarabhanga
03 August 2006, 07:12 PM
Namaste,

If the material Universe is said to have created itself out of absolutely nothing, then this is Shunyavada!

If the Universe is not eternal, then (if it exists at all) it must have been created. And if this created Universe is said to have been created from something outside of the Creator, then there must be two coeternal entities, and this is akin to Samkhya, which posits Purusha (Spirit) and Prakriti (Prithivi or “the world”), with the latter eternally existing as the subtle Gunas quite apart from the coeternal creative Spirit.

If the created Universe was created from the very self of God (making Purusha the sole cause and source for the whole of Creation), then this is the normal perspective of Vedanta.

You have suggested two entirely dualistic alternatives:
1) God + Void => Universe,
2) God + Matter => Universe.

A third possibility is that the one eternal Spirit created the whole non-eternal Universe entirely from His/Her own infinite Self.

If the eternal natural Law is understood to be the manifest expression of the very nature of God, then there is no reason to expect that the ultimate laws of Physics would (or even could) be violated.

The First Law of Thermodynamics insists that energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed, with the total amount of energy and matter in the Universe always remaining constant while merely changing from one form to another.

God is the very infinite and omnipotent source of all Creation ~ the one source of all Energy and all Matter and all of the Law that constrains them.

And Ajativada only states that nothing which is non-eternal can ever be eternally true, or all that is born is (by definition) non-eternal, and thus (by comparison with the ultimate eternal Truth) all that is born can only be temporarily true and a virtual illusion that will surely pass.

saidevo
07 August 2006, 09:09 AM
A third possibility is that the one eternal Spirit created the whole non-eternal Universe entirely from His/Her own infinite Self.




"To what does this world go back?"

"To space (akasa)," said he. "Verily, all things here arise out of space. They disappear back into space, for space alone is greater than these; space is the final goal."

-- Chhandogya-Upanishad (I,9,1)


Infinity and eternity vis-a-vis finiteness and mortality involve the concepts of space and time.

The universe is a manifestation of God, an emanation from his infinite, eternal self. But unlike God, the universe is neither infinite nor eternal. However, it appears to be real and eternal because of mahamaya (maya on a cosmic scale). Now, maya is not unreal, but is a state of conditional reality.

In the words of Shri Kanchi Paramacharya, "The term maya indicates that this universe is not non-existent like the horn of a rabbit, but seems to exist like a mirage. While the term adyanta asat indicates that which is not existent, the term pradipasika satyam indicates that which seems to exist.

In the unmanifested state, God remains as space or aakasa, which is the mulaprakriti for the universe. In this state, God is formless but not still. He remains as Pure Consciousness, Pure Motion or Pure Energy.

Then God willed, 'I will multiply', and brought forth the universe out of himself, using a portion of the space. He created forms out of this space using his divine breath and ensouled them with his divine consciousness. He did not do it directly, but manifested the saguna Brahman (personal God), the Trinity and the hierarchy down the line to create, administer, sustain and dissolve the forms. The hierarchy and the forms are not outside the one God. They are in him and he is in them all.

Thus a universe is both Parabrahman and Mulaprakriti in essence. Parabrahman is the life or energy, Mulaprakriti his form. Without Mulaprakriti, Parabrahman, the pure consciousness, or pure energy would remain, but this is not possible. Without Parabrahman, the Mulaprakriti would be lifeless and this is also not possible.

Where does Time fit in, in this scheme of forms and life?

To the western mind, time was linear, flowing from the future through the present into the past. Vedanta reveals that the true nature of time is not linear, but cyclic.

Time started with the origin of the universe and will end when the Great Breath inhales the universe and its forms it emanated. After the end of the cycle, there will be a new universe with another cycle of time, and then another, eternally. So, the universe and time are eternal in the sense that they are eternally recurrent phenomena.

Time, as we commonly know, is the duration or interval between two events. Where do these events happen? In space, inner or outer. Our concept of solar time in year, month and days is just a conditional break (khandakala) of the infinite time (kala). Because it is cyclic in nature, we have the illusion of a continuous flow of time.

It seems that Science has finally begun to merge its ways with the Vedantic inquiry with the advent of the Bell's theorem.

David Bohm, a former associate of Einstein, and a leading physicist of our day, conducted experiments and came to the conclusion that, as in a hologram, the information of the entire universe is contained in each of its parts. It is also proved that a change in the state of a single particle affects its twin simultaneously, even if the two are widely separted in space. The second particle gets the information about the change in its twin, and changes itself accordingly, but to pass this information, no energy transmission is involved! (This means that the transmission of information is metaphysical.) Bell's theorem, obviously, leads to the interrelation of human consciousness and the observed world.

Space, time and consciousness are the three parameters of everything that exists from Here to Eternity. While Science is still struggling with its physical means to correlate them, Vedanta has revealed eons ago, their nature, functions and their relation to Brahman.

nirotu
10 August 2006, 11:20 AM
Dear Saidevo:



Quote:
"To what does this world go back?"

"To space (akasa)," said he. "Verily, all things here arise out of space. They disappear back into space, for space alone is greater than these; space is the final goal."

-- Chhandogya-Upanishad (I,9,1)

But unlike God, the universe is neither infinite nor eternal. However, it appears to be real and eternal because of mahamaya (maya on a cosmic scale). Now, maya is not unreal, but is a state of conditional reality.
An interesting concept! To me, the universe is as real as the people who reside in it. It does not appear to be real but truly is real. While it is the expression of the unmanifest eternal source, it remains finite in that there is definite end to it. In scientific term “thermodynamic death” precisely defines the end of the universe.



In the unmanifested state, God remains as space or aakasa, which is the mulaprakriti for the universe. In this state, God is formless but not still. He remains as Pure Consciousness, Pure Motion or Pure Energy.
It is difficult to conceptualize the existence of space – any space that is devoid of the source. Rather than calling it a space, I would prefer to call it the source – unmanifest source - God.


This brings me back to the question I posed in my last thread:

Why God created this Universe in the first place?

Could this be a result of a deep yearning desire in the unmanifest to express His glory? Also by manifesting, to give us something to be in awe of and to find joy in its vasteness and complexity. Or may be, possibly as a demonstration of His power, so that we could have a view of Him or perhaps, to give us something to explore and reach for.

In order to achieve all these, the matter was considered a perfect vehicle or vessel and thus, the pure energy is transformed in to matter through this creative process. Thus, our creation is the result of that divine spark. We all are in essence possess divinity through His attributes – love, long suffering, endurance, patience, kindness etc, etc. It should be remembered that God created us with volition – free will to choose.

Such a source or creator is transcendent in that He is formless and invisible. This does not mean that He is distant from His creation! He still takes part in the affairs of the universe. He is immanent in every one of His creation down to minute detail. Many among Christians would like to think God became immanent through God Son Jesus Christ to be involved with us and teach us the righteous way. Thus, a Christian views God both as transcendent and immanent. This is also true with dharmic religions, especially with, Panentheology of Ramanuja and other Vaishnavites, where God is immanent and transcendent, relative and absolute.

God’s primary purpose in creating the universe, then, is of course to express his glory. Since God is Love (1 John 4.16), it is reasonable to assume that He created the universe to have something(s) to be the object(s) of His Love; and to have creatures who could share the beauty of Love (and therefore the beauty of God) by loving Him and one another. It all makes sense when underlying motivation is the “LOVE” that God wants to express and expect the same from us.

Putting this all together one may find the creation of the universe was necessary as the arena within which the freewill and character of humanity would be formed to explore and understand the one who created. In doing so, humanity could also learn of evil and act as witnesses against evil.


To the western mind, time was linear, flowing from the future through the present into the past. Vedanta reveals that the true nature of time is not linear, but cyclic.
While I do not dispute in principle, the true nature of time is not necessarily cyclic either.

The wikipedia, for example, has this to say about time:

To say that a being possesses a purpose implies an inclination or tendency to steer events toward some state that does not yet exist. This, in turn, implies a privileged direction, which we may call "time". It may be one direction of causality, the direction of increasing entropy, or some other emergent property of a world. These are not identical, but one must exist in order to progress toward a goal. Such a progress towards goal (effect) can only be dealt meaningfully with time being linear and directed forward in which effect always follows cause. Thus, understanding in that sense, only linearity in time would accomplish an “effect” to a “cause” that happened at an earlier time. In cyclical nature, one can imply an opposite in that an “effect” occurring prior to “cause”, which I have trouble understanding. Is this just a matter of interpretation? I would like to know what others think!


Space, time and consciousness are the three parameters of everything that exists from Here to Eternity. While Science is still struggling with its physical means to correlate them, Vedanta has revealed eons ago, their nature, functions and their relation to Brahman.
Well said!

Blessings,
nirotu

satay
11 August 2006, 12:32 PM
namaste,

Interesting different views so far. For me personally I had to go back to adhaya 9 and remind myself of what Bhagwan tells us about his nature...

prakrtim svam avastabhya
visrjami punah punah
bhuta-gramam imam krtsnam
avasam prakrter vasat

"I create the entire multitude of beings again and again with the help of my material nature (prakriti). These beings are under control of the modes (gunas) of nature (prakriti)."

beautiful...and direct right from his mouth!

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

sarabhanga
12 August 2006, 12:03 AM
To the western mind, time was linear, flowing from the future through the present into the past. Vedanta reveals that the true nature of time is not linear, but cyclic.

Time started with the origin of the universe and will end when the Great Breath inhales the universe and its forms it emanated. After the end of the cycle, there will be a new universe with another cycle of time, and then another, eternally. So, the universe and time are eternal in the sense that they are eternally recurrent phenomena.



While I do not dispute in principle, the true nature of time is not necessarily cyclic either.

Progress towards a goal (effect) can only be dealt meaningfully with time being linear and directed forward in which effect always follows cause. Thus, understanding in that sense, only linearity in time would accomplish an “effect” to a “cause” that happened at an earlier time. In cyclical nature, one can imply an opposite in that an “effect” occurring prior to “cause”, which I have trouble understanding.


Time surely is BOTH linear and cyclical.

A short-sighted world-bound perspective sees time as linear; although, with a longer view the cyclical nature of the path is revealed. But it is wrong to assume that these cycles must be circular and describing an endless loop of repeated experience.

Viewed from outside of the constant temporal flux, the overall flow seems quite linear, although with eddies and vortices driving themselves with the impetus of repeated cause and effect.

The manifest nature of time is perhaps better described as spiraling or helical.

nirotu
12 August 2006, 08:31 AM
Time surely is BOTH linear and cyclical.

A short-sighted world-bound perspective sees time as linear; although, with a longer view the cyclical nature of the path is revealed. But it is wrong to assume that these cycles must be circular and describing an endless loop of repeated experience.

Viewed from outside of the constant temporal flux, the overall flow seems quite linear, although with eddies and vortices driving themselves with the impetus of repeated cause and effect.

The manifest nature of time is perhaps better described as spiraling or helical.

That is well said!
Blessibgs,
nirotu

saidevo
12 August 2006, 09:25 AM
It is difficult to conceptualize the existence of space ? any space that is devoid of the source. Rather than calling it a space, I would prefer to call it the source ? unmanifest source - God.


On the other hand, I prefer the term space to denote the two states of God. To me, the term source implies a limitation. It does not adequately evoke the aspects of Eternity and Infinity as does the term space or aakasa.

The term aakasa has the equivalent term koilon in Theosophy, which derives from the Greek Koilos, meaning hollow. The rough equivalent of koilon is ether in science, but it should not be confused with the etheric matter that composes the first four of the seven sub planes of the physical plane.

What we call matter (prakriti) is created as bubbles in koilon, by the Great Breath. These bubbles are aggregated into atoms of each plane, as the Great Breath flows outward over eons of time. Thus we have a single bubble as the ultimate atom (called paramAnu) of the Adi plane down to the ultimate atom (anu) of the physical plane, which contains nearly 14 million (49^6) bubbles of koilon. A chemical atom of an element that has one proton and one neutron, each of which has three quarks, with three anu in each quark, has a total of 18 anu's.

Thus matter or prakriti is the manifested space and ether/aakasa/mulaprakriti/koilon is the unmanifested space (or source if you prefer). This space is pervaded by the Divine Consciousness, which is pure energy and motion.

Why God created this Universe in the first place?

The answer to this question has to be realized and experienced rather than thought of or reasoned out, because it is beyond mind and intellect. However, you've given some beautiful and lofty interpretations.



Could this be a result of a deep yearning desire in the unmanifest to express His glory? Also by manifesting, to give us something to be in awe of and to find joy in its vasteness and complexity. Or may be, possibly as a demonstration of His power, so that we could have a view of Him or perhaps, to give us something to explore and reach for.


A very good reasoning indeed! The analogy of an author of a great work of fiction comes to mind. The world and characters created by the author is a manifestation from the author. As novice readers, we are absorbed in the story and characters, forming our own love and hatred of them. As we advance in knowledge, we see more and more of the author in the creation.

The upanishads say that Brahman willed to multiply, so he manifested as the Saguna Brahman and the Hierarchy of gods and other beings. We can think of an analogy in our daily life:

When we sleep, we pass from the jagrat state to the svapna state and finally (may be only briefly) into the sushupti (or deep sleep into self-oblivion). Yogis can pass into the fourth state turiya. We are like the unmanifest Brahman in the sushupti state. Nothing exists for us, including our own self in this state. When awakening dawns, we see the world as manifested forms. A child in this state would think that it was he/she who created the world! If God made us in His image, then we as His children play copycat with God in our activities.

Why did we awake from the most peaceful sleep in the first place? The answer may lie in our will to live, create and experience by indulging in matter and forms. Every night, when we go to sleep, we destroy the forms one by one, until we pass into the sushupti state of self-oblivion.

Evidences of the great Truths are strewn all around us. In sights and sounds and events that pass by our daily life. If only we care to look around and think over...

saidevo
12 August 2006, 11:26 AM
It should be remembered that God created us with volition free will to choose.


The human soul is said to be a triad of atma-buddhi-manas or will-wisdom-activity. The human soul is clothed in seven koshas/sheaths/bodies/principles that fall into a higher triad (atma-buddhi-manas) and a lower quartet (lower manas or kama rupa-astral body-etheric double-physical body). The higher triad atma-buddhi-manas represent the Trinity Shiva-Vishnu-Brahma (in that order) in us. Brahma creates, Vishu pervades and Shiva ensouls. In other words, Shiva is the will, Vishnu the wisdom and Brahma the activity of our souls.

Using the pot-potter analogy in a lighter vein, Shiva is the space that remains as the ultimate after the pots are broken, Vishnu is the clay and Brahma, the hoary potter!

What exactly is free-will (or volition) then? How is it related to fate? These questions are beautifully answered in the dialogue between His Holiness Shri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswami and a Disciple), which is found in this link: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/The_Riddle_of_Fate_and_Free.htm

The analogy of an author comes to mind again. Many authors have reported that they start their work of fiction with a basic idea of the landscape and the cast, but once it gets going, the characters play their roles out themselves! A case of fictional characters using their free-will to deside their destinies!

It is also interesting to note that an author/painter/poet gets his/her inspiration and ideas supplemetned by the thoughts of other entities in the lower (rupa) mental world, and the archetypes of human thoughts in the higher (arupa) mental world according to Theosophical research.

God is love. Bhagvan Sri Sathya Sai Baba teaches us that Sathya, Dharma, Shanti, Prema and Ahimsa are the attributes of God, who is by Himself Sat-Chit-Ananda. God is full of love, and love is the only emotion that has the highest frequency that can tune in to God.

At the same time, God is just, like a father to his child (a fond father is a fond father, my English professor used to say). This is why He does not interfere with our karma and free-will, except in cases where the human soul cries out to Him for redemption. Even in such cases, where he reduces the burden of karma of a soul, he usually transfers it to a self-realized soul in human form (may be the guru) who willingly takes it, because the karmic forces need to be played out in full. We read stories of God Himself being under the influence of karmic forces. Thus, it is a loving God as well as a just God, who would not interfere with His creation, except in deserving cases.



Putting this all together one may find the creation of the universe was necessary as the arena within which the freewill and character of humanity would be formed to explore and understand the one who created. In doing so, humanity could also learn of evil and act as witnesses against evil.


Good and evil, like the two sides of a coin, form the duality necessary for manifestation. Understanding this concept would remove questions such as why God created evil or why He sliently lets his children go evil ways and suffer. A funny but deeply philosophical urban legend of a down-to-science professor and a faithful student who explains how evil is merely the absence of good and not a form in itself can be read, among other links, at https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/ornet/2004-June/009093.html

All said and done, no one can fathom the intentions of God or the reasons for His manifesting the universe and its beings, and letting them interact and play out their karma, life after life, and silently, patiently and lovingly watch over his creations, not from the yonder skies but from within the beings themselves, like the two birds of the Svetasvatara Upanishad (4:6): Two birds of beautiful plumage — inseparable friends — live on the same tree. Of these two one eats the sweet fruit while the other looks on without eating. (translation by Swami Sivananda).

Most appropriately, the Hindu scriptures say that it is all God's lila.

sarabhanga
13 August 2006, 07:23 PM
Standing apart from the flow of time, the perspective of duality is retained; and without any attachment, the given situation may be objectively considered.

The ultimate perspective of Advaita, however, can only be experienced ~ not observed, since observation requires duality.

Following the analogy, one must step fearlessly into the river of time and truly ‘go with the flow’. And from total immersion in the very moment, there can be no perception of turbulence or flux, and indeed the whole concept of time is transcended!

sarabhanga
14 August 2006, 12:16 AM
Vedanta describes three sheaths which compose the body:

1. annamaya kosha ~ the sheath of nourishment or food, forming the sthUla-sharIra (gross frame).
2. vijñAnamaya (or buddhimaya) kosha ~ the sheath of knowledge or wisdom, forming the sUkshma-sharIra (subtle frame).
3. Anandamaya kosha ~ the sheath of pleasure or bliss, forming the kAraNa-sharIra (causal frame).

It is additionally supposed that there are five distinct sheaths investing the soul, with the successive causation of the subtle frame even more subtly qualified:

1. annamaya kosha.
2. prANamaya (vital-breath or life) kosha.
3. vijñAnamaya (intellect) kosha.
4. manomaya (mind) kosha
5. Anandamaya kosha.




The human soul is said to be a triad of atma-buddhi-manas or will-wisdom-activity. The human soul is clothed in seven koshas/sheaths/bodies/principles that fall into a higher triad (atma-buddhi-manas) and a lower quartet (lower manas or kama rupa-astral body-etheric double-physical body). The higher triad atma-buddhi-manas represent the Trinity Shiva-Vishnu-Brahma (in that order) in us. Brahma creates, Vishu pervades and Shiva ensouls. In other words, Shiva is the will, Vishnu the wisdom and Brahma the activity of our souls.

Your “higher” triad of Atma-buddhi-manas represents the same composition of the subtle frame as given above (i.e. prANa-buddhi-manas).

The lower quartet of “lower manas-astral body-etheric double-physical body”, however, and also the sum total of seven koshas, is perhaps the view of Theosophy, but it is certainly not a normal understanding of Hinduism.

atanu
14 August 2006, 04:23 AM
Dear Saidevo:




This brings me back to the question I posed in my last thread:

Why God created this Universe in the first place?

nirotu

Who is asking this question? Is he created or uncreated? Please answer after deliberating, if you wish to answer at all.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
14 August 2006, 04:32 AM
Who is asking this question? Is he created or uncreated? Please answer after deliberating, if you wish to answer at all.


Om Namah Shivayya

Science and its knowledge is always dependent on the knower. Apart from the knower, objectivity of so-called knowledge can never be proven.

Hinduism places emphasis on knowing the knower first.

From Gita

13.12 Adhyaatma jnaana nityatwam tattwa jnaanaartha darshanam;
Etajjnaanamiti proktam ajnaanam yadato’nyathaa.

13.12. Constancy in Self-knowledge, perception of the end of true knowledge—this is declared to be knowledge, and what is opposed to it is ignorance.

13.13 Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

13.13 I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

J13.18 Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate;
Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.

13.18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.

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

13.23. The Supreme Soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Self.



Knowing the Self can only reveal why God created this Universe in the first place.

satay
14 August 2006, 09:33 AM
[B]
Knowing the Self can only reveal why God created this Universe in the first place.

Hence socrates' "Know Thyself" but as usual the West couldn't handle this type of 'knowing' and he was condemned to death for corrupting the masses by telling that they were ignorant of the Truth!

atanu
14 August 2006, 12:00 PM
Hence socrates' "Know Thyself" but as usual the West couldn't handle this type of 'knowing' and he was condemned to death for corrupting the masses by telling that they were ignorant of the Truth!

Namaskar Satay Ji,

Possibly the same happened with Christ?

nirotu
14 August 2006, 12:28 PM
Dear Satay, Atanu:



Originally Posted by satay
Hence socrates' "Know Thyself" but as usual the West couldn't handle this type of 'knowing' and he was condemned to death for corrupting the masses by telling that they were ignorant of the Truth!


Namaskar Satay Ji,

Possibly the same happened with Christ?


While many branches of Hinduism rests on the precept: “know-thyself”, it is not quite clear what they refer to.

Before, you jump to the conclusion; perhaps it would be helpful if you can clarify the difference between “self” and “non-self”. Even among Sanatana Dharma, traditions have given very lopsided interpretations. Let me take advaita for example in comparison with Buddhism. It’s been said, “Buddhism tries to negate the consciousness by saying there is none in “nirvana”, whereas, Vedanta proposes everything is consciousness upon “moksha”. Thus, in one case, self is engulfed by non-self as in Buddhism and non-self is engulfed by self in Advaita.”

Are they same? If not, which is correct? Is enlightenment a realization into a non-self (Buddhism) or in to an expanding self (Advaita)?

On the other hand, western religion rests on knowing the creator and in that the relationship with his creation. Thus, the “self” is only defined in relation to the “non-self” in that sense. Therefore, the knowledge of the creator is essential in discerning this thought. Hence, my earlier question about the creator!!!!

Blessings,
nirotu

nirotu
14 August 2006, 12:39 PM
Dear Atanu:


Who is asking this question? Is he created or uncreated? Please answer after deliberating, if you wish to answer at all.


Om Namah Shivayya

Who is asking this question? Me, nirotu...

Is he created or uncreated?
Am I created ? Yes, I am purely an object of His creation!! However, the spirit in me is uncreated, eternally existent. Its a pure energy transformed into material body-me.

Blessings,
nirotu

nirotu
14 August 2006, 12:41 PM
The human soul is said to be a triad of atma-buddhi-manas or will-wisdom-activity. The human soul is clothed in seven koshas/sheaths/bodies/principles that fall into a higher triad (atma-buddhi-manas) and a lower quartet (lower manas or kama rupa-astral body-etheric double-physical body). The higher triad atma-buddhi-manas represent the Trinity Shiva-Vishnu-Brahma (in that order) in us. Brahma creates, Vishu pervades and Shiva ensouls. In other words, Shiva is the will, Vishnu the wisdom and Brahma the activity of our souls.

Using the pot-potter analogy in a lighter vein, Shiva is the space that remains as the ultimate after the pots are broken, Vishnu is the clay and Brahma, the hoary potter!

What exactly is free-will (or volition) then? How is it related to fate? These questions are beautifully answered in the dialogue between His Holiness Shri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswami and a Disciple), which is found in this link: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/The_Riddle_of_Fate_and_Free.htm

The analogy of an author comes to mind again. Many authors have reported that they start their work of fiction with a basic idea of the landscape and the cast, but once it gets going, the characters play their roles out themselves! A case of fictional characters using their free-will to deside their destinies!

It is also interesting to note that an author/painter/poet gets his/her inspiration and ideas supplemetned by the thoughts of other entities in the lower (rupa) mental world, and the archetypes of human thoughts in the higher (arupa) mental world according to Theosophical research.

God is love. Bhagvan Sri Sathya Sai Baba teaches us that Sathya, Dharma, Shanti, Prema and Ahimsa are the attributes of God, who is by Himself Sat-Chit-Ananda. God is full of love, and love is the only emotion that has the highest frequency that can tune in to God.

At the same time, God is just, like a father to his child (a fond father is a fond father, my English professor used to say). This is why He does not interfere with our karma and free-will, except in cases where the human soul cries out to Him for redemption. Even in such cases, where he reduces the burden of karma of a soul, he usually transfers it to a self-realized soul in human form (may be the guru) who willingly takes it, because the karmic forces need to be played out in full. We read stories of God Himself being under the influence of karmic forces. Thus, it is a loving God as well as a just God, who would not interfere with His creation, except in deserving cases.



Good and evil, like the two sides of a coin, form the duality necessary for manifestation. Understanding this concept would remove questions such as why God created evil or why He sliently lets his children go evil ways and suffer. A funny but deeply philosophical urban legend of a down-to-science professor and a faithful student who explains how evil is merely the absence of good and not a form in itself can be read, among other links, at https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/ornet/2004-June/009093.html

All said and done, no one can fathom the intentions of God or the reasons for His manifesting the universe and its beings, and letting them interact and play out their karma, life after life, and silently, patiently and lovingly watch over his creations, not from the yonder skies but from within the beings themselves, like the two birds of the Svetasvatara Upanishad (4:6): Two birds of beautiful plumage — inseparable friends — live on the same tree. Of these two one eats the sweet fruit while the other looks on without eating. (translation by Swami Sivananda).

Most appropriately, the Hindu scriptures say that it is all God's lila.

Dear Saidevo:

A resounding "Amen" to what you have said! However, I do beg to differ in some areas. I will pose this soon.

Blessings,
nirotu

atanu
14 August 2006, 01:55 PM
Dear Satay, Atanu:

---- perhaps it would be helpful if you can clarify the difference between “self” and “non-self”. ------

nirotu

Namaskar,

Well. Isn't it putting the cart before the horse? Who will know the difference? What in you is capable of discerning the difference?




On the other hand, western religion rests on knowing the creator -------
Blessings,
nirotu

Who will know the creator? What in you is capable of knowing anything?





Who is asking this question? Me, nirotu...

Is he created or uncreated?
Am I created ? Yes, I am purely an object of His creation!! However, the spirit in me is uncreated, eternally existent. Its a pure energy transformed into material body-me.



Since, you have not contemplated I repeat the question.

Body-brain that you think is the knower is not the knower. Your body-brain is inert. When life goes away the body-brain does not say "Let me live". What in you is capable of proclaiming "I exist" or of knowing anything? If you answer "spirit", then what is that? Should one not know it first before knowing things made known by it?

And if the spirit in you is uncreated, is it different from the creator? IF THE CREATOR AND THE SPIRIT ARE DIFFERENT, then creator definitely did not create the eternal spirit!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eternal thing is ever present and uncreated. On the other hand, if you agree that the uncreated spirit in you and the creator are non-different then all is well. We then must both strive to know the Self only.


From Gita

13.12 Adhyaatma jnaana nityatwam tattwa jnaanaartha darshanam;
Etajjnaanamiti proktam ajnaanam yadato’nyathaa.

13.12. Constancy in Self-knowledge, perception of the end of true knowledge—this is declared to be knowledge, and what is opposed to it is ignorance.



Note: Rig Veda does not say for nothing that sages created creator Brahma and Brahmanaspati. There is no creator apart from you (the eternal spirit) dear Nirotu.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
14 August 2006, 02:25 PM
Dear Atanu:

Who is asking this question? Me, nirotu...

Is he created or uncreated?
Am I created ? Yes, I am purely an object of His creation!! However, the spirit in me is uncreated, eternally existent. Its a pure energy transformed into material body-me.

Blessings,
nirotu

You say: I am purely an object of His creation.

What is this I? Is the fleshy object called body aware of I? Does it say I when life leaves it? No. The pure object that you think is you is not you.

Logically how far can you go? You can at best undertand that you used to be essence of a sperm, which obtained a body inside your fathers body and then drew food from your mother to grow and then be known as Nirotu.

Vedas take you beyond.

Best Wishes.

willie
14 August 2006, 09:09 PM
Better take genetics over, humans are made up of genetic material from both parents. Not the male alone.

Some where is the vedas the talks about brahman destroying its physical body to perhaps it could move to another dimension. So if that body material was left behind in this universe , I don't see why some of it , under the right conditions , could not have combined to form other living bodies. And those bodies would not be like the original one because of lack of mass, different condition so some missing ingredient. So being limited these new entities would not have the capabilities of the original but that would not mean that the original entity counld not detect and perhaps influence these other bodies.

saidevo
15 August 2006, 01:50 AM
Some where is the vedas the talks about brahman destroying its physical body to perhaps it could move to another dimension. So if that body material was left behind in this universe , I don't see why some of it , under the right conditions , could not have combined to form other living bodies. And those bodies would not be like the original one because of lack of mass, different condition so some missing ingredient. So being limited these new entities would not have the capabilities of the original but that would not mean that the original entity counld not detect and perhaps influence these other bodies.


The affinity between the human soul and its physical body is great. When the soul leaves the physical body on death, it hovers over the corpse or physical shell for some days, grieving its separation from the physical body. This is the reason the last rites are performed to appease the soul and release it on its further course.

Unlike the western religions, Hinduism requires the physical body to be cremated on death. This will ensure that the decaying body elements return to their source quickly. In the case of burial of a corpse, the discarded shell of etheric double ( praanamayakosha in Hiduism, Doppelgänger in German) of the departed soul hangs over its slowly-decaying physical counterpart for quite sometime, and is seen by sensitive people as the churchyard ghost -- a bluish-white, misty form hovering over a grave.

Hindu puranas speak of yogis temporarily casting their physical shells and entering the dead frames of humans and animals. Adi Shankaracharya did such a thing, and entered the body of a dead king for some time, to learn the values of wordly life, and answer the question of Sarasa Vani, wife of Mandana Misra.

There are also cases of living human beings possessed by ghosts, resulting in a dual personality. Despite all these varied cases, I don't think that physical bodies left behind and buried can combine under right conditions form other bodies.

atanu
15 August 2006, 02:59 AM
Better take genetics over, humans are made up of genetic material from both parents. Not the male alone.

Some where is the vedas the talks about brahman destroying its physical body to perhaps it could move to another dimension. So if that body material was left behind in this universe , I don't see why some of it , under the right conditions , could not have combined to form other living bodies. And those bodies would not be like the original one because of lack of mass, different condition so some missing ingredient. So being limited these new entities would not have the capabilities of the original but that would not mean that the original entity counld not detect and perhaps influence these other bodies.


Dear Willie,

What is genetic material without the code that gives it value? In a dead body the genes are there but they are also dead.

Spiritualists do not believe that matter can ever become spirit. And Advaita believes that only the spirit is. The spirit itself appears as multiform matter. Science may keep trying to inject life into matter. But the point is that the scientist who tries so does not know his own self.

Questions posed to Shri Nirotu are important. Our scriptures say that ignorance is due to non-enquiry of self and once the enquiry is begun in right earnest the auspicious one reveals himself.

Best Wishes.

saidevo
15 August 2006, 09:39 AM
Your "higher" triad of Atma-buddhi-manas represents the same composition of the subtle frame as given above (i.e. prANa-buddhi-manas).

The lower quartet of "lower manas-astral body-etheric double-physical body", however, and also the sum total of seven koshas, is perhaps the view of Theosophy, but it is certainly not a normal understanding of Hinduism.


The Three Sariras and Panchakoshas

Let's first get the koshas and sariras of Vedanta in order, from the book Vedanta for Beginners by Swami Sivananda (available for download at http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/):

There are three bodies in every jiva. They are:
1. The physical or gross body (Sthula Sarira)
2. The astral or subtle body (Sukshma Sarira or Linga-sarira)
3. The casual or seed body (Karana sarira)

There are five sheaths or koshas. They are:
1. Annamaya Kosha - made of five gross elements: earth, water, fire, air, and aakasa.

2. Pranamaya Kosha - made of ten pranas: the five chief pranas Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana and Samana and the five sub-pranas Naga, Kurma, Krikara, Devadatta and Dhananjaya.

3. Manomaya Kosha - made of Manas (mind), Chitta (subconscious) and the five Jnanendriyas (sense organs of knowledge).

4. Vijnanamaya Kosha - made of the intellectual and the ego working with the help of the five Jnanendriyas.

5. Anandamaya Kosha - a modification of Prakriti and consists of the Vrittis called Priya, Moda and Pramoda.

The panchakoshas are accommodated in the three bodies as under:
1. Physical body: Annamaya Kosha
2. Astral body: Pranamaya, Manomaya, Vijnanamaya Kosha
3. Casual body: Anandamaya Kosha

All the five sheaths function in the waking state. In the dream state, Vijnanamaya and Anandamaya Kosha function partially. In the deep sleep state, only Anandamaya Kosha functions.

The Seven Principles in Theosophy

Theosophy divides the sheaths into seven principles. Their relation with the classifications of Hinduism, and the planes or worlds of their habitat are as follows:

No. Theosophy - Hindu sarira - Hindu kosha - Loka/world/plane

1. Physical body - Sthula-sarira - Annamaya kosha - Physical world

2. Etheric double - Sthula-sarira - Pranamaya kosha - Physical world

3. Astral body - Sukshma or Linga-sarira - kama or desire part of Manomaya kosha - Astral world

4. Mental body - Sukshma or Linga-sarira - manas part of Manomaya kosha - Lower Mental world

5. Casual body - Sukshma or Linga-sarira - Vijnanamaya kosha - Higher Mental world

6. Buddhi - Karana sarira - Anandamaya Kosha - Intutional world or Buddhic plane

7. Atma - beyond bodies and sheaths - Spiritual or Atmic world

In this classification, the first four principles form the lower quartet and the three higher principles form the higher triad, which is the Divine Ego that reincarnates.

Vedanta names these three principles as sutratman. The koshas and sariras are strung to this atmic thread as beads. The lower quartet has the name kama rupa.

I should like to make it clear here that my knowledge of Hinduism and Theosophy is just that of a seeker in the beginning stages. I am not Sanskrit-literate either, so haven't read the scriptures of our religion in their original or in the translations to any extent. I request the readers to examine the comparative truths I have tried to present above and enlighten me on any fallacies or errors they might contain.

We are confident that Sanatana Dharma and Vedanta has all the answers and present a holistic view of the material and spiritual facets of the universe and Brahman. Such depth and thoroughness of approach to the questions of human life are scarcely, if at all, found in other Indian or Abrahamic religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism).

In my opinion, only Theosophy seems to have a thorough understanding of some the truths, which it presents in a logical and scientific manner. This is because Theosophy essentially is based on Hinduism, though it has a soft corner for Buddhism. Gandhiji said that Theosophy is Hinduism in theory while Hinduism is Theosophy in practice.

Theosophy has a large following in the West. Some of our great thinkers like Jiddu Krishnamurthi were Theosophists. The Theosophical Society at Adyar plays a vital role in researching comparative religion and documenting the ancient truths that are common to all religions. Some people project Theosophy as the religion of the future.

In this perspective, it is my humble opinion, that the followers of Hinduism should research Theosophy, verify its claims using yoga and clairvoyance, dig out and showcase the Vedantic truths that form the bedrock of Theosophical worldview, extend the scope of Theosophy to include the Bhakti Yoga and make Theosophy a darsana in Hinduism (which it essentially is). When this is done by Hinduism experts in a scientific way, and presented to the discerning youth of today, they can understand the timeless truths with ease and be motivated to undertake their own spiritual inquiries.

After all, this world and the next belongs not just to Hindus but the followers of every faith as well as the followers of no faiths, and every human is going to coexist in the same heaven and hell, to be liberated ultimately. The ancient world all over was a golden era of Vedic dharma and civilization. Therefore Hinduism has the responsibility to take the lead once again in today's stife-ridden world and provide answers to every true seeker, irrespective of caste, creed or religion.

TruthSeeker
15 August 2006, 02:11 PM
While many branches of Hinduism rests on the precept: “know-thyself”, it is not quite clear what they refer to.


All branches of Hinduism rest on "know-thyself" including the purely dualistic school. The semantics for "thyself" isn't quite the same for everyone.

For advaitins, knowing the Self is not exactly knowing, but something more than that. Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati - One who knows the Brahman, verily becomes the Brahman, where the distinction of knowledge and the knower creases. That does not mean that nothing is known, but rather that everything is known.

For others, "thyself" is an inferior realization, and I presume they refer to the higher mind(intellect) in the causal body which they call as the "individual self" as different from the "universal self". This is almost close to the advaitic realization but in advaita even this intellect merges into the Universal Self and hence no identity apart from the Self remains.

TruthSeeker
15 August 2006, 02:19 PM
While many branches of Hinduism rests on the precept: “know-thyself”, it is not quite clear what they refer to.


All branches of Hinduism rest on "know-thyself" including the purely dualistic school. The semantics for "thyself" isn't quite the same for everyone.

For advaitins, knowing the Self is not exactly knowing, but something more than that. Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati - One who knows the Brahman, verily becomes the Brahman, where the distinction of knowledge and the knower creases. That does not mean that nothing is known, but rather that everything is known.

For others, "thyself" is an inferior realization, and I presume they refer to the higher mind(intellect) in the causal body which they call as the "individual self" as different from the "universal self". This is almost close to the advaitic realization but in advaita even this intellect merges into the Universal Self and hence no identity apart from the Self remains.

There are three "I"s as defined by vedanta: the lower mind which drives the senses, the higher mind(intellect) that drives the lower mind, and the cosmic mind that drives the intellect. The goal of life is to

1. seek the higher mind through the lower mind - realization of individual self
2. Use the higher mind to seek the cosmic mind - realization of Universal Self
3. Use the grace of the Universal Self to merge the intellect into it. This part of the process is not driven by effort and is beyond human effort, and solely happens by the will of the Universal Spirit.

TruthSeeker
15 August 2006, 02:58 PM
Who is asking this question? Is he created or uncreated? Please answer after deliberating, if you wish to answer at all.


Om Namah Shivayya

The lower mind of course, after consulting with Chitta the storebank of impressions .:)

There is definitely somebody asking the question.

TruthSeeker
15 August 2006, 03:10 PM
The universe is a manifestation of God, an emanation from his infinite, eternal self. But unlike God, the universe is neither infinite nor eternal. However, it appears to be real and eternal because of mahamaya (maya on a cosmic scale). Now, maya is not unreal, but is a state of conditional reality.


The universe has to be infinite. Where space ends, there should be matter. Where matter ends, there should be space. Both of them cant be finite. Atleast this would be if the universe were of some regular 3D construct. It is possible the universe is a complex n-dimensional structure which folds itself finite like the Mobius strip.

However, the number of universe or Brahmanda( a cosmic egg) is countless, atleast as observed from the puranas, each of them presided by a Brahma, the Mahat tattva.

The universe has to even otherwise be infinite as such powers of creating and maintaining this universe has been denied to the souls that stand apart from the Self. (BS 4.4.17). If seems very unlikely that the liberated soul (in Vishnu Loka) would be incapable of accomplishing a finite task.

TruthSeeker
15 August 2006, 04:48 PM
DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE OUT OF NOTHING or OUT OF PRE-EXISTENT MATTER?


If God created the universe out of pre existent matter, then why are you seeking to explain the cause for creation. The universe might as well be pre existent.




The second view, for obvious reasons, I am comfortable with. Therefore, universe did not create itself out of nothing because it is the effect but God created universe out of nothing because He is the cause.

Given these two views, what would you choose?


Neither! If something can come out of nothing, then why posit a God in the first place. I might as well say that the universe is omnipotent and self evolving - can you prove otherwise? Infact that is the Hindu beleif, the universe is itself omnipotent because it only a manifestation of Brahman - there is no need to create something out of a void at all. If God wanted to create, he had everything within himself for the job.




.

Being a realist, I have trouble accepting this simply because of the real world I live in. I do feel my toothache! I wish I could brush that off as an illusion! If my senses (any one of five) can perceive then it is real to me. That which exists is real.


Allright, I dont argue reality or unreality of the universe as it is not a useful question.



Why did God create the universe in the first place?

What is the purpose of creating a man?


Any sensible answer? Only two answers are feasible - 1) no creation ever happened 2) it is his sport.

Hinduism does not say man(soul) was ever created, it always exists. Creating a man just means embodying the soul in a new body. So that part is not relevant to us.

Znanna
15 August 2006, 09:02 PM
What a great link, thanks, saidevo :)

I think it is interesting that quantum physics so closely parallels the mystical traditions of the Abrahamic traditions (YHVH)...and I am of the opinion that both science and religion (as well as art) are manners of describing or of asserting order upon the "outside" world.

But, to me, it all breaks down to the notion that all attempts at explanation are just really mindplay ... what is, just is. Nothing more nor less.


Love,
ZN

willie
15 August 2006, 09:41 PM
I have never seen any of these ghosts hanging around cemeteries and I have been around a lot of cemeteries at night. And I have never heard of souls hanging around bodies after they left them. What would be the point?

Dopplegangers are another story , they are people the look exactly like another person and they are both usually alive. There was a guy who used to live close to me and he had a doppleganger experience. During world war II he came across a dead german soldier, and when he turned him over it was like looking at himself. He took the Id off of the soldier and I looked at it. When I compared the german Photo with his military ID the looked exactly the same. Measurements of the eyes nose and mouth were the same.

Genetic material is only chemicals and when the body dies it remains intact until decay . But if the material is in an airtight area it will last for years or centuries. The dna of a phonecian can was compared to people living in the area to day and about 40% were genetically related.

atanu
16 August 2006, 02:49 AM
------

Genetic material is only chemicals and when the body dies it remains intact until decay . But if the material is in an airtight area it will last for years or centuries. The dna of a phonecian can was compared to people living in the area to day and about 40% were genetically related.


Yes Genetic matter is only matter. Genes contain something minuter which contain something more minuter and so on -----------.

Finally there should be something very subtle -- not graspable by human senses and instruments since that so called vacuum is the source of the awareness of the investigator.

How investigator investigates the Self?


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
16 August 2006, 03:03 AM
The lower mind of course, after consulting with Chitta the storebank of impressions .:)

There is definitely somebody asking the question.


Right Ho. Many call this impression laden lower mind as ego -- the bhandasura.


So, the question to Shri Nirotu goes further: Is the questioner created or uncreated? And I repeat the post so that the question remains active:



Body-brain that you think is the knower is not the knower. Your body-brain is inert. When life goes away the body-brain does not say "Let me live". What in you is capable of proclaiming "I exist" or of knowing anything? If you answer "spirit", then what is that? Should one not know it first before knowing things made known by it?

And if the spirit in you is uncreated, is it different from the creator? IF THE CREATOR AND THE SPIRIT ARE DIFFERENT, then creator definitely did not create the eternal spirit!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eternal thing is ever present and uncreated. On the other hand, if you agree that the uncreated spirit in you and the creator are non-different then all is well. We then must both strive to know the Self only.



Om Namah Shivayya

TruthSeeker
16 August 2006, 03:44 AM
Right Ho. Many call this impression laden lower mind as ego -- the bhandasura.


So, the question to Shri Nirotu goes further: Is the questioner created or uncreated? And I repeat the post so that the question remains active:



Om Namah Shivayya

Allright ji! But aren't you expecting him to accept your view? Your question presupposes that the person you are talking to is also an Advaitin isn't it?

Nirotu will say that he was created by his God(not yours!) and certainly rejects the idea that he was uncreate. Do you have any logical arguments to show that you were never created? Scripture is not going to be of use, and he will bid your sources good bye, just like we handle his scriptures.:)

I think you should get down to the basics, and not raise questions which you cannot answer yourself. "Do I exist?" for example, is an inappropriate question except when dealing with other Advaitins, as no further argument is possible.

Sense perception tells me that I exist, no further proof is required and asking that question itself is incorrect. If you have doubts to your existance, then how could you be convinced that a discussion is going on here or that you are even reading and posting the answers. The entire exercise becomes futile. ;)

willie
16 August 2006, 09:19 PM
To investigate the self you have to go into clinical psychology and it will not be nice.

Sure the elemental structure of dna can be broken down to smaller and smaller particles and get into the subatomic element of strong and weak attractors and strange attractors but there is no need for all that. Genetic material is trying to be altered now, so people can see what parts control what part of cell development. And genes of different plants and animals are interchangable. Some hybird tomatoes have firefly genes in them and the gene in insects the cause body segmentation is the same one that caused the fingers and toes of humans to be seperate and distinct.

Positron emission tomography can look at the active parts of the brain. So while a person is thinking about a math problem you can see what parts of the brain are active. Now think of taking a yoga training course where they scan the instructors brain , under meditation and then scan yours while you try to meditate. Then you could see the difference between the instructors scan and yours and learn what to do to get your active brain area to match the instructors. Better than present , where you stumble around trying to get it right But is would be expensive and you have to inject a slightly radioactive tracer so the machine can detect it.

sarabhanga
16 August 2006, 10:19 PM
3. annamaya kosha ~ the sheath of nourishment or food, forming the sthUla-sharIra (gross frame).

2. vijñAnamaya (or buddhimaya) kosha ~ the sheath of knowledge or wisdom, forming the sUkshma-sharIra (subtile frame).

1. Anandamaya kosha ~ the sheath of pleasure or bliss, forming the kAraNa-sharIra (causal frame).

The scheme is intended to explain the subtle composition of the discreet self-contained entity that appears as an individual living body.

That apparently one body is understood as actually consisting of three superimposed bodily conditions (bodies or sharIrANi).

sharIra refers both to “support” and to “dissolution”, and particularly “a body or its constituent parts (or bones)” or “the abode of the soul”, and thus “one’s own person or self”.

The one boney body that is commonly known as one’s self becomes subtly distinguished as this investigation into “the self” (i.e. Atman) proceeds.

The first stage of discrimination (or enlightenment) comes when the mortal frame is distinguished from the immortal frame: the inert corpse (sthUla-sharIra) and its quickening spirit (kAraNa-sharIra). And this realization alone reveals the presence of a third subtle element ~ i.e. the sUkshma-sharIra or “subtle frame” that is the very embodiment of discrimination (or wisdom) itself, and which results from the vijñAna-maya (consisting of true discernment or intelligence) or buddhi-maya (consisting of intellect or wisdom) or mano-maya (consisting of mind or spirit) kosha.

The subtle frame arises directly from the causal frame, and the life-breath or quickening spirit that enlivens the corpse is known simply as Atman or prANa.

And so ,we have the gross frame resulting from that which is nourishment or food ~ the anna-maya kosha; and the causal frame resulting from that which is pleasure or bliss ~ the Ananda-maya kosha; separated by the fine discrimination of the subtle frame resulting from that which is intellect or wisdom ~ the vijñAna-maya (etc.) kosha.




It is additionally supposed (from knowledge of the pañcabhUta, the five-fold essence of life or pañcAmRta) that there are five distinct sheaths investing the soul, with the successive causation of the subtle frame even more subtly qualified:

5. (or 3.) ~ anna-maya kosha.
4. (or 2.3) ~ prANa-maya kosha.
3. (or 2.2) ~ vijñAna-maya kosha.
2. (or 2.1) ~ mano-maya kosha.
1. (always 1) ~ Ananda-maya kosha.

Your “higher” triad of Atma-buddhi-manas represents the same inner composition of the subtle frame given above (i.e. prANa-buddhi-manas).





Let’s first get the koshas and sariras of Vedanta in order, from the book Vedanta for Beginners by Swami Sivananda:

There are three bodies in every jiva. They are:

1. The physical or gross body (Sthula Sarira)
2. The astral or subtle body (Sukshma Sarira or Linga-sarira)
3. The casual or seed body (Karana sarira)

There are five sheaths or koshas. They are:

1. Annamaya Kosha
2. Pranamaya Kosha
3. Manomaya Kosha
4. Vijnanamaya Kosha
5. Anandamaya Kosha

The panchakoshas are accommodated in the three bodies as under:

1. Physical body: Annamaya Kosha
2. Astral body: Pranamaya, Manomaya, Vijnanamaya Kosha
3. Casual body: Anandamaya Kosha

None of this differs at all from what I have already stated.




All the five sheaths function in the waking state.
In the dream state, Vijnanamaya and Anandamaya Kosha function partially.
In the deep sleep state, only Anandamaya Kosha functions.

And here I am also in agreement ~ although, more fully explained:

1. All five sheaths function in the “waking” state of vaishvAnara.

2. Only four sheaths function in the “dream” state of taijasa ~ excluding the gross body and its annamaya kosha.

3. Only three sheaths function in the “deep-sleep” state of prAjña ~ excluding the annamaya and manomaya koshA.

4. And two sheaths function as one in the transcendent “fourth” state of turIya ~ finally excluding the prANamaya kosha and leaving only the vijñAnamaya and Ananadamaya koshA, which are automatically resolved as one glorious unified frame when the mortal body is completely discarded and the limitations previously imposed by vijñAna (as an aid to this ultimate realization) are no longer relevant.

;)

saidevo
17 August 2006, 05:08 AM
Your “higher” triad of Atma-buddhi-manas represents the same inner composition of the subtle frame given above (i.e. prANa-buddhi-manas).




Let’s first get the koshas and sariras of Vedanta in order...


Namaste sarabhanga-ji,

I am sorry to have given the impression that the order of the sharira and kosha you have presented required a change and hence I quoted it from the book of Swami Sivananda.

I was actually confused by the terms atma and prAna. I thought atma is over and above all sharira and kosha whereas prAna is associated with the prAnamayakosha, and therefore, your classifying prAna-buddhi-manas as the higher triad (instead of atma-buddhi-manas) gave me the confusion.

It was enlightening to read your elaboration of the functions of kosha in the four states from vaishvAnara to turiya.

Kindly answer my following queries:
1. atma and prAna - I have the impression that atma is what remains beyong the sharira and kosha and that prAna is the vital energy using which atma animates the physical body. What exactly are these two entities and how do they differ from each other?

2. Theosophy speaks of three cosmic, creative forces: fohat, prAna and kundalini.


To quote from the book The Etheric Double by Arthur E. Powell:

Fohat or Electricity, comprises practically all the physical forces of which we know, all of which are convertible into one another, such as electricity, magnetism, light, heat, sound, chemical affinity, motion, and so forth.

Prâna, or Vitality, is a vital force, the existence of which is not yet formally recognised by orthodox Western scientists, though probably a few of them suspect it.

Kundalini, or Serpent-Fire, is a force known as yet only to very few. It is entirely unknown and unsuspected by orthodox Western science.

These three forces remain distinct, and none of them can at this level be converted into either of the others. This is a point of great importance, which the student should clearly grasp.


I think Fohat is a term used in Buddhism. The Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary gives the equivalent Sanskrit term as daiviprakriti. What exactly is this force or energy?

Do the descriptions of other two forces prAna and kundalini as given above agree with the teachings of Hinduism?

nirotu
17 August 2006, 01:36 PM
. . . Who will know the difference? What in you is capable of discerning the difference?


. . . Who will know the creator? What in you is capable of knowing anything?


. . . On the other hand, if you agree that the uncreated spirit in you and the creator are non-different then all is well. We then must both strive to know the Self only.


Dear Atanu:

While I enjoyed your self-inquiry method and acknowledge truth in it, but for many others and me where human personality dominates, my reality is in my creator who is apart from me.

You have articulated well to bring your point across. With all due respect, without assuming an adversarial role let me say this: your self-inquiry leading to self-realization to the knowledge of the Creator assumes a giant leap along the human journey. To inquire “who am I?” really means trying to find out the source of the ego or “I thoughts” and destroy them as quickly as they arise. That is a tall order! Besides, when the knowledge of own self is full of unresolved doubts, to know the creator by inquiring within would only lead us to a very muddied view at best.

In fact, the great Ramana Maharishi who is the proponent of such “who am I?” inquiry, only ends up admitting the following: “The true import of the Sastras cannot be learnt except from Jnanis, that is, those who have had and live in the direct experience of reality; no one can understand the true spirit behind any of the Sastras merely by his command over language or by his keenness and superiority of intellect.”

BTW, “I am this body but I have separate existence”, which is used as the base and teach four Yogas (Karm Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, and Jnana Yoga) as a path to a perfect happiness. In each of these Yogas, there must be an “I”: an I to do action without attachment to the fruit thereof. In all these four Yogas the individual existence of an “I” in the form of “I am this” or “I am so-and-so” is indispensable. Without this “I”, no yoga can be performed.

The “I” in me experiences the reality of life through my senses, how can I denounce it? The followers of “I am Brahman (Advaita)” and “neti-neti” schools share a common belief that the “self” can be discovered by the mind either through affirmation (advaita) or by negation (you propose). Given the challenges, these methods remain theoretical at best. Therefore, to make such a leap is unrealistic and impractical.

In human journey there is a role of creator and our cord with Him whether you are at a lower level or higher level in your knowledge. The divine “grace” plays a key role in our journey and not the practice of self-inquiry. Moreover, grace does not differentiate between higher-self and lower-self.

Self is like a fetus in a womb. It has different stages of development from gestation to full maturity; 3 months, 6 months and 9 months. Yet in all these stages it still is attached to placental cord to connect with the source of energy. Similarly, “self”, in whichever stage of development it is, in its journey needs the hand of grace for the journey, thus, establishes the role of creator outside of “self”. Even the highest-self holds on to the cord of the creator as evidenced by the sages (just look at the lives they lived untouched by matter). In the manifested creation, no matter how enlightened you are, a state of highest-self does not exist where the hand of grace is no longer needed.

If knowing self (self-inquiry) is a sufficient condition to know the non-self - God, why sages like Ramana, Ramakrishna, Shankara, Chaitanya etc, had tears in their eyes in their Bhakti? If they all had attained higher-self why would they do that? Because, even in that state, they were crying out to the Creator who is apart from them. Such a cry can be heard from ancient sages when they were in utter helpless state trying to know the creator had this to say:
Asatoma Sadgamaya, “ Lead me from untruth to the truth….”
Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya, “Lead me from darkness to light”
Mrityoma Amritangamaya, “Lead me to the life from this death…”

Purified atman, the spirit, is the spark of the creator but not the creator Himself! Yes, God’s spirit is in us, therefore, God is in us but God is not us!! A child is of mother but child is not the mother! Why would Jesus Christ say, “ No one comes to my Father except through me”. Why not, come to me only, instead. This is very telling of the separate personality (albeit of the same essence) called creator. Therefore, the very assumption you make (sufficiency in knowing self) bypasses the reality and misses the true picture.

Instead, why not take a more practical and realistic approach that Christ Jesus offers. When Jesus said these words, “I am the way, the truth and the light”, I believe, it was not meant to be a mere sermon material for Sundays but truly meant to be taken seriously. No man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the “son” activating Christ Consciousness within creation.

Swami Paramahansa Yogananda so aptly puts it this way:

The Christ Consciousness present in Jesus, and in all vibratory creation and phenomena, is the noumenon, “truth,” the primary substance and essence of life everything in creation. No human being who is a part of vibratory creation can take his consciousness to cosmic consciousness, “the Father”- which lies beyond vibratory creation and the immanent Christ consciousness-without first experiencing the Christ-imbued Cosmic Vibration, or Holy Ghost, that manifests vibratory creation, then passing through the God-reflection of Christ Consciousness.

In other words, to “come unto the Father” every human consciousness has to expand and attain realization of the Christ Consciousness, in order to reach Cosmic Consciousness.
From his book: Second Coming of Christ Part II

In the end, all these practices and individual efforts mean nothing if there is no hand of grace that can lead you. We struggle and strive to please Him, never really sure we have succeeded, at times frustrated over the pressure we think He is putting on us, and yet afraid to stop trying. Don’t you think that kind of life is sheer misery?

Complete unconditional surrender to the higher power – God and fully dependent on His grace - would lead one to realize Him in a more accessible and practical way. Because, it is His grace through complete surrender that bestows wisdom upon you and me to know Him intimately. Christ was very clear on such issues when He said, “you have to be like children to enter the kingdom of God”, He was not referring to a biological reversal of aging but to have a heart and mind of a child, who is completely dependent on parents, who completely surrenders to the will of the parents in its development.

When divine grace works its way into a person, he begins to understand God the creator. It is befitting that many saints and sages were able to accomplish the same through this route.

Therefore, to me, a complete surrender to the will of the Father and begging for mercy to know God is more appealing than going through rugged practice towards an unattainable goal.

In that sense, Christ’s teaching is not delusional as some may think. Therefore, when He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”, it is settled for many. Because implicit in that is the assurance: “my grace is sufficient for you.”


Blessings,
nirotu

TruthSeeker
17 August 2006, 02:56 PM
Let me put God = Isvara, so that we are on the same page. Advaita's Brahman is not the topic you can be concerned in this discussion as it is beyond all notions of surrender, grace, devotion etc, so we have to step down a bit for common denominator.




Complete unconditional surrender to the higher power – God and fully dependent on His grace - would lead one to realize Him in a more accessible and practical way. Because, it is His grace through complete surrender that bestows wisdom upon you and me to know Him intimately. Christ was very clear on such issues when He said, “you have to be like children to enter the kingdom of God”, He was not referring to a biological reversal of aging but to have a heart and mind of a child, who is completely dependent on parents, who completely surrenders to the will of the parents in its development.


Nirotu, I beleive you have not understood the idea of "self enquiry". It does imply and depend a lot on grace. The "unconditional" surrender you are talking about is not at all possible without the knowledge of God. So, you are actually in a loop - a true surrender cannot result without the knowledge of the divine, and knowledge of the divine cannot result without true surrender. You have to break out of the loop at some point - that is why a spiritual(Yogic) path is needed. Self Enquiry is one of them.

According to Hinduism, the superficial knowledge of God obtained from a book cannot enable one to "completely surrender" to God. There is every situation in life when you do not "surender" at all. Surrender cannot be just in word, it should be in thought and actions. You have some control over actions allright. But you have no control over thoughts, such unconditional surender is not possible without addressing the mind that produces the thoughts.



When divine grace works its way into a person, he begins to understand God the creator. It is befitting that many saints and sages were able to accomplish the same through this route.


Right, but how many saints who understand God are you seeing in practice? According to Hinduism, such a soul called the jivanmukta is not at all common, only one in ten million perhaps. If grace is spontaneous should'nt we all be knowing God already? Why are you knowing God only through the scripture Nirotu? Why not directly right now? Does God's grace acts only after death? Why not right now, when I am still alive?

Do you even know that God exists? How? And if you do not know, isn't your surrender based on the assumption that a higher power exists? What if this higher power is non different from you? Why should you surrender at all, in the way you suggested? Without knowing anything about this higher powers, except a few words of scripture - how is such a surrender different from say, a surrender to a local king for protection?





Therefore, to me, a complete surrender to the will of the Father and begging for mercy to know God is more appealing than going through rugged practice towards an unattainable goal.


No contradictions, except we are having different ideas of "complete surrender". Can you define "complete surrender" please?




In that sense, Christ’s teaching is not delusional as some may think. Therefore, when He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”, it is settled for many. Because implicit in that is the assurance: “my grace is sufficient for you.”


Possible. Belief in Christ and following his way maybe sufficient to get you a conducive next birth, so that you can do Yoga. That is what all teachers teach anyway. Didn't Christ say that the path to heaven is very narrow and that to hell is very wide? What do you make out of that? That means surrender to Christ cant be too easy. ;)

nirotu
17 August 2006, 04:06 PM
Dear Truthseeker:

The "unconditional" surrender you are talking about is not at all possible without the knowledge of God. So, you are actually in a loop - a true surrender cannot result without the knowledge of the divine, and knowledge of the divine cannot result without true surrender. You have to break out of the loop at some point - that is why a spiritual(Yogic) path is needed. Self Enquiry is one of them.
Yes, it is a question of chicken and the egg, isn’t it? The only the hand of grace can break that loop.

Does an infant have a knowledge of mother? Yet, she cries knowing that mother is there to pick her up. Does a child ever hesitate to jump in the pool if father is there to catch him? Such a level of knowing is surrender. Granted, in the eye’s of Gyani’s there may be an element of ignorance but for that child having that kind of faith was suffiencient. Such a faith is the surrender that breaks the loop.

Perhaps, ponder over what Christ really means when He says, “Have a child like faith to enter the kingdom of God.” It is nothing but surrender!

In that moment of baby’s knowing, his own “I” gets lessened. His ego’s hold gets lessened.


According to Hinduism, the superficial knowledge of God obtained from a book cannot enable one to "completely surrender" to God. . .


….. Why are you knowing God only through the scripture Nirotu? Why not directly right now? Does God's grace acts only after death? Why not right now, when I am still alive?
Who wants to go by the book knowledge? These are historical facts. The lives spent by Sages, munis are facts proving how they overcame this loop. When Christ says, “come unto me”, He never asked for detailed anaysis or knowledge of Him before coming. Not at all!! Just come. If you truly surrender and have that kind of faith, then nothing else would matter.


Do you even know that God exists? How? And if you do not know, isn't your surrender based on the assumption that a higher power exists? What if this higher power is non different from you? Why should you surrender at all, in the way you suggested? Without knowing anything about this higher powers, except a few words of scripture - how is such a surrender different from say, a surrender to a local king for protection?
Rather going on a tangent and diluting the topic, I would suggest, Please, reread my response again! I will say this again, Sages have validated the existence of the Creator and they were mortals just like us!


Blessings,
nirotu

TruthSeeker
17 August 2006, 04:33 PM
Hey, nirotu!



Yes, it is a question of chicken and the egg, isn’t it? The only the hand of grace can break that loop.


But when does the grace act? If it is unconditional, why I should care about that aspect of God at all? If it is conditional, what is the condition? Just beleive in God and go my way?



Does an infant have a knowledge of mother? Yet, she cries knowing that mother is there to pick her up. Does a child ever hesitate to jump in the pool if father is there to catch him? Such a level of knowing is surrender. Granted, in the eye’s of Gyani’s there may be an element of ignorance but for that child having that kind of faith was suffiencient. Such a faith is the surrender that breaks the loop.

Perhaps, ponder over what Christ really means when He says, “Have a child like faith to enter the kingdom of God.” It is nothing but surrender!

In that moment of baby’s knowing, his own “I” gets lessened. His ego’s hold gets lessened.


Who wants to go by the book knowledge? These are historical facts. The lives spent by Sages, munis are facts proving how they overcame this loop. When Christ says, “come unto me”, He never asked for detailed anaysis or knowledge of Him before coming. Not at all!! Just come. If you truly surrender and have that kind of faith, then nothing else would matter.


Sages and Munis were never born suddenly according to Hindu Dharma. They have all only evolved. They were able to surrender to God only through the knowledge of God. Even in certain special cases where people have become overnight saints, it is only the result of former experience of God alone.

What would be Christianity's explanation of a big time thief becoming an enlightened sage overnight ( has happened in reality) ? And a virtuos god loving person having no enlightenment all through his life? Just God's random behaviour? Dont you see that there is something more to it than we see outwardly? Why would the grace fall on the thief, and not fall on the devout?




Rather going on a tangent and diluting the topic, I would suggest, Please, reread my response again! I will say this again, Sages have validated the existence of the Creator and they were mortals just like us!


We do admit that all souls are intrinsically divine, but they just do not know their true nature. Those who do not know this are ordinary mortals.
Sages were not ordinary mortals like us. That is the difference between our line of thinking. Sages are more like incarnations just like Jesus - you need to become a Jesus in order to qualify in Hindu Dharma, and following his foot steps is just the starting point of a long journey! You think that is the end of the road. How could be agree from here?

Didn't Jesus realize that he and his father were one? That is what you need to realize too - then you will get God's grace to the fuil. Your sole saviour is yourself( which manifests as God), the very divinity in you - there is absolutely no need of external agencies. The God we externally see is only "I" - you only need to know it. There is no God apart from yourself.

TruthSeeker
17 August 2006, 05:51 PM
Rather going on a tangent and diluting the topic, I would suggest, Please, reread my response again! I will say this again, Sages have validated the existence of the Creator and they were mortals just like us!


You have not clarified which sages have validated the existance of the creator and which of them are reliable? Is it Jesus, is it Muhammed, is it Krishna, is it Buddha etc? How should a person like me know who among them is speaking the truth? We have never met any of them!

Is God's grace dependent upon whom I choose to follow? What I refuse to beleive in God due to lack of evidence - what happens to the grace of the "merciful" God? Buddha denied the existance of God like Christianity, so what if he is correct? What would be the role of God's grace in Buddhism?

Let us say that I choose to follow Christianity, but broken the ten commandments many times in life due to human weakness I am unable to overcome. What happens to me and God's grace? If God's grace are avalable to those who break commandments, then why bother to keep them at all and why not enjoy the law of "survival of the fittest". If God's grace is available only to those who keep the commandments, then why is it called grace in the first place? It is earned after all by keeping the commandments.

So whatever way you look at it, grace has no place without merit. So it boils down to what the merit is. We say that the merit lies in deep yearning and love for God, and consequent enquiry and search for God, so deep as to reveal the true nature of God( and Self) - anything that falls short is given another chance in the next birth. As simple as that!

Moroever, you have to compare the goals we are trying to attain. The goal of Christianity is only heaven, where you reside with God in a dualist relationship. We do not recognize that as the final goal - that is an incomplete goal. We admit that grace of God can get you to heaven and give temporary bliss of heaven. However, the ever lasting bliss of communion and oneness with the Self is not taught by Christianity, and hence Christianity cannot be expected to show the way for it. Hence our definitions for grace and surrender are distinctly different from you. There is enoromous difference between becoming a servant of God, and getting established in the Self- they require different paths and efforts. Easier, quicker ways have "smaller" attainments. The goal aspired to by Hindus take many incarnations to achieve, as obvious from the vast differences in the goals we are seeking for.;)

satay
17 August 2006, 06:10 PM
namaste,


Why would Jesus Christ say, “ No one comes to my Father except through me”. Why not, come to me only, instead.

To a hindu, these types of quotes don't really mean much. Even to those hindus that have not read gita themselves.

Why would a hindu listen to a third party when a direct instruction is available from bhagwan himself? just curious.

sarabhanga
17 August 2006, 07:16 PM
The scheme is intended to explain the subtle composition of the discreet self-contained entity that appears as an individual living body.




Annamaya kosha - Physical world,
Pranamaya kosha - Physical world,
Kama part of Manomaya kosha - Astral world,
Manas part of Manomaya kosha - Lower Mental world,
Vijnanamaya kosha - Higher Mental world,
Anandamaya Kosha - Intutional world,

The original description of the living body, the mortal abode of the immortal Jiva, has been expanded by Theosophy to provide a general description of the whole universe ~ e.g. the mortal body of Vedanta is considered by Theosophy as the whole physical world.

The seventh principle of Theosophy (i.e. pure Atman, “beyond bodies and sheaths”) is fundamental to the original understanding, although it is implied rather than explicitly enumerated as one of the sheaths. And the implied number of this absolute Atman, existing always beyond the five elements, is surely the sixth ~ which, in this Shaiva context, is exactly equivalent with the fourth (Turiya) of Vedanta.

The first principle of manifest Creation (the Annamaya Kosha) is essentially the same in both systems and, leaving the absolute unconditioned Atman as an unstated assumption, the remaining principles or sheaths may be compared.

The “Etheric Double” of Theosophy, comprised only of inert non-living matter (Anna or food) and quickened only by the winds (Prana), without any Mind or Intellect, and surely without any Soul, is only a bloated corpse that has no place in Vedanta.

And now, ignoring this sinister second principle, only the Astral, Mental, and Causal bodies remain for comparison.

The term Karana Sharira or “Causal Body” refers to the Anandamaya Kosha, as the innermost abode of the Jiva, and Theosophy (as the 7 Principles are presented here) has completely confused the matter.




5. Casual body - Sukshma sarira - Vijnanamaya kosha,

6. Buddhi - Karana sarira - Anandamaya kosha

If this is what Madame Blavatsky intended, then I can only say that she was mistaken in her understanding, and the two systems can never be fully equated.

sarabhanga
17 August 2006, 08:24 PM
“Do I exist?” is an inappropriate question.

Many philosophers would disagree!


Ego cogito, ergo sum.

Cogito, ergo sum.

Je pense, donc je suis.

I am thinking, therefore I exist.

;)

Znanna
17 August 2006, 09:25 PM
namaste,


Quote:
Originally Posted by nirotu
Why would Jesus Christ say, “ No one comes to my Father except through me”. Why not, come to me only, instead.




To a hindu, these types of quotes don't really mean much. Even to those hindus that have not read gita themselves.

Why would a hindu listen to a third party when a direct instruction is available from bhagwan himself? just curious.

I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, so my opinion may be moot :)

But, my take on this quote of Jesus the Christ is that the Christ is an attribute of Jesus, and it is the attribute not the man which is referenced.

The notion of Trinity is echoed in many places to my eye in Hinduism.


Namaste,

ZN
(not orthodox anything)

sarabhanga
17 August 2006, 10:43 PM
Namaste Saidevo,

Atman and prANa both indicate “the breath”, and particularly “the breath of life, the spirit, the soul or principle of life and sensation”.

The plural prANAH simply indicates “life”; and the prANAH particularly refers to “the vital airs”.

And prANa commonly indicates the abstract ideas “respiration, inflation or inspiration, vitality or vigor, energy or power”; or the physical substance of “wind” or “the air which is inhaled”.

Atman generally refers to “the individual soul, the self or abstract individual” or “the essence, nature, character, or peculiarity”; and quite specifically, “the person or whole body considered as one and opposed to the separate members of the body”.

Both prANa and Atman are synonyms of brahmA; although, prANa is usually reserved for the jIvAtman, and Atman (when contrasted with prANa) refers to the paramAtman.

And Vedanta knows prANAtman as “the spirit which connects the totality of subtle bodies like a thread” ~ i.e. the sUtrAtman or hiraNyagarbha.

prANa particularly refers to the vaishvAnara state of Atman;
prANAtman particularly refers to the taijasa state of Atman; and
Atman particularly refers to the prAjña state of Atman.

sarabhanga
17 August 2006, 11:26 PM
Namaste Saidevo,

I presume that “fohat” is an attempt at pronouncing the Sanskrit term phaT, which is an onomatopoeia equivalent with the English “crack!”. And thus A.E. Powell’s use of this strange term as an esoteric name for Electricity. :rolleyes:

Perhaps “fohat” is a Buddhist term, but daivaprakRti would simply mean “divine origin”, “divine cause”, or “divine nature”.

sarabhanga
18 August 2006, 12:00 AM
prANa refers to the jIvaAtman or “life-breath”,
kuNDalinI refers to the sUtrAtman or hiraNyagarbha, and
phaT (referring to vidyut or “lightning”) must represent the paramAtman.

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 01:35 AM
Many philosophers would disagree!


Ego cogito, ergo sum.

Cogito, ergo sum.

Je pense, donc je suis.

I am thinking, therefore I exist.

;)

Yeah, but I also mentioned the context - the question is valid in a discussion with people who believe similarly. With those who dont, and those think avidya=vidya, there could'nt be any positive conclusions resulting from the discussion - after all we also believe that an I does exist, and I alone exists.:)

sarabhanga
18 August 2006, 02:30 AM
phaTa or phuTa is “the expanded hood of a serpent”; and phATa or phauTa would mean “belonging to, or resembling, the expanded hood of a serpent” ~ cf. the Greek term photos, indicating “light” or “radiation”.

satay
18 August 2006, 02:42 AM
I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, so my opinion may be moot :)

But, my take on this quote of Jesus the Christ is that the Christ is an attribute of Jesus, and it is the attribute not the man which is referenced.

The notion of Trinity is echoed in many places to my eye in Hinduism.


Namaste,

ZN
(not orthodox anything)

namaste Znanna,

Thank you for the post. The point I was trying to make was that 'hindus don't care about such quotes. These types of quotes sound childish to a hindu. Even a young hindu child will laugh at this.'

It is totally meaningless to a hindu if someone says, "you can only come to god through me" when God himself has instructed us how we can reach him directly. Such a limited undersanding of God is childish.

It would be funny to see the reaction of a simple rickshawala in delhi if you try this type of quote on him. Yet the so called phd scholars don't seem to understand this point.

My question is why should a hindu care about such a quote when he can simply read chapter 9 and 10 in Gita and get direct instructions?

ps: I am not an orthodox anything either. :cool1:

sarabhanga
18 August 2006, 03:46 AM
The “Etheric Double” comprised only of inert non-living matter (Anna or food) and quickened only by the winds (Prana), without any Mind or Intellect, and surely without any Soul, is only a bloated corpse that has no place in Vedanta.


“Fohat” = phauTa = paramAtman = “Light” ~ and the Theosophical “Electricity” of Fohat (“comprising practically all the physical forces of which we know”) only obscures the original Hindu understanding.

“Vitality” = prANa = jIvAtman = “Life” ~ and I am sure that many scientists do suspect the existence of life (at least here on Earth)!

“Serpent Fire” = kuNDaliNi = sUtrAtman = the “golden thread” that forever binds the Light and the Life ~ and this power has always been central to the Hindu understanding of Yoga.




“These three forces remain distinct, and none of them can at this level be converted into either of the others. This is a point of great importance, which the student should clearly grasp.”

And in Hinduism, it is generally understood that all three limbs are ultimately derived from and supported by the single “fourth foot” of the aja ekapAd (i.e. agnirudra). This is a point of great importance, which all students of Hinduism should grasp!

This seems to be a major point of divergence between Theosophy and the whole of Sanatana Dharma.

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 05:04 AM
the attribute not the man which is referenced.

The notion of Trinity is echoed in many places to my eye in Hinduism.


You are right:

We have the Vaishnava trinity that says Vishnu created Shiva and Brahma.

We have the Shiava trinity that says Shiva created Vishnu and Brahma.

Ever wonder where the Brahma trinity is?

We have have Abrahamic (Abraham = Brahma) trinity, God the father(Brahma) created Jesus(Vishnu) and Holy Ghost( Shiva). Hindus do not worship Brahma, because the concept was exported elsewhere.:)

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 05:55 AM
namaste Znanna,

Thank you for the post. The point I was trying to make was that 'hindus don't care about such quotes. These types of quotes sound childish to a hindu. Even a young hindu child will laugh at this.'

It is totally meaningless to a hindu if someone says, "you can only come to god through me" when God himself has instructed us how we can reach him directly. Such a limited undersanding of God is childish.

It would be funny to see the reaction of a simple rickshawala in delhi if you try this type of quote on him. Yet the so called phd scholars don't seem to understand this point.

My question is why should a hindu care about such a quote when he can simply read chapter 9 and 10 in Gita and get direct instructions?

ps: I am not an orthodox anything either. :cool1:

Hey Satay, I cannot imagine any Hindu other than a Srivaishnava who will be reconciled with a christian because their concepts are so similar. Of course, Srivaishnavism has vastly superior philosophical depth and accords a very high state of realization, but they have similar practices like the way of surrender and grace.

But even a Srivaishnava will laugh if someone tells him ""you can only come to god through me". For rest of the Hindus, all these are just some beginner lessons though very important and essential. If you want me to make a comparison of Kundalini Yoga with Christianity, its heaven will be something like the Anahata Chakra( based on its teachings and theology), several planes below the ultimate realization. All religions claiming exclusivity fall below Vishuddhi, because from Vishuddi onwards there can be no divisiveness, as the organic unity of the universe is realized. People say that "I am the way" to address only lower stages of realization. Who cares about individual sages and their teachings at higher stages, as the entire existance is slowly resolved into a single cause and effect?

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 07:35 AM
Instead, why not take a more practical and realistic approach that Christ Jesus offers. When Jesus said these words, “I am the way, the truth and the light”, I believe, it was not meant to be a mere sermon material for Sundays but truly meant to be taken seriously. No man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the “son” activating Christ Consciousness within creation.


So you are saying that Jesus is Saguna Brahma, the "iconic" representation of the Absolute? Allright. There is nothing in Hinduism that says that anyone reaches the Absolute without the "son" becuase the "son" is the controller of all affairs, while his father is in sleep beyond.

So what is the way to reach the son? You have to atleast read even what the totally dualist Madhvacharya has to say in this matter. They have denied the possibility that mere surender with the physical body could be the way to the "son". Dvaita has a five fold path -

Madhavacharya holds that moksha can be obtained after having been granted aparoxa-jnana ( divine wisdom) and can be gained only by the grace of Vishnu. The state of possessing aparoksajnana while living is likened to the state of being jıvanmukta, liberated while living, as described in the Advaita school.

What is the condition for the operation of Vishnu’s grace?

Hearing – sravana ,
Reflecting - manana,
Meditating - dhyana,
being devoted – bhakti

So, even the extremely dualistic school of Hinduism refuses to admit that any grace of God is possible without learning the vedas, by studying and contemplating on the meaning, by contemplative meditation and also intense devotion. These are virtually the foundations of all schools of Hinduism irrespective of their philosophical position.

The way to the Absolute is the same as the way to the "son" - The grace of the "son" obtained in the above manner.:Cool:

satay
18 August 2006, 09:36 AM
Not to put a negative point on christianity or islam or buddhism or any other 'ism' and 'nity' but my question is:

'why should a hindu care about when others preach that you can get to god through this one door only while claiming that god is infinite and omnipresent?'

I don't see the point.

I guess what I am really asking is 'what would make a hindu throw away his gita and believe in some other scripture?'

I have asked this question to other people who were born in hindu families but are now christians. That's fine their answers were along the lines of that the holy spirit found me. If the holy spirit according to dharma is 'shiva' why would shiva lead someone to yama? Could be due to some past karma?

Could someone enligten me please?

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 10:37 AM
Not to put a negative point on christianity or islam or buddhism or any other 'ism' and 'nity' but my question is:

'why should a hindu care about when others preach that you can get to god through this one door only while claiming that god is infinite and omnipresent?'

I don't see the point.

I guess what I am really asking is 'what would make a hindu throw away his gita and believe in some other scripture?'


I am guessing the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation is the most significant difference between Dharma traditions and Abrahamic traditions. If this theory is true, then it should follow readily that there is more to God realization than the very easy methods described by nirotu. Our existance in the world after many former incarnations show that such surrender and devotion are not easy to practice and the grace of God is not so easy to obtain. We all suffer from a false ego, and a false association with this body and mind, and this keeps the wheel of Karma turning. There is certainly something more than the Christian way that is needed in this case, though certainly no religion can be said to be wrong as long as they teach ways of Dharmic life. Most Hindus will admit that irrespective of the spiritual path one follows, God realization is absolutely essential to be liberated. That is to say, faith alone is never sufficient unless it is so intense to turn you into a sage on its own accord.

If the theory of Karma is wrong, then of course one could argue that we are at the total mercy of a supreme power, and have just no freewill than to submit to the will of this being or get crushed for ever. Such a position is viewed as horrible by most Hindus. Without such a theory of Karma, there could be no explanations for the vast differences in life, why somebody is a born sage and other a wicked person since childhood, why someone is rich or poor, and so on. There could be no proper explanation for such diffferences without the Karma theory. With such one chance games, God suddenly becomes a saviour to some and a destroyer for others - something totally unimaginable for a diety said to be all powerful, omniscient etc. The combination of justice, grace and mercy is impossible in a system where there is no freewill. In Christianity there is no freewill whatsoever to a soul. If it is an atheist it is doomed for ever. How sad can things get? There could be no doubts to a Hindu that the whole system must be illogical.





I have asked this question to other people who were born in hindu families but are now christians. That's fine their answers were along the lines of that the holy spirit found me. If the holy spirit according to dharma is 'shiva' why would shiva lead someone to yama? Could be due to some past karma?


I think it is allright for Shiva to guide someone to Christianity, it maybe in tune with the Karmic requirements of the soul. That is no big deal. Sometimes mere brainwashing is refered to as the call of the holy spirit! Sometimes money and other incentives can be the motivation too. From Advaita's perspective, nothing should matter at all - as there never was a need for any saviour like Jesus as the soul was never in real bondage, so things like eternal damnation are just foolish from this POV. What is needed therefore, is someone who will guide you to shed the false association you have with the world - the thought of I and mine.

Religions like christianity have been described by Swami Vivekananda as a real obstacle to liberation as they add a new layer of avidya called papamaya kosha in addition to the five koshas described in this thread. The concept of "I am a sinner" is a real taboo according to Advaita as it is exactly the opposite of reality and a totally false beleif, and becomes a thick layer of avidya that veils you from the Reality.

satay
18 August 2006, 11:36 AM
I am guessing the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation is the most significant difference between Dharma traditions and Abrahamic traditions. If this theory is true, then it should follow readily that there is more to God realization than the very easy methods described by nirotu. Our existance in the world after many former incarnations show that such surrender and devotion are not easy to practice and the grace of God is not so easy to obtain. We all suffer from a false ego, and a false association with this body and mind, and this keeps the wheel of Karma turning. There is certainly something more than the Christian way that is needed in this case, though certainly no religion can be said to be wrong as long as they teach ways of Dharmic life. Most Hindus will admit that irrespective of the spiritual path one follows, God realization is absolutely essential to be liberated. That is to say, faith alone is never sufficient unless it is so intense to turn you into a sage on its own accord.


Amen to that. Karma and reincarnation theories are a gift that sages gave to the souls on this mrityuloka.

To me personally the following notions are totally illogical but that's just me:
- man is a sinner by default
how can this be? if god creates them then how can something 'unholy' come out of holiness?

-man only exists for one life
again, why only one life? Most of the life is spent in sleeping and doing mundane tasks. why make us 'sweat thro brow' and expect us to be like little robots and obey and fall in line or else be doomed forever?
Disobedience is implied in 'freewill'




If the theory of Karma is wrong, then of course one could argue that we are at the total mercy of a supreme power, and have just no freewill than to submit to the will of this being or get crushed for ever. Such a position is viewed as horrible by most Hindus.


It is totally illogical for 'GOD' to put souls in such a position. If god is love he can not be a judge as well. Love is beyond all judgement and is unconditional. If I must love God then he must accept me the way I am too. If he doesn't that's not my problem that's his problem.

Hinduism has the proper understanding of God. God is love yet there is law of karma that has put in motion and works independent of God like the law of gravity.



Without such a theory of Karma, there could be no explanations for the vast differences in life, why somebody is a born sage and other a wicked person since childhood, why someone is rich or poor, and so on. There could be no proper explanation for such diffferences without the Karma theory. With such one chance games, God suddenly becomes a saviour to some and a destroyer for others - something totally unimaginable for a diety said to be all powerful, omniscient etc. The combination of justice, grace and mercy is impossible in a system where there is no freewill. In Christianity there is no freewill whatsoever to a soul. If it is an atheist it is doomed for ever. How sad can things get? There could be no doubts to a Hindu that the whole system must be illogical.


I agree.




I think it is allright for Shiva to guide someone to Christianity, it maybe in tune with the Karmic requirements of the soul. That is no big deal. Sometimes mere brainwashing is refered to as the call of the holy spirit! Sometimes money and other incentives can be the motivation too. From Advaita's perspective, nothing should matter at all - as there never was a need for any saviour like Jesus as the soul was never in real bondage, so things like eternal damnation are just foolish from this POV. What is needed therefore, is someone who will guide you to shed the false association you have with the world - the thought of I and mine.


I have met christians who follow that system because of the so call 'historic' evidence.



Religions like christianity have been described by Swami Vivekananda as a real obstacle to liberation as they add a new layer of avidya called papamaya kosha in addition to the five koshas described in this thread. The concept of "I am a sinner" is a real taboo according to Advaita as it is exactly the opposite of reality and a totally false beleif, and becomes a thick layer of avidya that veils you from the Reality.

This is where hinduism is on the other end of the scale in fact complete 180 from other religions. When most religions say that 'we are sinners, we are in misery etc. etc.' Vedanta boldly declares, "I am GOD" and then prescribes the methods of experiencing this truths for all but only a few qualify to comprehend it. For those who are like me...I am satisfied with 'I am part and parcel of God' and with bhakti.

I am sinner can not be...if God created me. Did god create me from his pure self or not?

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 12:20 PM
- man is a sinner by default
how can this be? if god creates them then how can something 'unholy' come out of holiness?


Can it be the former Karma it could be referring to? What else could make man a born sinner? But then Christianity has no such concept. No idea. The sin in Hinduism came out of freewill - due to avidya or ignorance.



-man only exists for one life
again, why only one life? Most of the life is spent in sleeping and doing mundane tasks. why make us 'sweat thro brow' and expect us to be like little robots and obey and fall in line or else be doomed forever?
Disobedience is implied in 'freewill'


So we have to be thankful we have the right to disobey, eh? But that freewill is exactly the issue. Apart from Advaita's stance, I have not found one good reason why we should have been created at all. Brahman is of the very nature of bliss - so why create at all? Barring the logical problem Advaita has with respect to Maya, it makes sense to think that God had no need to create and cause misery. Creation as a sport is acceptable at relative plane, but it is difficult to explain the creation and its need. Due to the unexplainable reasons behind creation, Shankaracharya dismissed the absolute reality of the process of creation. If creation is real, it makes God cruel as it is within his omnipotence to liberate everybody in an instant. There is no point in creating some souls, and then punishing them for disobedience. The omniscient God would know beforehand isn't it? If all you percieve is just an illusion, it frees God from this charge.



This is where hinduism is on the other end of the scale in fact complete 180 from other religions. When most religions say that 'we are sinners, we are in misery etc. etc.' Vedanta boldly declares, "I am GOD" and then prescribes the methods of experiencing this truths for all but only a few qualify to comprehend it. For those who are like me...I am satisfied with 'I am part and parcel of God' and with bhakti.

I am sinner can not be...if God created me. Did god create me from his pure self or not?

Everyone is a sinner if we take into account the Karmas of the past and present. Sin is a result of freewill. But Adam's sin cant be used to make you a sinner, unless the whole thing is a metaphor. In some respects, the idea is allright as it could be a way to reduce ones "I" ness.

"I am God" is in some respects impracticable as it still does not offer any consolation from your sufferings, and the concepts of surrender and confessions must have originated by literal analysis of the worldly life. There was a christian who told me that the moment he analyzed the world around him, he was convinced it was engulfed in sin. I asked him why his God created that and he said that it was not God's plan, but his original plans went wrong. Well, what about the omnipotence of God? Well...:)

satay
18 August 2006, 01:02 PM
I asked him why his God created that and he said that it was not God's plan, but his original plans went wrong. Well, what about the omnipotence of God? Well...:)

If god's plan can go wrong then I don't feel so bad. :D

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 01:26 PM
The plan was foiled by one Satan who hijacked a part of the God's team of angels. I wonder if this Satan is the same as our concept of Maya the mysterious, and the hijacked angels being the offshoots of Maya( evolution of prakriti). They keep warning of staying away from Satan, isn't what we are trying to transcend as well? Because Satan is also portrayed as a devil, it is more likely to be tAmasic ahamkAra(instead of the pure Maya), an offshoot of Maya.

saidevo
19 August 2006, 04:26 AM
Namaste satay,



It is totally illogical for 'GOD' to put souls in such a position. If god is love he can not be a judge as well. Love is beyond all judgement and is unconditional. If I must love God then he must accept me the way I am too. If he doesn't that's not my problem that's his problem.

Hinduism has the proper understanding of God. God is love yet there is law of karma that has put in motion and works independent of God like the law of gravity.


God's love is different from the emotion that we call love and as humans have for one another. Human love is blind. God's love is unconditional and non-possessive. Because His love is non-possessive, God is also a judge of human actions, and acts as a karma phala-pradhAtha, the dispenser of the fruits of action, so He is the author of the Law of Karma (and all other Laws). The wonderful thing, however, is that God also subjects Himself to His Laws (thus we have the story of Lord Shani's dhrishti having burnt down the nrityasala where Shiva and Parvati were to dance), specially when He takes avatar.

In human terms, God's love is like that of a father, kind and merciful but also strict and just. The love of a mother, on the other hand, is unconditional but possessive. If a father is like a mother, then the chances are that he may spoil his child, which is why the saying in English a fond father is a fond father.

God accepts us as we are, with all our shortcomings. When we smart under the effects of our negative karma, He gives us the power to withstand the pain, if we believe in Him and surrender to Him.

saidevo
19 August 2006, 04:48 AM
The Bible says that God made man after his image. Yet man is a sinner!
When Jesus says, "as you sow, so you will reap", he obviously refers to the Law of Karma.

I remember to have read somewhere that the Old Testament had the concept of karma and reincarnation in Christianity. These were deleted in the New Testament as the authorities thought that with several births the chances of sinners becoming even more sinful were bright, so they decreed a single birth and life for a human, during which time he should chalk out the path to his Creator. This proved to be wrong because the sinners started thinking that there was only one life, they were already sinners, so let them enjoy life with the fullest material comforts and pursuits!

What is the relation between Karma, Fate and Free-will?

His Holiness Shri Chandrashekhara Bharati of the Shringeri Matam, in one of his famous dialogues with a devotee, has this to say:



"As a follower of our Sanatana Dharma, you must know that fate is nothing extraneous to yourself, but only the sum total of the results of your past actions. As God is but the dispenser of the fruits of actions, fate, representing those fruits, is not his creation but only yours. Free-will is what you exercise when you act now."
...
"Have it this way. Fate is past karma; free-will is present karma. Both are really one, that is, karma, though they may differ in the matter of time. There can be no conflict when they are really one."
...
"The past is past and is therefore beyond your vision and is rightly called adrishta, the unseen. You cannot reasonably attempt to find out the relative strength of two things unless both of them are before you. But, by our very definition, free-will, the present karma, alone is before you and fate, the past karma, is invisible."
...
D.: Does Yor Holiness then mean to say that we must resign ourselves to fate?

H.H.: Certainly not. On the other hand, you must devote yourself to free-will.


Very enlightening! Read the full dialogue at this link:
www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/The_Riddle_of_Fate_and_Free.htm

sarabhanga
19 August 2006, 04:51 AM
In all these four Yogas the individual existence of an “I” in the form of “I am this” or “I am so-and-so” is indispensable.
Without this “I”, no yoga can be performed.

And with this “I”, the culmination of all Yoga practice can never actually be attained!



Self is like a fetus in a womb. It has different stages of development from gestation to full maturity. Yet in all these stages it still is attached to placental cord to connect with the source of energy. Similarly, “self”, in whichever stage of development it is, in its journey needs the hand of grace for the journey.

Of course “Grace” (i.e. Shiva) is required, but surely there comes a time when the unborn child reaches maturity and is actually born ~ and this is the “twice-born” perspective of Sanatana Dharma.




A child is of mother but child is not the mother!

And once again, surely the girl-child will grow and mature and eventually attain exactly the same maternal state as her own mother!




“My grace is sufficient for you.”

Only the hand of grace can break that loop.

Surely, my Shiva is sufficient for you! Only the hand of Shiva can break that noose!




Does a child ever hesitate to jump in the pool if father is there to catch him?

One without fear of drowning will not hesitate to jump, and the best cure for that fear is true knowledge of swimming!




When Christ says, “Come unto Me”, He never asked for detailed analysis or knowledge of Him before coming. Not at all!! Just come. If you truly surrender and have that kind of faith, then nothing else would matter.

And this is exactly the message of ALL Gurus, but true surrender and faith means that one must be ready to follow the Guru’s advice and instructions (to the best of one’s ability) without exception.


asato mA sadgamaya tamaso mA jyotirgamaya mRtyormAmRtaM gamayeti |
sa yadAhAsato mA sadgamayeti |
mRtyurvA asatsadamRtaM mRtyormAmRtaM gamayAmRtaM mA kurvityevaitadAha |
tamaso mA jyotirgamayeti |
mRtyurvai tamo jyotiramRtaM mRtyormAmRtaM gamayAmRtaM mA kurvityevaitadAha |
mRtyormAmRtaM gamayeti |
nAtra tirohitamivAsti |


“Lead me from the unreal to the real! Lead me from darkness to light! Lead me from death to immortality!”

Now when he says, “Lead me from the unreal to the real”, the unreal is verily death, the real immortality. He therefore says, “Lead me from death to immortality, make me immortal”.

When he says, “Lead me from darkness to light”, darkness is verily death, light immortality. He therefore says, “Lead me from death to immortality, make me immortal”.

When he says, “Lead me from death to immortality”, there is nothing there, as it were, hidden (requiring explanation).


This knowledge is called the Conqueror of the Worlds. He who thus knows this, for him there is no fear. For he knows that he is the Prana, and that Prana cannot be defeated by the Asuras. The Prana is the Self of all things, and the Prana pervades all creatures.

:)

TruthSeeker
19 August 2006, 07:23 AM
Often we are caught up in names, forms, dogmas, practices, teachings etc without the true idea of what goes behind. All practices and teachings have to culimate sometime in a unity. Someone feels that grace is paramount, someone thinks that love is paramount, someone thinks that knowledge is, someone think that surrender is -- there can never be so many ways unless they all are just different ways of expressing the same thing. There simply cannot be a easy way for some one and a difficult way for the other. The effort taken by everyone and the grace conferred must be equivalent - else we have the law of divine injustice.

I have this (fictitious) discussion between a Himalayan master and his new world bound disciple with me.(partial)

D: - "How may I surely realize God?"
M: - "What is your goal after death, son?"

D:- "I want to be with God, master"
M:- "Good".

M: - "Where do you see yourself after twenty years, son?"
D:- "I want to become a top man in my company. I want to create many jobs for the poor"

M: - "Allright, but change this long term ambition to God realization, and simply dont postpone it after death"

M: - "So what are your plans for this year?"
D: - "I am expecting a 20% wage hike this year and I want to take some loans to build a house"

M:- "Allright, but change this plan to God realization, and simply dont postpone it close to your death"

M: - "What are your plans for this month?"
D: - "I am taking a vacation trip to Simla with family".

M: - "Why not change it to Badrinath and enjoy the blessings of the Lord?"

M:- "What are your plans today?"
D: - "I have to attend a party tonight with friends. I am longing to meet many of them and have some fun."
M: - " How about changing that and hearing a discourse on the Gita at our ashram tonight?"

D: - "Master, I realize what you say. But is the path so difficult? Why cant I simply enjoy my life. After all this life was given to me by God. Isn't God graceful enough to give me a place by his side without doing all these?"

M: - "Son, how long do you know you will live? Your death could happen when you are eighty, when you are sixty, or even tomorrow or today. How could you keep on postponing?"

D:- "Why is it said that one should have no earthly desires?"
M: - "Becuase you are of divine origin, your thoughts and wishes have so much power. All your wishes have to come true - that is the law of the Almighty. He has given you so much power. If you die before fulfilling your ambitions you have to be born again so that your wishes are fulfilled."

D: - "So once my ambition is fulfilled, I can go back to God?"
M: - "Yes, but where will it end? Now you want to become a top man in the company. Once you reach there, you want to go higher, and higher. These desires have no end. Everyone invariably dies with a lot of unfufilled desires, and are invariably born again"

D: - "So if I become totally desireless (except for God) I will be liberated at the end of this life?"

M: - "The desire you are talking about now is those born of prarabdha karma. When you lead a life of total desirelessness except in divine love, you just exhaust your prarabdha for that birth, but the sancita is still intact and will operate in your next birth."

D: - "How could one deal with the sancita karma"
M: - "Sancita Karma has its deeps roots in the subconscious, so how is it theoretically possible to alter it without reaching the subconscious. So one way to deal with sancita Karma is to follow the path of Jnana, whereby one is able to awaken his consciosuness to the innermost seeds of life, and burn the seeds, so that they do not manifest in future. The other way is to leave it to God, by complete surrender to him."

D: - "What would be a complete surrender to God?"
M : - "Complete in all respects. The evils of fear, lust, greed, envy, anger,delusion must be totally eliminated and all circumstances in life must be handled with perfect equianimity. Make no complaint about anything in life, not even mentally - that would be perfect surrender to the divine will and will destroy the seeds of sancita karma"

D: - "But this is also equally difficult to follow. How is this possible to follow this at all?"
M: - "When you begin to make the sincere effort to submit to the divine will unconditionally the rest is taken care by the Lord. It is said that if you take one step towards God, he will take ten steps towards you. A few months of practising the surrender will be sufficient as it would bring on the divine grace, that leads to considerable mental strength capable of withstanding all odds in life"

D: - "So what happens to those who do not submit to the divine will or not follow the path of Yoga?"

M: - "If the person practices desirelessness(without creating any new desire) without such total loving surrender, sancita Karma will burn out in a few incarnations, typically about seven. We have seeds for atleast seven future births the moment we are born, unless one has been a (partial) Jnanin in the former birth. When sancita has burnt out the Self shines in all glory."

D:- "What is the role of devotion towards God?"
M: - "Devotion is identical to surrender - loving for love's sake alone with no complaints about life."


D: - "I still do not see the grace of God anywhere. It looks as if I have to earn everything."

M: - "Is that true , son? It is God's grace that brought you here today, it is by God's grace that you even understand the way, it is his grace that you will ever attain the state of desirelessness or ever get a suitable teacher. The very thought of God realization that you have now is the grace of God alone. Earnest desire of God happen to the very few in the world - most are just content with the world. If you ever think about God when he is nowhere to be seen, it is by his grace alone."

D: - "What happens to those cannot rise upto this level?"

M: - "Dont you worry about all those people. You just care for yourself. How can you worry about others when yourself have no control of fate? Every man is divine in nature - he needs no guidance from anybody than the grace within. This is all play of God. There is no need for anybody to worry for others in this regard. When it is time, God will send out the instructions by any means. He sometimes uses other people to reach us, or sometimes directly. Nothing here has ever happened without his knowledge and approval, nor will it happen in future."

TruthSeeker
19 August 2006, 10:55 AM
Surely, my Shiva is sufficient for you! Only the hand of Shiva can break that noose!


The holy spirit, eh?;)



And this is exactly the message of ALL Gurus, but true surrender and faith means that one must be ready to follow the Guru’s advice and instructions (to the best of one’s ability) without exception.


Surrnder always doesn't work because people tend to surrender to what they feel comfortable with, and flee from what they aren't!




This knowledge is called the Conqueror of the Worlds. He who thus knows this, for him there is no fear. For he knows that he is the Prana, and that Prana cannot be defeated by the Asuras. The Prana is the Self of all things, and the Prana pervades all creatures.


Anyone who says Jnana is optional is possibly bypassing Hindu Dharma. There may be many ways to it, but that is what the final goal is. The knower of Brahman becomes (situated in the) Brahman. Some people still keep confusing Jnana with knowledge of vedas, which could only serve as a guide at best. Adharmic religions have absolutely no such concept. They keep brining in the analogy of mother and child (God and soul) without realizing that the child has to grow as the mother, and also not explaining why the mother sometimes casts the child into an eternal firepit. So much for grace talk!

TruthSeeker
19 August 2006, 01:54 PM
When most religions say that 'we are sinners, we are in misery etc. etc.' Vedanta boldly declares, "I am GOD" and then prescribes the methods of experiencing this truths for all but only a few qualify to comprehend it. For those who are like me...I am satisfied with 'I am part and parcel of God' and with bhakti.


Actually there is only a thin line dividing the state between the concept of "I am God" and "'I am part and parcel of God", though our Advaitin and Vishsitadvaitin friends would not allow us to beleive so, with the Advaitin claiming some superiority of doctrine and Vishsitadvatin claiming the former to be false or even blasphemous.

You must possibly be knowing that Ramanuja school accords the same bliss to the soul as it does to Brahman, and also labels it a part of God - from a purely technical perspective, as the real goal of mukti is bliss only, what difference is it going to make in your experience anyway? The clash between Advaita and VA is totally a concept born of ignorance. It does not even matter whichever is true, because as a soul you are going to enjoy the same bliss and the Advaita experience makes no additional gains in bliss.;)

nirotu
19 August 2006, 03:22 PM
Dear Truthseeker:

I hope I am presenting my views with a friendly and not a confrontational tone. These are pointed in defense of what I believe in my heart, only in response to what has been asked, which may not agree with you or others. I hope we are mature enough to guard our views and restrict confrontation strictly between views and not between persons.


But when does the grace act? If it is unconditional, why I should care about that aspect of God at all? If it is conditional, what is the condition? Just believe in God and go my way?
No! It is conditional in the sense that Grace is given to those who are humble! In order to stand before God, humility (no ego!) is of utmost importance. Getting rid of this ego, material or spiritual, is essential condition towards enjoying God’s grace.


Sages and Munis were never born suddenly according to Hindu Dharma. They have all only evolved. They were able to surrender to God only through the knowledge of God. Even in certain special cases where people have become overnight saints, it is only the result of former experience of God alone.
Even to those who have achieved the higher state, the grace was the sole enabler. As said above, humility was the essence of their life. Thus, when you surrender to Have God’s control over you, God will reveal you the best possible way to know Him.


What would be Christianity's explanation of a big time thief becoming an enlightened sage overnight (has happened in reality)? I suppose you are referring to Apostle Paul. Yes, he was a Jew and a persecutor of Christians. Yet, God used him to spread the gospel. In an instant his heart that was against Jesus turned to him. Similarly, just look at Valmiki Maharishi who was notorious gangster. Yet, God used him to write the epic Ramayana. In both cases you see how repentant they were of their actions! This tells us 1. God can use any one to bring his revelations to the rest and 2. God is merciful to every one who comes to Him with repentant heart and contrite spirit. He is not looking for your ‘ability’ but ‘availability’.


And a virtuos god loving person having no enlightenment all through his life? Just God's random behaviour? Dont you see that there is something more to it than we see outwardly? Why would the grace fall on the thief, and not fall on the devout?Not true! Just as rain falls on good and bad ground equally, and, just as sun shines both on righteous and unrighteous equally, God’s grace is to all equally and fully.


We do admit that all souls are intrinsically divine, but they just do not know their true nature. Those who do not know this are ordinary mortals.Yes, we need that soul-awakening and quickening of our spirit. That is why you have been given the “knowledge” to acquire all information regarding God and the “wisdom” to discern what truth is and what is not. Until you are able to separate the “truth” from knowledge, you will not experience that bliss. This wisdom will enable you to know the truth and have that intimate relationship with God. The God that one experiences in that state is purely “relationship-based” and not “knowledge-based.”


Sages were not ordinary mortals like us. That is the difference between our lines of thinking. Sages are more like incarnations just like Jesus - you need to become a Jesus in order to qualify in Hindu Dharma, and following his footsteps is just the starting point of a long journey! I would not characterize by going that far to include incarnation.
They were of enlightened nature but not incarnational. Christians believe that accepting Jesus Christ as the savior is necessary as well as sufficient conditions to unlock the secrets of life! There is no stage beyond that!!


Your sole savior is yourself (which manifests as God); the very divinity in you - there is absolutely no need of external agencies. The God we externally see is only "I" - you only need to know it. There is no God apart from yourself.That is quite a statement!! I would tread very carefully. For though you seek to be inventive in denying the existence of God outside of self, many in Hindu Dharma, and especially Christian are clear, that you have no ground upon which to stand. It would be hard to dissuade me from this belief – existence of eternal God apart from me, if it were not for the way He has touched my life and the lives of so many that I know.

- By proclaiming there is no God apart from you, you have made “worship” meaningless. The very essence of worship is in subject-object relationship. If there is no God outside of self, does the nature of worship carry any meaning? Who would you be worshipping? People all over the world, regardless of culture, have always cultivated a system of worship. The object of worship may vary, but the sense of a “higher power” is an undeniable part of being human. Our propensity to worship accords with the fact that God created us “in His own image” (Genesis 1:27).

- By claiming we are essentially divine, you have made divine intervention meaningless. Why was it necessary for God to intervene in our lives, through as many as Ten reincarnations?

- Your subsequent statement – through “yoga” you can accomplish the knowledge of “self” is very telling of your ignorance or perhaps confusion. As an advaitan, I would have accepted the premise of meditation. Yoga by definition is “union” between two separate entities. Who is uniting with whom? Here again one requires subject-object relationship for union. You contradict when you say divine is in you and, in the same breath, you are trying to unite with yourself through yoga.

I may not have scientific proof of the existence of God but when I step out of the house, I find the awesome sight of the nature surrounding me evokes a sense of wonder, a deep awareness of transcendence all pointing towards the presence of an intelligent designer, creator.

Such a designed universe could not have been in existence from eternity! Science tells us that every process is described by an initial condition but if universe was co-eternal with God, there would be no initial condition that describes the universe in that there is no initial state but eternal state.

This would also go against the proven ‘Big-Bang’ theory of creation! If there was an “effect” such as Big-Bang, there must be a “causer” of first-cause. None of this would happen if God was not able to operate outside the confines of human body! Many have tried to come up with alternative theories like steady-state theory of eternal existent universe (Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar) but they could not stand the test of time.


Is God's grace dependent upon whom I choose to follow? What I refuse to believe in God due to lack of evidence - what happens to the grace of the "merciful" God? Buddha denied the existence of God like Christianity, so what if he is correct? What would be the role of God's grace in Buddhism?Unfortunately, grace plays no role in Buddhism. For to have grace you need grace provider - God. Buddhism does not believe in personal God! Buddha may have been enlightened but for himself. His profound conclusion was to strive to detach ourselves from the desires and actions of our ego in order to attain enlightenment. On Buddha’s deathbed his followers asked who they should follow next and he replied “ Be ye a lamp unto yourselves; workout your own salvation with diligence.” While he was certain of his own destiny, he was not so sure of his disciples because he did not believe in a personal God to be saved.


Let us say that I choose to follow Christianity, but broken the Ten Commandments many times in life due to human weakness I am unable to overcome. What happens to me and God's grace? If God's grace is available to those who break commandments, then why bother to keep them at all and why not enjoy the law of "survival of the fittest". If God's grace is available only to those who keep the commandments, then why is it called grace in the first place? It is earned after all by keeping the commandments.

You have it wrong! Along with a compassionate side of God, there is also a side that shows His righteousness. God is merciful and just! Justice is not to be excluded in His dealings. Do not be fooled by the notion that grace is freely accessible when you knowingly sin! There is no escape from the consequence of sins. While accepting Christ may have wiped out clean your conscience but not the consequences.

In the NT, Paul makes it very clear that keeping the laws will not save you but strictly by grace through faith. This was the "thorny issue" between Jews and Christians, even today. If you keep the commandments then you have to keep them all and at all times, which is utterly impossible for any human and Apostle Paul knew this.


So whatever way you look at it, grace has no place without merit. So it boils down to what the merit is. We say that the merit lies in deep yearning and love for God, and consequent enquiry and search for God, so deep as to reveal the true nature of God (and self) - anything that falls short is given another chance in the next birth. As simple as that!
God is gracious to me and I am grateful for that. My gratitude towards God is shown in my good works! I did not earn grace through my good works! Rather good works in me was a logical outcome of His grace upon me. Our merits deserving God’s grace gives us false impression that as long as you are sincere, every work that you do merits God’s grace. Hitler was sincere and worked hard to kill Jews. Stalin did the same to massacre his own folks. They all worked hard, they were sincere in their work. Does that mean they merit God’s grace? I hope not!! A person can be sincere but he can also be sincerely wrong!


Moroever, you have to compare the goals we are trying to attain. The goal of Christianity is only heaven, where you reside with God in a dualist relationship. Yes! The only way of worshipping the maker in the heaven would necessitate this dualistic relationship.


We do not recognize that as the final goal - that is an incomplete goal. We admit that grace of God can get you to heaven and give temporary bliss of heaven. I respect your view even though I do not necessarily agree.


However, the ever-lasting bliss of communion and oneness with the Self is not taught by Christianity, and hence Christianity cannot be expected to show the way for it. Christianity does not teach about having oneness, but an everlasting relationship with the maker. Otherwise, communion becomes meaningless. Who would you commune with if your “self” same as that of the “Creator”?

Blessings,
nirotu

TruthSeeker
20 August 2006, 05:59 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

There could not be a very meaningful discussion with you, as long as there is emphasis on labels like Christ. These are just names just like other Shiva or Krishna. Similarly, Christianity, Hinduism etc are all mere labels to me. There is nothing outside Dharma, so you could theoretically say whatever you want and yet be classifed as a Dharma adherent. The otherway from your side would not be possible because Christianity is terrinbly bound by dogmas, names, forms and rituals. So all my answers may not be pleasant for you. Infact, I could discuss with a typical Vaishnavite or Shaivite only like this. There have been many discussions between Hindus on this forum that simply reach a stalemate because people always talk about scripture and dogmas, and never about practical means of knowing things.:)

Ramana Maharishi would never entertain philsoophical discussions because it is a waste of time. Presupposing truth is never useful. What is the practical means of knowing the truth? I see that you find Yoga as a waste, eh? Yogis are the greatest of human beings, as they know God and have completely surrendered to God. How could you hold something above a Yogi?

There is a lot of difference between surrendering to a God whom you have no knowledge about, and surrendering when one knows God. Hope you would not want to put down the saints of our land, below Christ?





No! It is conditional in the sense that Grace is given to those who are humble! In order to stand before God, humility (no ego!) is of utmost importance. Getting rid of this ego, material or spiritual, is essential condition towards enjoying God’s grace.


Could you define humility? How could you loose ego, when you think you are this body?

And you are talking of spiritual ego? How do you know that even one such entity exists and when you do not know that, how will you surrnder that ego?

Material ego can be surrendered by developing vairagya or desirelessnes, also called as self surrender. This assumes that you have shifted your burden to the Lord instead of yourself, This means one no longer makes any more complaints with life irrespective of how joyful or sorrowful it is, and it is there in the bible too - "Turn your other cheek". Are you sure you can turn the other cheek in all circumstances in life? What happens to those who dont?


Spiritual ego cannot be surrendered without knowing what that ego is, so you need that knowledge before surrendering it. Am I right?

Both knowledge and surrender(love) are absolute prerequsites before you can completely surrender. That is the Hindu view point. The investigation into Advaita or Vishitadvaita or Dvaita can begin only with practical knowledge of this spiritual ego. Without that, it is all dogmas and superstitions.




Even to those who have achieved the higher state, the grace was the sole enabler. As said above, humility was the essence of their life. Thus, when you surrender to Have God’s control over you, God will reveal you the best possible way to know Him.
I suppose you are referring to Apostle Paul. Yes, he was a Jew and a persecutor of Christians. Yet, God used him to spread the gospel. In an instant his heart that was against Jesus turned to him. Similarly, just look at Valmiki Maharishi who was notorious gangster. Yet, God used him to write the epic Ramayana. In both cases you see how repentant they were of their actions! This tells us 1. God can use any one to bring his revelations to the rest and 2. God is merciful to every one who comes to Him with repentant heart and contrite spirit. He is not looking for your ‘ability’ but ‘availability’.


This is a view of Christianity. A Valmiki, a robber to saint conversion can never happen by mere chance. That would make God extremely partial and infact an injustice done on his other devotees who have been worshipping for his vision for many incarnations. God's grace is implicitly present in our hearts all the time. You have to know that it exists by finding it within your hearts.

janmAntara sahasreshu tapo dhyAna samAdhibhih | narANAm kshINa pApAnAm kRshNe bhaktih prajAyate | (Srimad Bhagavatam)

"The sins of human beings get annihilated over a period of several births by means of austerities, meditation, and contemplation on Him, and true devotion to Lord kRshNa results in the end."

Hinduism is categorical that true love for God arises only through experiences of God in samAdhi in a former birth. It is not accident or chance.

Without samAdhi, any love for God can never cross material bounds - "I love you, please give me this" attitude. If you have true love, you cant even pray because a prayer is a request. If you have the true love right now, it means you have seen God in a previous birth - no doubts about this. You can judge that for yourself.



Not true! Just as rain falls on good and bad ground equally, and, just as sun shines both on righteous and unrighteous equally, God’s grace is to all equally and fully.


That must mean no one goes to hell right? Even Satan must be rejoicing in heaven now, eh? I wonder what you mean by grace at all!! It is like looking at a poor man and saying I have pity on you, but I would give you anything.



I would not characterize by going that far to include incarnation.
They were of enlightened nature but not incarnational. Christians believe that accepting Jesus Christ as the savior is necessary as well as sufficient conditions to unlock the secrets of life! There is no stage beyond that!!


Dharma cannot believe in the speciality of Christ. He was one son of God like the many sons of God, India has produced over centuries. Many such sons live in India even today, and you would be lucky to see such a true son. So his teachings cant be anything more special than anybody else. We are all sons of God, the true son is the one who knows it.

Dharma teaches that:

1. Know God is in the sky(external and transcendedal) and worship and love him.
2. Know God is in your heart and find him.(immanent)
3. Know God is in the heart of everybody. (all pervasive)
4. Know God is everything and you are part of that.(panentheistic)
5. Know that you are non different from that.(non dual)

Which stage does Christianity represent? Jesus Christ is certainly a necesary condition, but could hardly be a sufficient condition from the Dharma perspective. It appears to me Christianity is stage 1. Certainly Jesus Christ is a necessary and sufficient condition for all Christians - not for me(us)!



That is quite a statement!! I would tread very carefully. For though you seek to be inventive in denying the existence of God outside of self, many in Hindu Dharma, and especially Christian are clear, that you have no ground upon which to stand. It would be hard to dissuade me from this belief – existence of eternal God apart from me, if it were not for the way He has touched my life and the lives of so many that I know.


Not a problem, because people are entitled to beleive differently and Dharma does not pressurise, scare or coerce people to beleif. Truth needs no proof or advertisement. Where there is no real truth, there will be need to such big advertisements and campaigning. Advaita is not to be experienced in some distant part of the universe - it is right here. Change yourself and your consciousness, nothing is gained by transportation to a distant place outside the universe.




By proclaiming there is no God apart from you, you have made “worship” meaningless. The very essence of worship is in subject-object relationship. If there is no God outside of self, does the nature of worship carry any meaning? Who would you be worshipping? People all over the world, regardless of culture, have always cultivated a system of worship. The object of worship may vary, but the sense of a “higher power” is an undeniable part of being human. Our propensity to worship accords with the fact that God created us “in His own image.


But who told you the final goal of human being is to engage in worship? It is only a means to the end, and not the end in itself. God, by his very definition of completeness needs no worship or praise. That is a human concept of God. What is God lacking to command worship? God is eternal, blissful, peaceful, auspicious ( nityam shantam shivam) - there is no place for worship there. External worship is certainly needed until a stage in God realization. From some point on, it is internal, then none. It is for your own benefit that you worship, it has no effects on the unchanging Atman.



By claiming we are essentially divine, you have made divine intervention meaningless. Why was it necessary for God to intervene in our lives, through as many as Ten reincarnations?


By claiming that we are divine, I said that nothing called grace is ever needed, because it is always there. It is like putting on the eye-glasses and searching for it in the cupboard.( heard of the story of Kutchu?)

The grace will be found if you beleive in grace, and actually experience it.
We could never be non-divine nirotu. That would make God a horrible monster who is just satisfying some personal whims and fancies by throwing us out in the wilderness here. Does God has any moral rights to put us in hardship here? Who gave him the right? Is might right in God's case? Then that is just a dictator at work.

God can toy us at will only if we are non different from his nature. You have all the rights to "injure" yourself but nobody else. God has no rights to create man if he could not give him happiness. He gets the right only if this were a wilful manifestation of God out of himself. God forfeits his hold on man, the moment man is called non divine, as man never wanted God to create him at all, and he has no obligation to obey God at all. If God gave men freewill, then disobedience was a natural effect. Why introduce grace and punishment?

In Advaita, there is nothing more than exists except a long dream of the Creator. There is absolutely no cruelty on the part of the creator. Even from the phenomeal reality, Lord has EVERRIGHT to toy with me, because I am a part on his divine body.

So dont call yourself non divine. That makes God look like a terrible dictator.




- Your subsequent statement – through “yoga” you can accomplish the knowledge of “self” is very telling of your ignorance or perhaps confusion. As an advaitan, I would have accepted the premise of meditation. Yoga by definition is “union” between two separate entities. Who is uniting with whom? Here again one requires subject-object relationship for union. You contradict when you say divine is in you and, in the same breath, you are trying to unite with yourself through yoga.


Union is between God and soul.
Yoga = God + soul = God { no soul remains}
A water drop dissolved in water becomes water - That is Yoga




Unfortunately, grace plays no role in Buddhism. For to have grace you need grace provider - God. Buddhism does not believe in personal God! Buddha may have been enlightened but for himself. His profound conclusion was to strive to detach ourselves from the desires and actions of our ego in order to attain enlightenment. On Buddha’s deathbed his followers asked who they should follow next and he replied “ Be ye a lamp unto yourselves; workout your own salvation with diligence.” While he was certain of his own destiny, he was not so sure of his disciples because he did not believe in a personal God to be saved.


A number of Buddhist monks have attained the state of nirvana and in perennial bliss, while you keep talking with some bookish knowledge and hoping about the other world. Buddhism is a great religion because it is practical. It brings God and bliss right here on earth, and not in some unverifibale distance place in the sky.The Buddhist is always laughing at others, because we make judgements about them without knowing about the exalted states attained by the Buddha and some of his followers. God's grace is always present, as man is divine. Faith in God could never be an absolute requirement for the bestowing of grace.That would be the condition of a selfish anthropomorphic diety, but not that of an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator. It is almost stupid to think that a Buddhist cannot get the grace! What if he does not beleive in grace, when it is present all along? What if you close your eyes and beleive that the sun does not exist??

Buddha did not talk about God because he did not want men to think themselves to be weak. His path is the way of enlightenment where weakness has no place. God concept has given rise to so much bigotry and hatred in the world than any other concept, and has caused more deaths and oppression than anything else. Buddha avoided that by preaching that there is no need to make any assumptions about a Creator, but rather seek the answers directly. It is a perfect path according to most Hindus. It is my opinion that the Buddhist does find God or the Self described by Advaita, though it bypasses the concept of Isvara. Not a big deal. The morals and ethics taught by Buddhism stand next to no other religion in the world, and has a much superior religeous practice in the way of several techniques of meditation.

Buddhist gets God in this very world you live and does not postpone it after death. How could you make judgements on your own about them?



You have it wrong! Along with a compassionate side of God, there is also a side that shows His righteousness. God is merciful and just! Justice is not to be excluded in His dealings. Do not be fooled by the notion that grace is freely accessible when you knowingly sin! There is no escape from the consequence of sins. While accepting Christ may have wiped out clean your conscience but not the consequences.
In the NT, Paul makes it very clear that keeping the laws will not save you but strictly by grace through faith. This was the "thorny issue" between Jews and Christians, even today. If you keep the commandments then you have to keep them all and at all times, which is utterly impossible for any human and Apostle Paul knew this.


I dont need this version of grace where keeping laws are not mandatory. It made many people animals and they butchered other people thinking that "grace" would be enough! Paul was the one who corrupted Christianity and made it devoid of real substance. Otherwise, there would not be too many differences between Gita and the bible - but for Paul.




Yes! The only way of worshipping the maker in the heaven would necessitate this dualistic relationship.


Since the Christian God judges people, and decides hell and heaven, many Hindus realize that it should be Lord Yama, and the heaven mentioned must be the world of ancestors. That would not only be dualistic but this heaven is not eternal unlike that of Krishna. Those who go to Yama will be born again, without a doubt. To know more about your God, that is Lord Yama, please read the Katha Upanishad.

Christianity is a perfect subset of Dharma and you can follow it with all confidence. Now please leave me to follow my own way.:)

nirotu
20 August 2006, 06:45 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

There could not be a very meaningful discussion with you, as long as there is emphasis on labels like Christ.

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

Now please leave me to follow my own way.:)

So be it!!!
Thanks for your time!

Blessings,
nirotu

TruthSeeker
20 August 2006, 02:22 PM
So be it!!!
Thanks for your time!

Blessings,
nirotu

Thank you, and your time too. I hope you are not disappointed, but there is no way to accomodate Christianity within Sanatana Dharma except as a subset for the following reasons.

The point to note is that vedic religion talks about many destinations after death:

1. Seven heavens, all of which are perishable and having no eternal value. The way prescribed to reach these places of enjoyment of various degrees is the path of doing good works and faith in God. You could live for thousands of years in these happy worlds.

2. The eternal heaven or the world of Brahman, where there we live in the company of Brahman and have Brahman's own nature, and enjoy the same bliss as him, and having vast powers and freedom. The way prescribed to reach here is unique devotion, total surrender, knowledge and grace of the Brahman.

3. In Advaita, there is a third state where there is no such thing as living with the Brahman, but having completely dissolved the individuality in Brahman -- rarely attained by anybody. There is no known way to reach this state than the will of the Lord himself, and the knowledge of Brahman.

Hence, it is probably impossible to reconcile Hinduism with Christianity which talks of one earth, one heaven and one hell, which are against the teachings of Dharma, unless the Christian view is properly mapped. Sanatana Dharma mentions that it is difficult to reach the world of Brahman, and it requires many incarnations of evolution to attain that level of perfection. Broadly, one could say that the greatest sages who existed in the world made it this far and some of them attain complete identity with Brahman. Any path that is devoid of Yoga sAdhana and without the element of Jnana -- could lead only to the lower heavens according to Dharma. Mandukya Upanishad should be sufficient to tell you that knowledge of turIya avasta is needed to attain to the world of Brahman - irrespective of the path you follow.

It is very easy to make statements such as all paths lead to the same goals, but when our paths, our philosophies and goals are entirely different, how could we discuss anything useful? There are many ways that lead to the lower non eternal heavens, so any religion can be reconciled in this aspect. But Hindu concept of Brahman is not quite the same as Abrahamic religions, and I doubt if the scope of these religions carry this far.

saidevo
20 August 2006, 09:56 PM
Namaste Truthseeker,

Your expositions on the concepts of Sanatana Dharma (specially how its philosophy is beyond names, forms and practices and even the concept of God) are brilliant! I like the way you have highlighted the greatness of Buddhism and explained how Christianity and other religions cannot be nothing more than subsets of Dharma.

True and yearning seekers are in every religion. Unfortunately the dogmas of their faith bind them. Even then the really persistent seeker is able to break these bonds, since every bond is to be broken in order to attain liberation.

Whatever the religion, every sadhaka implicitly follows the three paths to self-realization: karma yoga, bhakti yoga and jnana yoga. Sri Krishna may highlight the superiority of Jnana yoga in Bhagavat Gita, but he has also named the other paths yoga so that ordinary aspirants are not discouraged.

As you said, God's grace is available to everyone as the rays of the sun. A karma yogi, like the plants and trees of the vegetable kingdom, absorbs the grace within himself, creates fruits and flowers out of it, and distributes them without keeping anything for himself.

A bhakti yogi is grateful to the rays of grace and worships the giver of grace with true love and devotion.

A jnana yogi receives the rays of grace, contemplates the sun between his eyebrows and attains enlightenment.

Hindu Dharma does not leave or condemn anyone to an eternal hell. Instead it asserts that even the worst pApi who has done some good would enjoy the fruits of his good karma in the lower heavens, albeit for a small period of time. At the same time, it also says that once this period is over, it is mandatory for every soul in these regions of heaven to descend to earth for another incarnation.

Thanks for an overall useful and enlightening discussion.

TruthSeeker
21 August 2006, 04:12 AM
Namaste Saidevo,

I dont think any religions really preach eternal damnation wilfully. In certain stages of spiritual development force and threat maybe needed to make people stick on to principles. Just imagine if your child refuses to do the homework - you might threaten to beat him severely, but very few will use force in reality, and they finally manage to force the child with milder measures(by getting him a toy or a toffee).

The heavenly father who is the embodiment of grace could hardly be attributed with the concept of damnation. Since Dualism is the lower rung of spiritual development - you will find eternal damnation only in these religions. In monism and diluted versions of monism, such a concept would be a taboo. Even Lord Krishna appears very harsh in the Gita towards demonaic people.( 16.19 & 16.20) It is a stern warning that every guru will give to his disciple if his teachings are not followed properly.

If the guru says that you may follow me or not, then it is highly likely that the disciple will opt for the easier route.(not following) That was the mistake made by Paul. By claiming that keeping the laws are not mandatory, and grace alone is the winner - he has confused a significant number of Christians that resulted in the killing of so many innocent people. All the witch burning, inquisitions, crusades etc were result of such teachings only. Had he mentioned boldly that laws were higher than grace, every Christian would have kept up the commandments at the cost of his life. "Thou shall not kill" is a fundamental law that belongs to Christianity. Paul's Christianity ensured that this law was optional to follow.

What Bhagavad Gita really preaches is hard to decide. It does seem to exemplify Bhakti Yoga, but this is not the ordinary devotion that we are familiar with, but related to Jnana-Bhakti. One might say that Buddha's version of Yoga is Jnana Yoga, but a theistic version of Jnana Yoga is called Bhakti Yoga - apart from that these two are not different. And Gita being an out and out theistic text will promote the theistic version of Yoga - Bhakti Yoga. The theistic version of Yoga meets God's grace head on, and might offer an easier path during the course of Yoga. Jnana Yoga that treads the path of the Absolute directly is faced with too many problems because the Absolute is not an object of human imagination and is completely unsuitable for most people. The concept of surrender to God must never be under emphasised even in the path of enlightenment - and that is what that differentiates Hinduism from Buddhism. God gives us freedom to choose our liberation with his direct help and without his direct help (nevertheless grace is always present) - the two paths distinguish theistic religions and religions like Buddhism. Whatever religion one follows now, we can assume that he will be lead into the path of Bhakti Yoga in a suitable incarnation, where he will find God. How soon will possibly be decided by how eager the devotee is. Many sages have said that that the yearning for God must get as intense as a man whose head is held under water for a while would yearn for a breath - that alone will find God.

satay
21 August 2006, 09:19 AM
Interesting view everyone!

One thing I would like to say is that 'christianity does make liberation/salvation look very easy'. When a newcomer to hinduism might be confused for months trying to find out which manifestation of bhagwan to pray...christianity comes and says...here follow this man...in fact, don't even follow him just accept that he will get you salvation. Nice sounding deal for those who don't know the way karma works and those who never read Bhagwan's direct instructions in gita.

I am always amazed at the 'thou shall not kill'; why would god give moses the laws and then later make it optional through paul? :coffee:

:cool1:

satay
21 August 2006, 09:22 AM
Oh...forgot to say that...
To a hindu all these claims of 'walking on water', 'I am the only way' etc. etc. are meaningless. They only make sense if viewed from the vedantic way and so thus for me I feel that christians have not understood jesus of nazerath at all!

perhaps they should live the 'sermon on the mount' instead...that would most certainly make this world a better place.

yes, I am making this bold claim that only a vedanti understands the true message of jesus baba.

Jai Jesus baba ki

TruthSeeker
21 August 2006, 01:52 PM
I am always amazed at the 'thou shall not kill'; why would god give moses the laws and then later make it optional through paul? :coffee:



The Sermon on the Mount overrides Moses law I beleive, and is one law that preaches perfect self surrender to the divine will. Who would say that Christianity is a myth while reading that - it is as good as Srivaishnavism ( which has no "optionals" with the same teaching).

But the "optional" clause had to be invented because Christianity had no Karma theory and either everybody had to be "pushed up" to heaven or "pulled down" to hell. So where to draw the line? Fearing that these laws would scare away people, Paul made them "optional". Good missionary strategy and helped them make build good numbers.

Znanna
21 August 2006, 08:00 PM
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/MysGol_index.html

atanu
22 August 2006, 12:33 AM
Namaskar Shri Nirotu,

Whatever You have written is from the view point of a self (the american variety I-Me-Mine) and not from the perspective of 'all beings in the Self and Self in all beings' --- the Self of Gita.






-------
my reality is in my creator who is apart from me.



Without knowing this "my" the so-called "reality" is likely to be very unreal.


Who will know the creator? Is He known?





That is a tall order! Besides, when the knowledge of own self is full of unresolved doubts, to know the creator by inquiring within would only lead us to a very muddied view at best.



Enquiry leads to absolute stillness of mind. Enquiry is auspicious and not muddled thoughts.

Who is full of doubts? How can the Self which is pure knowledge be full of doubts? At present you are muddled due to non-enquiry.




In fact, the great Ramana Maharishi who is the proponent of such “who am I?” inquiry, only ends up admitting the following: “The true import of the Sastras cannot be learnt except from Jnanis, that is, those who have had and live in the direct experience of reality; no one can understand the true spirit behind any of the Sastras merely by his command over language or by his keenness and superiority of intellect.”



And He also says that direct experience of reality means abidance in Self, which is direct, closest and with everyone, including God and Son, and at all times.


You can't say that Jesus did not have a Self. Can You?







If knowing self (self-inquiry) is a sufficient condition to know the non-self - God, why sages like Ramana, Ramakrishna, Shankara, Chaitanya etc, had tears in their eyes in their Bhakti?




A sufficient condition would be that which would dry up all tear glands, Eh? That happens to external God seekers.


Esoteric God lovers cry so often, because God is found to be one's very own -- the Atma. The closest, never separable.






Instead, why not take a more practical and realistic approach that Christ Jesus offers. When Jesus said these words, “I am the way, the truth and the light”, I believe, it was not meant to be a mere sermon material for Sundays but truly meant to be taken seriously. No man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the “son” activating Christ Consciousness within creation.



Yes, no doubt. Much before Lord Jesus, Lord Krishna said so while teaching Arjuna. And much before that it was taught through Isha Upanishad. It is the eternal message of Vedas.



You are not taking Christ seriously, like many of our Gita readers do not do. As if before Christ all roads were closed. As if before Krishna's advent as avatara all roads were closed.





Therefore, to me, a complete surrender to the will of the Father and begging for mercy to know God is more appealing than going through rugged practice towards an unattainable goal.



So, You have already decided that the goal is unattainable? With such biased attitude One can only comprehend the half of Christ's teachings. One simply does not care when He also says: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within".


The Heaven within is waiting with a smile.

atanu
22 August 2006, 01:02 AM
Allright ji! But aren't you expecting him to accept your view? Your question presupposes that the person you are talking to is also an Advaitin isn't it?

Nirotu will say that he was created by his God(not yours!) and certainly rejects the idea that he was uncreate. Do you have any logical arguments to show that you were never created? Scripture is not going to be of use, and he will bid your sources good bye, just like we handle his scriptures.:)

;)


Namaskar,

Who am I to expect anything?


And often a few questions are all that a mind (not necessarily Nirotu's) may need -- to set up a spark.

Znanna
22 August 2006, 06:11 PM
Mystics have always known what scientists "discover", I think


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060822/sc_nm/science_darkmatter_dc

(Fair Use Rules!)


"Dark matter" is real: scientists
By Scott Malone Tue Aug 22, 2:50 PM ET


BOSTON (Reuters) - A team of U.S. scientists has found the first direct evidence of the existence of "dark matter," a little-understood substance with a huge influence on gravity, the team's leader said on Tuesday.

Scientists still do not know what exactly dark matter is, but have theorized it must exist to account for the amount of gravity needed to hold the universe together.

They estimate that the substance accounts for 80 to 90 percent of the matter in the universe. The more familiar kind of matter, which can be seen and felt, makes up the rest.

Now researchers led by University of Arizona astronomer Doug Clowe say they have evidence to back up their theories.

Using orbiting telescopes, the researchers watched two giant gas clouds in outer space collide over a 100-hour period. As the clouds clashed, they said, the visible gas particles slowed, pulling away from the invisible dark matter particles.

The researchers said they could detect the dark matter particles by their gravitational pull on the surrounding visible particles.

"This is the first time we've been able to show that (dark matter) has to be out there, that you can't explain it away," Clowe told Reuters. "We haven't actually been able to see the dark matter particles themselves, but what we have been able to do is ... image the gravity that they're generating."

Some skeptics have argued that dark matter does not exist.
They assert that scientists err in assuming that gravity exerts the same pull whether holding a plate on a table or influencing the travel of stars. Revising the laws of gravity at the interstellar scale would better explain the universe's structure, they argue.

"STRONGEST EVIDENCE"

The research team also included scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and used telescopes operated by
NASA.

Their research is scheduled to be published in an upcoming issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Rachel Bean, a professor at Cornell University who specializes in dark matter and was not involved in the research, called the results convincing.
"It is certainly the strongest evidence we've seen to date that actually solves this dark-matter problem," Bean said.
She said the finding should encourage scientists to concentrate their efforts on determining what dark matter is, rather than developing revised rules of gravity.

"It's very difficult to explain these observations with anything other than particle theory," Bean said. "The dark matter quandary to some extent is helped by these observations, because it helps target the theorists to try and look at particle physics, rather than gravity."



ZN

nirotu
24 August 2006, 05:30 PM
Dear Atanu:



Whatever You have written is from the view point of a self (the american variety I-Me-Mine) and not from the perspective of 'all beings in the Self and Self in all beings' --- the Self of Gita.
I am bit puzzled at this conclusion! Personally, I do not see any difference between “I am “ spoken by Jesus and Krishna of Gita.

I agree that when I speak of “I am”, I refer to my body, an ego consciousness and its physical possessions. This applies, as I see it, to all at the human level.

When Jesus speaks of “I am,” it is from the consciousness of His soul (Atman) being one with Christ Consciousness. Thus, when Jesus says, “I am the resurrection,” it refers to His consciousness in which His soul rises from a lower state on consciousness to the higher state on inner development. Each time Jesus refers to “I am”, He speaks personally from His divine ego (spiritualized human consciousness).[ref: Paramahansa Yogananda- second coming of Christ]

Sri Krishna, when talking with Arjuna speaks from the same Universal consciousness. For example, “Understand O Arjuna! That My different and higher nature (Para-Prakriti) is the jiva, the self-consciousness and life principle, that sustains the cosmos” (Gita VII:5).[Ref: Paramahansa Yogananda - God Talks with Arjuna]

I don’t see any difference between the two.

While I agree with you everything you say here, in my last thread I was addressing a deeper point. It is not western or eastern or a human eye to begin with. I am referring to the divine eye of Jesus or self-realized beings. Even the higher self realizes its one-ness yet that also senses its connection with the Father or Brahman. Even at any level of self-journey the role of grace is equally needed. Realize that when Christ Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” or when He said, “I am the son of God”, He shows one-ness but in that one-ness He senses the connected-ness.



Without knowing this "my" the so-called "reality" is likely to be very unreal.


Who will know the creator? Is He known?

Could this be an Advaitic intellectual trap? It is mortal “me” reaching out to the creator. This matter “me” (ego) can ever make an inner shift into the higher self or to know without the hand of grace. The only way is by the surrender of mortal “me” to the feet of grace.

The total surrender is by far the hardest in spiritual practice. That alone purifies one and brings about total humility and creates right condition for higher self to bloom. You see, at any level of the self-journey the hand of grace is indispensable.


Enquiry leads to absolute stillness of mind. Enquiry is auspicious and not muddled thoughts.

Who is full of doubts? How can the Self which is pure knowledge be full of doubts? At present you are muddled due to non-enquiry.

My friend, you are actually proving my point. Yes, this conversation can be called muddled. What can bring clarity to these thoughts but the hand of grace? All I am saying is that the muddled mind cannot take a quantum leap into higher state without the hand of grace.



And He also says that direct experience of reality means abidance in Self, which is direct, closest and with everyone, including God and Son, and at all times.

Once again you are helping me out by proving my point using “father” and “son”.


You can't say that Jesus did not have a Self. Can You?

Yes, it is the highest self, pure atman without the touch of matter. Even that pure atman of Jesus (Christ) sensed its one-ness but at the same time its connection to the father.




A sufficient condition would be that which would dry up all tear glands, Eh? That happens to external God seekers.

Esoteric God lovers cry so often, because God is found to be one's very own -- the Atma. The closest, never separable.


Even in that state of tears they have all sensed and talked about the connection with the creator. Because, at the very instant they realized the one-ness they also experienced connected-ness.


Yes, no doubt. Much before Lord Jesus, Lord Krishna said so while teaching Arjuna. And much before that it was taught through Isha Upanishad. It is the eternal message of Vedas.

You are not taking Christ seriously, like many of our Gita readers do not do. As if before Christ all roads were closed. As if before Krishna's advent as avatara all roads were closed.

I agree with you. Much of what is said by Christ is already there in the Vedas or Gita and they all precede Christ teachings. It looks as though Bhagvat Gita is the for runner of the New Testament in the Bible. Just for a moment take out the label Christianity and contemplate purely on the message and you will see striking parallels between the two.


Even before any such moral code of conduct existed man has always lived by his conscience. His conscience dictated his conduct. Therefore, no roads were closed as you would accuse me of believing.

On a serious note, what does that tell you? It simply is this: People who think that Christianity came to teach morality to people are simply wrong and are blinded by misunderstood faith. The system of morality existed long before NT doctrine. What I do believe is that Christianity is not based on a system of morality because it does not pretend to have all that is worthwhile in the area of morals. While both Hinduism and Christianity sees the person as a moral being responsible for surrounding moral order, if history is any basis for us to know, we can see the consistent fallen order of man to keep up with moral code.
Given this, I believe, what makes Christianity necessary is the need for a religion to point to us our failure to keep those laws already existed.

Because, such a failure leads man with a desire to atone or appease God through sacrifices (Jews) and rituals (Hindus) year after year. That brings us to a point in the Bible that says, “Isn’t obedience better than sacrifice?” That makes the incarnation of Christ unique. He did not come to show us something about God but, to do something about this fallen order once and for all, not in every life (Gita).

Just like Vedas Christianity tells us what God has done, is doing and will do in the world and in response what we must do to God’s actions. However, Christianity does not condemn you to hell for not following Christ. That is a wrong belief. I believe the Bible explicitly claims that humans are condemned not because that they have not heard about Christ but because they have failed to live up to the standard of righteousness already existed and known to them.

Men have failed to realize this and, I believe, in Hinduism it is much more apparent. Hinduism practice of self-denial is a prime example of the mistaken belief that he needs only to “realize” that he was God. If he claims to be a “Brahman” why is that revelation now? Why did he not know from the beginning? Did he realize only to forget in each of his incarnations?



[quote]So, You have already decided that the goal is unattainable? With such biased attitude One can only comprehend the half of Christ's teachings. One simply does not care when He also says: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within".

The Heaven within is waiting with a smile.

I think in the above exchange, I have alluded to the muddled NIROTU and confused human mortal condition and, to extend that logic further to say, that for this condition to achieve any thing higher needs the help is not to deny the harshness of matter and therefore, the logical conclusion is that only the grace can lift this man from morass of matter into sublime higher self. While the goal is very lofty and noble you cannot deny the starting point of human journey, which begs the need of a savoir.

Blessings,
nirotu

TruthSeeker
27 August 2006, 02:57 AM
Namaste Nirotu,




I am bit puzzled at this conclusion! Personally, I do not see any difference between “I am “ spoken by Jesus and Krishna of Gita.

I agree that when I speak of “I am”, I refer to my body, an ego consciousness and its physical possessions. This applies, as I see it, to all at the human level.

When Jesus speaks of “I am,” it is from the consciousness of His soul (Atman) being one with Christ Consciousness. Thus, when Jesus says, “I am the resurrection,” it refers to His consciousness in which His soul rises from a lower state on consciousness to the higher state on inner development. Each time Jesus refers to “I am”, He speaks personally from His divine ego (spiritualized human consciousness).[ref: Paramahansa Yogananda- second coming of Christ]

Sri Krishna, when talking with Arjuna speaks from the same Universal consciousness. For example, “Understand O Arjuna! That My different and higher nature (Para-Prakriti) is the jiva, the self-consciousness and life principle, that sustains the cosmos” (Gita VII:5).[Ref: Paramahansa Yogananda - God Talks with Arjuna]

I don’t see any difference between the two.

While I agree with you everything you say here, in my last thread I was addressing a deeper point. It is not western or eastern or a human eye to begin with. I am referring to the divine eye of Jesus or self-realized beings. Even the higher self realizes its one-ness yet that also senses its connection with the Father or Brahman. Even at any level of self-journey the role of grace is equally needed. Realize that when Christ Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” or when He said, “I am the son of God”, He shows one-ness but in that one-ness He senses the connected-ness.


I am surprised to see you quoting from Paramahansa Yogananda, when Yogananda himself was an advocate of the path of self enquiry.( They call his approach "Kriya Kundalini Yoga", which is another approach at Self Realizatrion). The term Paramahamsa itself is referring to a person immersed in God consciousness. He might have interpreted the bible from his level of consciousness, but they cannot be mixed with mainstream Christianity.

Though there are many Sanatana Dharma schools, there is really no school without the concept of Self Realization or enquiry. Even the famous Vaishnavaite saint Nammalvar himself says in his hyms that "I searched all round this maze, and searched myself, and when I found myself I knew that I am you (Narayana) and you are me, and the "mine" is yours". You must note these words coming from a saint who is closely associated with Srivaishnavism. His hymns could be easily reconciled with monism, except for flow of emotions and the call for divine service, which are quite natural of many other monists as well. Thus, all truly enlightened saints have sought themselves, and when they found themselves, they knew it was the Atman. It is always questionable if there exists an identity relationship between the soul and Atman, but there is no denying that there is only a thin line dividing them.









I think in the above exchange, I have alluded to the muddled NIROTU and confused human mortal condition and, to extend that logic further to say, that for this condition to achieve any thing higher needs the help is not to deny the harshness of matter and therefore, the logical conclusion is that only the grace can lift this man from morass of matter into sublime higher self. While the goal is very lofty and noble you cannot deny the starting point of human journey, which begs the need of a savoir.


The fact that complete surrender to God is (nearly) impossible is brought out by the fact human beings have been in bondage for a very long time since creation. There has been no "saviour" who have intervened so far for anybody, including me or you or anybody else on this forum or in the world. Is it because we have never sought the grace or the grace we sought for had been rejected? Is it reasonable to think that we never sought the grace even once during our millions of previous births?

The fact remains that grace falls only on those who really deserve it. One should earn the qualification by earnestly seeking God through some practice. There is no doubts that God's grace acts by removing the obstacles on the way.

It is not possible to completely surrender to God in the absence of knowledge(vision) of God. There is no doubts whatsoever that God expects a surrender of 100% in order to act as your "saviour". Other theories could never explain why still devout Hindus have not been liberated in the course of their milions of past incarnations.

Christianity deals only with the current birth, and does not really explain the Karma Theory, and hence we cannot expect it to teach religion in depth. It shows a way how one could progress one step in spiritual development, by providing the foundation of faith.

nirotu
31 August 2006, 04:05 PM
Dear Truthseeker:
Welcome back!


I am surprised to see you quoting from Paramahansa Yogananda, when Yogananda himself was an advocate of the path of self enquiry.( They call his approach "Kriya Kundalini Yoga", which is another approach at Self Realizatrion). The term Paramahamsa itself is referring to a person immersed in God consciousness. He might have interpreted the bible from his level of consciousness, but they cannot be mixed with mainstream Christianity.
Here is an intuitively, and a spiritually perceived, spiritual interpretation of the word spoken by Jesus, that the truth received through actual communion with Christ Consciousness. They will be found to be universally true if they are studied consciously and meditated upon with soul awakened intuitive perception. All I was inferring from this was that if manifested mind cannot comprehend unmanifested mind, only a spark of the Brahman (Atman) can awaken that soul to know the father. That is what I call activating Christ Consciousness.
I do agree with you that his views are far-off from main stream Christianity. While I do not completely agree with Yogananda’s Neo-Vedantic theosophy, I credit him for the efforts made to harmonize scriptures with Gospel.

I would also remind you that trying to make a point using his quote should not deter one from individual belief and conviction.





The fact that complete surrender to God is (nearly) impossible is brought out by the fact human beings have been in bondage for a very long time since creation.
Exactly, my point. More one sees this truth of how impossible it is to surrender completely, more validation given to my original point that the starting point of the spiritual journey is through the hand of grace.

The dilemma is even true surrender requires the hand of grace.



There has been no "saviour" who have intervened so far for anybody, including me or you or anybody else on this forum or in the world. Is it because we have never sought the grace or the grace we sought for had been rejected?
Is it reasonable to think that we never sought the grace even once during our millions of previous births?

If you think you are in this dialogue or in this level of spiritual journey without the help of grace then you are kidding yourself! Once again I would like to point out and, it is not a personal comment to you. It is an arrogance of human mind that thinks that it will have sought out grace, which is foolish. The truth of the matter is “grace” is omnipotent and bestows upon all. Do not think you have to go out and seek.

Having said that, I do not undermine human role in this. Only thing that matter ridden mind/ego can do is to have faith and constant remembrance of grace. A familiar hymn that says, “It’s the grace that brought you thus far and only grace will lead you home” is written to reflect the same.



The fact remains that grace falls only on those who really deserve it. One should earn the qualification by earnestly seeking God through some practice.
The arrogant “I” always thinks I am the doer when knowledge plays a key role in his ascent. I agree with you but the word should be not “deserving” but “yearning”. Deserving implies you are accruing favor but the true meaning of grace is “unmerited favor”. You don’t have to have credentials to deserve it!



There is no doubts that God's grace acts by removing the obstacles on the way.

While I do agree with you that God’s unconditional love towards humanity does indeed makes provision for removing obstacles, in terms of the end-point (salvation), what truly sets Christianity apart from Hinduism is in the differing beliefs in work or merit-based salvation as opposed to grace-based salvation.

As you can see, there are many religions that place an individual on their own, striving for spiritual perfection. Also, there are examples in Hinduism/Buddhism /Muslim/Christian religion that clearly demonstrate that such a practice was born out of self identification with “imperfect nature”, which I like to call “sinful-nature”. However, looking closely you find, Buddha, for example, never claimed sinless-ness. Muhammad also admitted that he was in need of forgiveness. We also know, all of them were far ahead in their spiritual journey in relation to us, which may be a result of their calling, gift etc,. But, one thing is clear, no matter how wise, no matter how gifted, no matter how influential other prophets, gurus, and teachers might be, they had the presence of mind to know that they were imperfect just like the rest of us.

In this regard, Jesus Christ stands alone in that He never alluded to any personal sin. Do you think, then, it makes all the more sense to heed to Jesus Christ’s call and seek God in Him and through Him?





It is not possible to completely surrender to God in the absence of knowledge(vision) of God.

This begs the question, who is knowledgeable? King Soloman, perhaps, said it the best "In much wisdom is much grief, and the one who increases knowledge increases sorrow" (Ecclesiastes). Knowledge can be blessing, yet it can also be a curse. While having understanding through the knowledge is well but setting that to be the primary vehicle, causes all misery that we come to experience.

This brings us to the starting point of spiritual journey in man’s life:

Do you believe first (by faith) in order to understand (by knowledge)?

OR

Do you need to understand first (through knowledge) in order to believe (have faith).?

I do believe that human mind is incapable of “knowing” as long as mind is masked by “matter-ego”, hence the imperfect knowledge. Hence, the famous Augustine’s dictum: ”If you are not able to know, believe that you may know. Faith precedes; the intellect follows”. Because, man can never achieve a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked into God’s face – John Calvin. I believe that having abiding faith and surrender we access the divine grace and through it the knowledge. You may call it (faith) a random act of will but, truly for me, it is the beginning of an intellectual ascent.





Other theories could never explain why still devout Hindus have not been liberated in the course of their milions of past incarnations.

With this statement you have truly agreed to what I have been saying all along. Why Hindus have not been liberated?

Core Hinduism goes only through “knowledge” and at best it is theoretical for most of them. Many ideas are knowledge based/ritual based. They talk of surrender never really knowing what surrender means. It is much easier said than done.

There is truth to the sayings of Christ, “ Be ye like a child to enter the kingdom of God”. He never meant that you wander like a child but have an unconditional total surrender like a child to his father.

Knowledge of atman is very important but how do we gather it? You cannot make knowledge a starting point. While we both have same noble goal of “self-realization”, let us not undermine the initial inner events that lead us to divine consciousness. Unless the shift is made through grace, it will still be the human mind masking behind the language of the higher self (atman).

When Jesus claims to be the son-of-God, it is His intuitive perception referring to His mind being one with that of the mind of God, which is perfect knowledge. If our experience can lead us to that realization, we truly also will be the sons-of-God.

Blessings,

TruthSeeker
31 August 2006, 05:05 PM
Namaste Nirotu,

You still have not reached to what I am saying. The teachings of Christianity fall well within Hindu Dharma as repeatedly pointed out -- but it cannot be complete by itself, in the absence of emphasis on knowlege, which Hindus refer to by the term Jnana. Where have I said that grace is not needed, both Jnana, Bhakti and grace go hand in hand. If grace does everything by itself, then we wont have to do anything at all. If all it needs me to accept the grace, it means that one cannot be born more than once. In either case, the grace alone thing is not compatible with Hinduism.

Could Christianity accomodate Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga? If it cannot, it should be automatically clear that it is only a subset of Hindu Dharma.

Coming to your post:



Exactly, my point. More one sees this truth of how impossible it is to surrender completely, more validation given to my original point that the starting point of the spiritual journey is through the hand of grace.


Yes, grace is the starting point of the journey, it operates during the course of Yoga and is there till the end. No objections ever raised.



The dilemma is even true surrender requires the hand of grace.


Then why should I surrender at all? Let grace make me do it - cyclic logic.




If you think you are in this dialogue or in this level of spiritual journey without the help of grace then you are kidding yourself! Once again I would like to point out and, it is not a personal comment to you. It is an arrogance of human mind that thinks that it will have sought out grace, which is foolish. The truth of the matter is “grace” is omnipotent and bestows upon all. Do not think you have to go out and seek.


That is correct. And you must be knowing that Shivam is the heart of being in vedanta and not something external to it as in Christianity. So, unlike the "Christian" god, grace is available permanently and finally "forced" upon you, whether you seek it or not!

Let us be frank about this. By truly surrendering to God, god's grace is obtained. How do you truly surrender to God? By just making a statement that you surrender or choosing to beleive that somebody died for your sins? That may be Christianity, but not vedanta. God's grace is to be obtained by accepting everything in life that God gives without a bit of complaint. You deny your miseires and joys, and attribute it to the Lord alone. That alone could constitute true surrender. Not by just professing some beleifs and making a promise of surrender. A partial surrender could come first, and a full surrender would follow in course of time, over a few incarnations, a concept that is missing in Christianity. Those who cannot do this perfect surrender must subdue their senses through the practice of Yoga, still their minds and reach the subconscious and destroy the seeds of Karma that lead to future birth. That is an alternate way for people who cannot surrender in the way mentioned.

In Hinduism, you continue to reincarnate due to unfulfilled desires to which God does not bother no matter what you beleive. The true surrender must be the surrender of these material desires, and the sense of "I" and "mine". You must also note that Hindu ideas of "I" are deeper than Christianity. These "I" exist at many levels deeper, and surrender of those desires are much more harder as they are beyond your reach. It is much harder to relinquish the pleasures of heaven than the eartthly objects. For a man who cannot control lust or his desire for earning a bit of wealth on earth, there could be no way he could reject the heavenly charms. While Christianity stops with such heavenly pleasures, vedanta goes beyond and takes you to the level of God himself ( dont want to argue advaita or VA, but you got the idea) - that is why Hinduism is much deeper than than the superficial concepts of Christianity. As a Hindu and vedantin, I am supposed to decline all heavens if I have to progress spiritually - Christianity does not really address this issue at all, where heaven in the final goal.






While I do agree with you that God’s unconditional love towards humanity does indeed makes provision for removing obstacles, in terms of the end-point (salvation), what truly sets Christianity apart from Hinduism is in the differing beliefs in work or merit-based salvation as opposed to grace-based salvation.


You are missing the point entirely. In Hindu Dharma also by God's grace alone without any emphasis on any works or knowledge process, heaven can be attained. That way it is like Christianity. What sets Hinduism apart is that Hinduism is not dealing with heaven as its goal, but something higher than the Christian heaven( which is Deva or Pitri loka), which is just a temporary stop..




As you can see, there are many religions that place an individual on their own, striving for spiritual perfection. Also, there are examples in Hinduism/Buddhism /Muslim/Christian religion that clearly demonstrate that such a practice was born out of self identification with “imperfect nature”, which I like to call “sinful-nature”. However, looking closely you find, Buddha, for example, never claimed sinless-ness. Muhammad also admitted that he was in need of forgiveness. We also know, all of them were far ahead in their spiritual journey in relation to us, which may be a result of their calling, gift etc,. But, one thing is clear, no matter how wise, no matter how gifted, no matter how influential other prophets, gurus, and teachers might be, they had the presence of mind to know that they were imperfect just like the rest of us.


The imperfection is a temporary one. One who claims that he is perfect is probably not one. When one does become perfect, he is immersed in Brahman and does not speak at all. Those who said they were imperfect were indeed imperfect, and quite honest about it.




In this regard, Jesus Christ stands alone in that He never alluded to any personal sin. Do you think, then, it makes all the more sense to heed to Jesus Christ’s call and seek God in Him and through Him?


Sorry, this is just Christian propaganda. Are you telling us that Bhagavan Krishna was sinful and we should abandon him and follow your way? Christ had some "sin" definitely because he was crucifed, and had to undergo the pain. We have all the instructions given to us by our sages in the Upansihads and the Lord himself in the Gita. Just kidding, why should we follow somebody who could not save himself and cried out to his heavenly father? We follow the words of the heavenly father directly.

Krishna also tells us and gives us the assurance:

But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotion and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Prtha −− for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.(12.6-7)







This begs the question, who is knowledgeable? King Soloman, perhaps, said it the best "In much wisdom is much grief, and the one who increases knowledge increases sorrow" (Ecclesiastes). Knowledge can be blessing, yet it can also be a curse. While having understanding through the knowledge is well but setting that to be the primary vehicle, causes all misery that we come to experience.


The knowledge meant was never the knowledge of scriptures, which a christian is supposed to confuse with the knowledge of the bible. The knowledge is that of the Brahman, which could not cause sorrow but only bliss.





This brings us to the starting point of spiritual journey in man’s life:

Do you believe first (by faith) in order to understand (by knowledge)?

OR

Do you need to understand first (through knowledge) in order to believe (have faith).?


Both - at various stages, and they drive each other.






With this statement you have truly agreed to what I have been saying all along. Why Hindus have not been liberated?


Oh yeah, that includes you too.;)

atanu
03 September 2006, 10:36 AM
Dear Atanu:


When Jesus speaks of “I am,” it is from the consciousness of His soul (Atman) being one with Christ Consciousness. Thus, when Jesus says, “I am the resurrection,” it refers to His consciousness in which His soul rises from a lower state on consciousness to the higher state on inner development. Each time Jesus refers to “I am”, He speaks personally from His divine ego (spiritualized human consciousness).[ref: Paramahansa Yogananda- second coming of Christ]

------
I think in the above exchange, I have alluded to the muddled NIROTU and confused human mortal condition and, to extend that logic further to say, that for this condition to achieve any thing higher needs the help is not to deny the harshness of matter and therefore, the logical conclusion is that only the grace can lift this man from morass of matter into sublime higher self. While the goal is very lofty and noble you cannot deny the starting point of human journey, which begs the need of a savoir.

Blessings,
nirotu


Namaskar,

Who has ever denied that without grace a muddled mind can never see the truth?

But the final truth is that the grace is all there is. The muddled mind belongs to ego, which itself is non-existent. Can you find the lower soul you are talking about? That is enquiry. Grace has never left anyone.


Regards

Sudarshan
03 September 2006, 03:46 PM
Hi Nirotu - my long time friend ,

We have discussed this in the past and never reached any conlusions.. You kept telling me that Jesus was the only saviour because he alone was born free of sin while my own Acharya had "original sin" and was only able to save himself and not others. I had to laugh at your mixing of Christianity with Hinduism. That is your deliberate insertion of Christianity into Hinduism, so that Jesus could be promoted. Jesus is a nobody for us and no brainwashing can help. Dont know how many Hindus fall to that kind of trap -Jesus is the only saviour!!

Hindus believe that what separates man from God is the sanchita Karma acquired in all previous births put together. If we had no karma, good or bad, we would be with God enjoying immortal bliss. Good Karma leads to human lives of happiness and heavenly worlds. Bad Karma leads to miserable human lives like poverty, sickness, blindness, unfair happenings etc. We have lived many lives in the past doing both good and bad Karma, and have also enjoyed the fruits, either in heaven on in the material universe. A part of this Karma has been responsible for the present birth and decides the outcomings for this birth. Karma acts like a veil that covers the true nature of our soul, which is of pure divine essence. So Hinduism says that to realize God or your own soul, you need to throw away all good and bad Karma. Good Karma can thrown away by simply relinquishing the fruits of good actions. Bad Karma cannot be thrown away for obvious reasons, else it would become very easy and fun.(the Christian way, just beleiving in a myth!)

In Christianity, your separation from God is due to "original sin", a result of a sin committed from your forefather Adam. Adam is just a copy from the Linga Purana's Adiman( first man), and his wife Heva(Eve), so even here Christianity has its roots in Hinduism. This sin of Adam has been transmitted to everybody through genes like the AIDS virus. The wage of this sin is death. Christianity's original sin must be the same as the sanchita Karma of Hinduism because it is too illogical to attribute the cause of our sin to the sin of another man. The wage of sin, being death therefore, must be rebirth. So Christianity, being an offshoot of Hinduism, is quite consistant doctrinally. Just imagine a policeman arresting me in the dead of night, and when I ask for the reason , I am told that my late great grand father stole an idol in the local temple 100 years ago - that is the logic in the "original sin".

Sanchita Karma is an Asura who is hard to kill because kliing him needs a human birth, where more Karma is acquired, and this demon acquires full powers again. That is how we roll on, with God being a silent witness to the phenomenon, always approving your actions, good or bad. ( freewill from our POV)


My tradition recognizes two distinct ways to achieve liberation from this sanchita karma: So please note that every school in Hinduism recognizes "self enquiry" (rather God enquiry) as a valid way, though they may not agree on the details.

1. Since you are yourself of divine origin, you have the capability to overcome Sanchita Karma yourself. This approach is called Bhakti Yoga. In Bhakti Yoga, you first become a Karma Yogi and attain the state of vairAgya.(desirelessness). This Karma Yogi, purified to this extent gets a partial awakening of his divine nature and is able to percieve the heavens and Gods there. The next stage called the Jnana Yoga is where the Purusha(jivatma) is realized. This stage is close to liberation, but not complete. Realization of Purusha leads to the knowledge of the indweller within - Narayana, the Purushottama. Bhakti Yoga is the complete absorption of conciousness into Narayana, going through several stages of Para Bkakti. Para Jnana and Parama Bhakti, where God realization
is complete - all sanchita is burned off by the vision of God. Bhakti Yoga is a tough process, and requires the following of 32 auxiliary vidyas in addition to Ashtanga(or other) Yoga, and hence it takes many incarnations to have full knowledge and vision of God. A Bhakti Yogi is also required to become perfect and totally sinless and must become an equal to Brahma himself in perfection and wisdom. Bhakti Yoga is the path of seeking perfection by one's own effort, with God's grace acting mainly to remove the hurdles on the way. But Bhakti Yoga is a path of love, true love that is generated by the ever increasing vision of God.



2. Bhakti Yoga being so difficult is still the only way to salvation in the Krita, Treta and Dvapara Yugas. In Kali Yuga, the condtions in life are very tough and it is not possible to get a proper teacher( who must be a God realized soul) himself. Those who cannot practice Bhakti Yoga for compelling reasons, may follow the way of complete surrender to God, as an alternative to seeking liberation through samadhi. In Kali Yuga everyone
has the excuse of abstaining from Bhakti Yoga, due to non availability of suitable guru. If a guru instructs you out of a chance encounter one may practice Bhakti Yoga.

The path of surrender is exactly opposite to Bhakti Yoga - declining to engage in any Yogic process and seeking the protection of God alone. You confess that you are a weakling due to the load of sanchita Karma and throw this burden on God. You refuse to protect yourself from the' effects of your Karma and look to God in every circumstance in life - this is another way of accepting that your own freewill is the divine will acting through you, so you no longer beleive that you have freewill, and consequently free from all fear and evil thought and keep your thoughts constantly on God and so on. That is the ideal way of surrender, and the divine father would never forsake anybody who places so much trust and love in him. Nope, you cannot sin knowingly and surrender - that is what we reject Christianity for. We are saved only by grace in the absence of Bhakti Yoga and we must keep the laws of scripture and the words of the guru to the extent possible. There could be no compromise, failing which a rebirth is inevitable. Sin that does not harm others is certainly forgiven by God to the truly surrendered, but offence committed on others will never be forgiven and you have to pay the price. People who so surrender to God must be mumukshus, which means they are focussed only on moksha and hence will be motivated to lead perfect lives indicated by scripture. Those who are not mumukshus certainly cannot get salvation either through Bhakti Yoga or the path of surrender.

nirotu
05 September 2006, 10:15 PM
Namaskar,

Who has ever denied that without grace a muddled mind can never see the truth?

But the final truth is that the grace is all there is. The muddled mind belongs to ego, which itself is non-existent. Can you find the lower soul you are talking about? That is enquiry. Grace has never left anyone.


Regards
Well said, Atanu. I agree with the point you are making but giving it a more practical slant, wouldn’t you agree unless one is living completely in an enlightened state all the time, most of us instead find ourselves identified with this muddled mind? Given this nature, which in its ignorance forgets the grace that is available and proceeds through mind-numbing practices where failure is inevitable. It is for that reason the starting point becomes remembering and trysting grace in a child like manner. Only then man progresses to a higher state.

Yes, grace is there but we have undermined its power. If divine grace has the power to crush the ignorance in us, why does a person finds the need to go through a path of mind-breaking discipline in order to have that knowledge? Reincarnation becomes moot point if one truly avails grace.

I believe it is pious delusion to think ego is non-existent or merely an illusion! If our knowledge of the world is characterized by illusion than what standard is there to prove it is false? How can you rely on the knowledge to be representing ultimate truth when in fact, your immediate awareness cannot be distinguished from any other awareness as it has transcended all distinctions?

It is interesting to see two distinct schools, which do not seem to converge on the issue of salvation.

Hinduism claims that the knowledge is the final experience of the bliss and as a sufficient condition for salvation.

Christianity, on the other hand, claims neither contemplation of the good nor comprehension of it is possible because of human sin. When Christ said, “come to me those heavy laden.. “ refers to a call to all those who have utterly failed and must be taken in by hand by the transcendent personal God and transformed into His likeness. Christians feel nothing less than this is salvation; nothing more than this is possible.

Blessings,

nirotu
05 September 2006, 10:18 PM
Hi Nirotu - my long time friend ,

We have discussed this in the past and never reached any conlusions.. You kept telling me that Jesus was the only saviour because he alone was born free of sin while my own Acharya had "original sin" and was only able to save himself and not others. I had to laugh at your mixing of Christianity with Hinduism. That is your deliberate insertion of Christianity into Hinduism, so that Jesus could be promoted. Jesus is a nobody for us and no brainwashing can help. Dont know how many Hindus fall to that kind of trap -Jesus is the only saviour!!



Dear Sudarshan:

Any Acharya or Guru or Sage who has undergone seeking in his lifetime, in a way, shows there was a need for seeking. That shows they were all born with the touch of that ignorance, which had to be removed by way of intense seeking. Buddha spent 14 years of meditation, Ramana spent 7 years and all these practices show their intense desire to seek to overcome the weakness.

Well, Jesus, in that sense never sought any thing. An “Avatar” is born in the state of perfect ness and there was no lower state.

These are the truths we all know from history and there is no denying no matter how intensely you are trying to convince me otherwise.

These sages had awakening at some point their path. That shows they were asleep before (metaphorically speaking) by the touch of ignorance.

This is the simple point I am making here. My friend, with you, this would be an endless debate, which is futile. Let us, instead, focus on something that helps our growth. When someone presents Christ in a positive light or Krishna for that matter, it should be enlightening to our muddled mind!

Blessings,

nirotu

nirotu
05 September 2006, 10:47 PM
You still have not reached to what I am saying. The teachings of Christianity fall well within Hindu Dharma as repeatedly pointed out -- but it cannot be complete by itself, in the absence of emphasis on knowlege, which Hindus refer to by the term Jnana. Where have I said that grace is not needed, both Jnana, Bhakti and grace go hand in hand. If grace does everything by itself, then we wont have to do anything at all. If all it needs me to accept the grace, it means that one cannot be born more than once. In either case, the grace alone thing is not compatible with Hinduism.

Ah! The power of grace!!

Those who hold on to belief that Karma and reincarnation as an inevitable path for salvation are really undermining the power of grace! You see, we are bogged down with our karma when in fact the divine grace that has the power to destroy it all. The power of grace can dispel the darkness of soul. Once the divine grace is bestowed upon you, there is no reincarnation. It would be foolish on our part to think that grace becomes effective only after millions of incarnations! The grace is effective any time you avail it. The grace that you attain is no different than the what sages were bestowed with. Grace is universal, Omnipotent.

The ignorance of this knowledge has put us in this belief that we have to do karma on our own. If we are to be bound by laws of “cause” and “effect” that cycles us through millions of reincarnations, you have, in effect, made no room for God’s redemption, forgiveness to play any role. In that case, God is presented as a mere spectator, an impotent god, without power to intervene.

When you give more power to karma, you are making the whole journey lot harder when in fact, you have the opportunity to flow with grace by swimming in the currents of grace.


Could Christianity accomodate Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga? If it cannot, it should be automatically clear that it is only a subset of Hindu Dharma.
I agree with you that in our spiritual progress, disciplines we adopt are very important. The grace does not free Man from his responsibility. However, I see the paths that you allude here are gifts of God through grace. God's power of revealment, “Anugraha Shakti”, is necessary to follow these paths.Grace is enabling power sufficient for progression through these paths. Therefore, I believe, that you don’t follow path of Jnana, Bhakti, karma etc in order to attract attention of God, but instead, these processes are natural outcome of His grace upon all. It is not that you need to do but you feel you want to do. Besides, very act of pursuing these paths shows "I am the doer".


Some one said it best:
"The mature soul (http://www.experiencefestival.com/soul) finds himself surrounded by grace and recognizes all of God's actions as grace. Such a person always realizes his very love of God (http://www.experiencefestival.com/love_of_god), the power to meditate (http://www.experiencefestival.com/meditate) or worship (http://www.experiencefestival.com/worship), and the spiritual (http://www.experiencefestival.com/spiritual) urge (http://www.experiencefestival.com/urge) which drives his life are entirely and obviously God's grace (http://www.experiencefestival.com/grace), a divine (http://www.experiencefestival.com/divine) endowment, unrelated to any deed or action he did or could perform.”


Such an approach does not presuppose any intuitive understanding or knowledge of God. Therefore, the paths that you are alluding to is decidedly secondary. The only thing fallen “I” can do is to avail of this grace and progress towards realization. Such people will realize that divine grace is an indispensable gift from god for development, improvement, and character expansion.


Finally, with all due respect, I do not agree with your characterization that Christianity as a subset of Hindu Dharma. If it were so, the nature and scope of Jesus and His teaching would have been entirely different.


Here is a quote from another Vedantic Scholar (lost his name):

Even the Vedas, which are the ultimate scriptural authority of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), reiterate that it is not possible to fathom the nature and glory of the Supreme Being, the reason being that He is beyond the ken of the human senses and the mind. It is only by His grace that one can transcend His Maya (the divine power which obscures) and experience His divine nature. Hence, the Almighty who is transcendent makes Himself accessible to His devotees out of His compassion. This is a paradox spiritual seekers confront during their quest and devotion is the key to resolve it.


Yes, grace is the starting point of the journey, it operates during the course of Yoga and is there till the end. No objections ever raised.

This is the only point I have been trying to make all along! If we agree this point rest of our talk is irrelevant. May be we are simply playing with words!



Then why should I surrender at all? Let grace make me do it - cyclic logic.

Here, even the “I” that is wanting grace seems to want to be in control! This “I” demanding - let grace do the work, itself shows the arrogance of “I”. Such thoughts must vanish. Until the “I” becomes childlike as Jesus Christ says, it will be difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven. At any level – sub-conscious, un-conscious, super-conscious or at all-conscious levels the “I” with all karmic weight must become humble (almost devoid of I-ness) to hold the finger of grace to enter the kingdom of heaven.

The greatest downfall of many self-proclaimed, self-realized gurus (Rajneesh come to my mind) is their premature I-thought proclaiming the knowledge. The “I” had not vanished yet but sustaining I-sense through it.

One of J.Krishnamurthy’s tanets was that before launching any “do good” projects, make sure it is not simply the “I” transforming itself from worldly attachment to the social welfare activities (better known as Karma yoga).


That is correct. And you must be knowing that Shivam is the heart of being in vedanta and not something external to it as in Christianity. So, unlike the "Christian" god, grace is available permanently and finally "forced" upon you, whether you seek it or not!

Here is something I found: http://www.experiencefestival.com/intellect


In Saiva Siddhanta (http://www.experiencefestival.com/saiva_siddhanta), it is grace (http://www.experiencefestival.com/grace) that awakens the love of God (http://www.experiencefestival.com/love_of_god) within the devotee (http://www.experiencefestival.com/devotee), softens the intellect (http://www.experiencefestival.com/intellect) and inaugurates the quest for Self Realization (http://www.experiencefestival.com/self_realization). It descends when (http://www.experiencefestival.com/when) the soul (http://www.experiencefestival.com/soul) has reached a certain level (http://www.experiencefestival.com/certain_level) of maturity (http://www.experiencefestival.com/maturity), and often comes in the form of a spiritual (http://www.experiencefestival.com/spiritual)initiation (http://www.experiencefestival.com/initiation), called shaktipata (http://www.experiencefestival.com/shaktipata), from a satguru (http://www.experiencefestival.com/satguru).

The above quote suggests it is the grace doing the work and not the other way around.


Let us be frank about this. By truly surrendering to God, god's grace is obtained. How do you truly surrender to God? By just making a statement that you surrender or choosing to beleive that somebody died for your sins? That may be Christianity, but not vedanta. God's grace is to be obtained by accepting everything in life that God gives without a bit of complaint. You deny your miseires and joys, and attribute it to the Lord alone. That alone could constitute true surrender. Not by just professing some beleifs and making a promise of surrender.
On the contrary, a Christian would only surrender to the will of the father. Misery is considered an opportunity to improve self to come closer to God.



In Hinduism, you continue to reincarnate due to unfulfilled desires to which God does not bother no matter what you beleive. The true surrender must be the surrender of these material desires, and the sense of "I" and "mine". You must also note that Hindu ideas of "I" are deeper than Christianity. These "I" exist at many levels deeper, and surrender of those desires are much more harder as they are beyond your reach. It is much harder to relinquish the pleasures of heaven than the eartthly objects. For a man who cannot control lust or his desire for earning a bit of wealth on earth, there could be no way he could reject the heavenly charms. While Christianity stops with such heavenly pleasures, vedanta goes beyond and takes you to the level of God himself ( dont want to argue advaita or VA, but you got the idea) - that is why Hinduism is much deeper than than the superficial concepts of Christianity. As a Hindu and vedantin, I am supposed to decline all heavens if I have to progress spiritually - Christianity does not really address this issue at all, where heaven in the final goal.


I agree with you except the last statement. The final goal is not the heaven but to worship God in the beauty of His holiness. When Jesus said, “you too can call Him “Abba” your father”, He can’t be any more clearer to us in providing that privilege that He had with the Father. When one realizes that, he truly is God-realized person.


You are missing the point entirely. In Hindu Dharma also by God's grace alone without any emphasis on any works or knowledge process, heaven can be attained. That way it is like Christianity.
Christianity does the same thing. A faith without works is meaningless. But the clear distinction is made as to work or faith leading to salvation. It is the faith and faith alone that leads to salvation and not the works. The good work or karma that is performed is a logical outworking of inner faith. Faith is not a random act of will but an act of rational choice by which one interprets the experience. It truly is an assent of intellect.


What sets Hinduism apart is that Hinduism is not dealing with heaven as its goal, but something higher than the Christian heaven( which is Deva or Pitri loka), which is just a temporary stop.
Christianity is criticized for its tendency to locate heaven as some physical plane in the Universe. Without relative notion of place it is not possible to locate. The fault may lie more with our interpretation than the Christian truth.

In a sense, when Jesus says that the “kingdom of Heaven is within you”, must mean entirely different that what has been misrepresented by many.





Sorry, this is just Christian propaganda. Are you telling us that Bhagavan Krishna was sinful and we should abandon him and follow your way? Christ had some "sin" definitely because he was crucifed, and had to undergo the pain. We have all the instructions given to us by our sages in the Upansihads and the Lord himself in the Gita. Just kidding, why should we follow somebody who could not save himself and cried out to his heavenly father? We follow the words of the heavenly father directly.

I think I am not truly ready to compare religions and try to be one up on others. I do not wish to say anything about Lord Krishna that I do not know. It is just a coincidence that the words spoken are by Jesus. I am not boasting or have any agenda to proselytize. We should engage in discussion that would put our respective beliefs in a positive light. Sometimes, the sayings, even though are true, are very hurtful to others but nevertheless, they are truth to them who profess. I hope we agree that mind of “I” is flawed. I want to keep away from mind based circular logic. In spirituality, we have to be cautious and not entertain mind based reality. Let us focus and discuss something that will help our growth in spiritual dimension.



Quote:
Originally Posted by nirotu
With this statement you have truly agreed to what I have been saying all along. Why Hindus have not been liberated?


Oh yeah, that includes you too.

Amen to that! We are all in this together!

Blessings,

Sudarshan
06 September 2006, 01:57 AM
Dear Sudarshan:

Any Acharya or Guru or Sage who has undergone seeking in his lifetime, in a way, shows there was a need for seeking. That shows they were all born with the touch of that ignorance, which had to be removed by way of intense seeking. Buddha spent 14 years of meditation, Ramana spent 7 years and all these practices show their intense desire to seek to overcome the weakness.

Well, Jesus, in that sense never sought any thing. An “Avatar” is born in the state of perfect ness and there was no lower state.

These are the truths we all know from history and there is no denying no matter how intensely you are trying to convince me otherwise.

These sages had awakening at some point their path. That shows they were asleep before (metaphorically speaking) by the touch of ignorance.

This is the simple point I am making here. My friend, with you, this would be an endless debate, which is futile. Let us, instead, focus on something that helps our growth. When someone presents Christ in a positive light or Krishna for that matter, it should be enlightening to our muddled mind!

Blessings,

nirotu

What was Jesus doing in his missing years? He was supposed to in the Himalayas learning and practising vedanta. Do you have well documented evidence to show any clear proof of what he was doing? Till then, it makes sense for me to accept the "Jesus in India" theory which means he was no avatar, but a sage who first sought realization.

Jesus is only recorded in history and maybe only 50% truth about him is known and the rest hearsay only. Many other people have claimed to be avatar in India, and it is only a matter of beleif. Anyway, there are no Hindus who believe that he was killed or experienced pain , which are not characteristics of avatar. Even if an avatar outwardly appears to be in pain, he is only deluding others, and is not connected with the earthly phenomenon. Even a Bhakti Yogi at intermediate stages of realization is well beyond the physical pain and afflictions. So if Jesus felt pain and suffering - then it means he was not a Yogi or avatar but ordinary man. On the other hand, if he did not suffer, then it means he could not have taken on the sin of others. In either case, Jesus death atoning for all sins to be committed in future by a subset of mankind is pure mythology. Which means Jesus contribution to humanity could not be more than any other sage of his stature, whatever that was.

You must have heard of Lord Chaitanya whom a number of people believe to be Krishna himself. Chaitanya as considered so much of a personality that atheists became devotees at his mere touch -- this is all documented in history and have as much credibility as Jesus, and only 500 years old. There are so many others who have made such claims. So beleiving in it is a mere opinion. But none of these avatars are known to have preached about eternal hell if you dont listen to them and about a God of an emotional unforgiving, jealous type.

The difference between Krishna and Christ is essentially Krishna's classification of people is based on their human nature - as good, passionate or ignorant. He is explicit that only the good can reach him. Passionate people will just maintain status quo, and ignorant will find their way to lower states. When such "good" people surrender to him, he takes care of them. Jesus classification based on mere beleif to him( even after killing a few dozen people!) could not be really compatible with the teachings of Krishna.

satay
06 September 2006, 02:17 AM
Ah! The power of grace!!

[COLOR=black]Those who hold on to belief that Karma and reincarnation as an inevitable path for salvation are really undermining the power of grace!

May be these "people" have not read the last chapter of Gita? :coffee:

Regardless, karma yoga is a valid path to salvation as instructed by GOD directly.

Again, why should a hindu care to listen to a third party's claim that 'salvation is only possible through me' when we have direct instructions from GOD himself?

satay
06 September 2006, 02:23 AM
The greatest downfall of many self-proclaimed, self-realized gurus (Rajneesh come to my mind) is their premature I-thought proclaiming the knowledge. The “I” had not vanished yet but sustaining I-sense through it.


Perhaps OSHO's 'downfall' was because he spoke so strongly about the cult of christians. He hammered it hard and exposed its absurdity so this is why he was poisoned and silenced.

Anyway, since you are not 'realised' yourself you should not make a judgment on someone else especially Rajneesh. Though as a christian you may feel like you have some sort of right to hammer Rajneesh because he slapped christianity so hard all the time but unfortunately, for you, I will not allow it here on this site. :)

atanu
06 September 2006, 02:46 AM
Well said, Atanu. I agree with the point you are making but----- Yes, grace is there but we have undermined its power. ----.

--------
Hinduism claims that the knowledge is the final experience of the bliss and as a sufficient condition for salvation.

Christianity, on the other hand, claims neither contemplation of the good nor comprehension of it is possible because of human sin. When Christ said, “come to me those heavy laden.. “ refers to a call to all those who have utterly failed and must be taken in by hand by the transcendent personal God and transformed into His likeness. Christians feel nothing less than this is salvation; nothing more than this is possible.

Blessings,







Namaskar,

As I have written elsewhere: we must build on the agreements.

It is however, hard to agree when you say that we have undermined the grace. It is most pre-posterous thing I have heard. Who can ever undermine the grace?


We have seen that every religion teaches surrender. You said this of Christ's teaching: “come to me those heavy laden.. ". Islam, the word itself means surrender. Sarangati, Prappatti of our religion is all about surrender. I suppose that it means surrendering oneself to God.



But What will you surrender and to whom, if you do not know the self?

You may surrender all your possessions, activities and their fruits and thoughts to Lord. But have you surrendered?


It is necessary to know the self even to surrender fully. And Lord is the Self. He has said: I am the Self, oh, Arjuna.


Even for surrendering, jnana is required that the ego is not yours. It is the I exist awareness emanating from all pervading consciousness itself. Nirotu's problem (and Atanu's also) is that we believe that "Nirotu is -- a different entity from "Atanu is".


Jnana is the ultimate surrender. And as Svet. Upanishad teaches: Guru's teaching, self analysis, and grace on coming together reveals the truth. All three conditions together.



Bye. Best wishes. (Note: I am not God that I can bless you).


Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
06 September 2006, 02:57 AM
May be these "people" have not read the last chapter of Gita? :coffee:

Regardless, karma yoga is a valid path to salvation as instructed by GOD directly.

Again, why should a hindu care to listen to the third party when we have direct instructions from GOD himself?

All I will say is only this - if a Chrsitian is cornered he will start by first attacking the theory of Karma, and talk about how Hindu God is a helpless witness. He cannot even understand that the whole thing happens by Lord's wish and not due to some idiotic Satan as claimed by him. Nirotu has to first understand Hinduism first - there is nothing whatseoever here good or bad that is happening without God's wish and nothing here will cause his pleasure or unhappiness. He is of the form of eternal bliss, in his nitya vibUti, while this samsAra is a leela vibhuti for him, as sport as it were.

Dont get cheaply carried away by the sentimental nonsense offered by Christianity. Its god is just a tyrant who manufactures soul after soul knowing well that most of them are headed for damnation, and with increasing disbeleif in Christianity, he has becomeing more aggressive and stepped up his production as if it to seek revenge. The Christian grace is just "sugar coated" poison. There could be no place for "grace for 1%" and "damnation for 99%" with a true God. These are characteristics of Adharmic religions.

Nirotu's dumb form of grace cannot explain the vast differences we see in the world. A good 50% of the population is atheistic and growing numbers and are guaranteed of damnation. eh? How will these souls be freed if there were not many more opportunities? Why did a graceful God ever create people on earth? Why not directly in heaven like angels? The whole bible as interpreted by many Christians is only a myth and of no value to Dharma adherents.

And he nicely evaded my questions regardng the sins of his forefather. And did not even attempt answerting how the Adam myth is a copy from Linga Purana. Dont even want to bring in the topic of how Jesus is a copy of Krishna. One may read the gospel of Infancy and find that Jesus was brought up at Maturea, while Krishna at Mathura. Even minor details were copied and now presented to us as the "one and only true religion".:rolleyes:

Sudarshan
06 September 2006, 03:24 AM
Perhaps OSHO's 'downfall' was because he spoke so strongly about the cult of christians. He hammered it hard and exposed its absurdity so this is why he was poisoned and silenced.

Anyway, since you are not 'realised' yourself you should not make a judgment on someone else especially Rajneesh. Though as a christian you may feel like you have some sort of right to hammer Rajneesh because he slapped christianity so hard all the time but unfortunately, for you, I will not allow it here on this site. :)

I dont know why Osho is presented as the "perfect specimen" of Hinduism and used to attack Hinduism. Jesus was another Osho in his times, who hammered other religions and was crucified.

With due respect to all sincere followers of these twin religions who have my sincere respect, in general Christianity is just a sentimental nonsense, and Islam a non sentimental nonsense.

atanu
06 September 2006, 03:32 AM
.

I believe it is pious delusion to think ego is non-existent or merely an illusion! ------






No, Nirotu. The Ego is Aham bhavana and subesequent Ahamkara (Omkara -- Amen -- Amin) of God Himself.

The mind on account of forgetfullness (and conceit perhaps) has appropriated and localised the ego.

And our religion says: Forgetfullness is death.


Bye. We must keep building on the agreements.


Om Namah Shivayya

TruthSeeker
06 September 2006, 07:28 AM
Namaste Nirotu,



Those who hold on to belief that Karma and reincarnation as an inevitable path for salvation are really undermining the power of grace! You see, we are bogged down with our karma when in fact the divine grace that has the power to destroy it all. The power of grace can dispel the darkness of soul. Once the divine grace is bestowed upon you, there is no reincarnation. It would be foolish on our part to think that grace becomes effective only after millions of incarnations! The grace is effective any time you avail it. The grace that you attain is no different than the what sages were bestowed with. Grace is universal, Omnipotent.


Those who say this undermine the purpose of creation and are ignorant of divine laws and their own association with the divinity. Karma is not an inevitable path, but one cannot progress to the level of grace without being a Karma Yogi. First, try to be a good Karma Yogi, and then we will talk about grace. First try to do things in your life without any expectation. Grace can come later. Be a man first, then we will talk about God.



The ignorance of this knowledge has put us in this belief that we have to do karma on our own. If we are to be bound by laws of “cause” and “effect” that cycles us through millions of reincarnations, you have, in effect, made no room for God’s redemption, forgiveness to play any role. In that case, God is presented as a mere spectator, an impotent god, without power to intervene.
When you give more power to karma, you are making the whole journey lot harder when in fact, you have the opportunity to flow with grace by swimming in the currents of grac
I agree with you that in our spiritual progress, disciplines we adopt are very important. The grace does not free Man from his responsibility. However, I see the paths that you allude here are gifts of God through grace. God's power of revealment, “Anugraha Shakti”, is necessary to follow these paths.Grace is enabling power sufficient for progression through these paths. Therefore, I believe, that you don’t follow path of Jnana, Bhakti, karma etc in order to attract attention of God, but instead, these processes are natural outcome of His grace upon all. It is not that you need to do but you feel you want to do. Besides, very act of pursuing these paths shows "I am the doer".


Those cults that put grace at the helm without any element of jnana in them are the lowest stage of spirituality. These cults are responsible for all religeous strife in the world, and mere dogmas and superstitions.

Those that emphasise good works come next.
Those that encourage good works without expectation of fruits come next.
Those that encourage Bhakti and Jnana come next.
Those that encourage grace, surrender and jnana are the pinnacle.
True Spirituality transcends all these, and is the final abidance in the self, the grace itself. You dont need grace there, but you are the grace itself. Grace is Shiva, your very self. Why do you seek something that you are?

All religions that that put blind faith and grace above others are the worst religions and are responsible for the religeous killings, bigotry, sectarianism and dogmas - Islam and Christianity. There are no people following the path of Jnana who would be a bit sectarian, a bit dogmatic, a bit superstitious.



Some one said it best:
Quote:
"The mature soul finds himself surrounded by grace and recognizes all of God's actions as grace. Such a person always realizes his very love of God, the power to meditate or worship, and the spiritual urge which drives his life are entirely and obviously God's grace, a divine endowment, unrelated to any deed or action he did or could perform.”


The mature soul refers to a Jnani, not one who claims that his God is the mightiest or that he has some special recipe for immortality without evidence, or uses some circular logic to prove himself.



Finally, with all due respect, I do not agree with your characterization that Christianity as a subset of Hindu Dharma. If it were so, the nature and scope of Jesus and His teaching would have been entirely different.


Jesus is a vedantin who realized first that he is the son of God and then knew he was one with the father. You also do that. As long as you dont do that, it is only a subset.



Here is a quote from another Vedantic Scholar (lost his name):
Even the Vedas, which are the ultimate scriptural authority of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), reiterate that it is not possible to fathom the nature and glory of the Supreme Being, the reason being that He is beyond the ken of the human senses and the mind. It is only by His grace that one can transcend His Maya (the divine power which obscures) and experience His divine nature. Hence, the Almighty who is transcendent makes Himself accessible to His devotees out of His compassion. This is a paradox spiritual seekers confront during their quest and devotion is the key to resolve


This is talking of the transition from Prakriti to Purusha stage which is impossible without grace, First identify the Prakriti and its subtleties. It is not just your body. First identify the Ravana within you with the help of your Hanuman. Rama will kill him then. Without finding that Ravana, , without the help of Hanuman, no chance of getting crowned at Ayodhya. You follow me?



Here, even the “I” that is wanting grace seems to want to be in control! This “I” demanding - let grace do the work, itself shows the arrogance of “I”. Such thoughts must vanish. Until the “I” becomes childlike as Jesus Christ says, it will be difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven. At any level – sub-conscious, un-conscious, super-conscious or at all-conscious levels the “I” with all karmic weight must become humble (almost devoid of I-ness) to hold the finger of grace to enter the kingdom of heaven.


For that you have to know what the kingdom of the heaven is. Mere statements are idle talk.



The greatest downfall of many self-proclaimed, self-realized gurus (Rajneesh come to my mind) is their premature I-thought proclaiming the knowledge. The “I” had not vanished yet but sustaining I-sense through it.


The greatest downfall of many self proclaimed, self realized gurus( Jesus came to my mind) was that they were even unable to save themselves in danger. How will they save others?



In Saiva Siddhanta, it is grace that awakens the love of God within the devotee, softens the intellect and inaugurates the quest for Self Realization. It descends when the soul has reached a certain level of maturity, and often comes in the form of a spiritualinitiation, called shaktipata, from a satguru.


What is reaching a certainly level of maturity? Have you wondered or simply copy pasted? It refers to the purification of Buddhi. Christianity does not cross the level of mind, so you cant be expected to know further.

Oh, Shaiva Siddhanta , I know that. I know Shiva and his grace. No recommendations I need from any saviours.




On the contrary, a Christian would only surrender to the will of the father. Misery is considered an opportunity to improve self to come closer to God.


What did you surrender? Your body? Your pleasures? Your home? But these were never yours to start with.You surrendered them to the rightful owner and deserve no credits. The only true surrender is the surrender of the frewwill, the "I" and "mine". You own nothing else, they all belong to God.



On the contrary, a Christian would only surrender to the will of the father. Misery is considered an opportunity to improve self to come closer to God.

Christianity does the same thing. A faith without works is meaningless. But the clear distinction is made as to work or faith leading to salvation. It is the faith and faith alone that leads to salvation and not the works. The good work or karma that is performed is a logical outworking of inner faith. Faith is not a random act of will but an act of rational choice by which one interprets the experience. It truly is an assent of intellect.


Yes, perfect Advaita: I like what you said.


"It is the faith and faith alone that leads to salvation and not the works".

Just replace blind faith with true faith which is Jnana and you are an advaitin. Advaita does not beleive in works.



Christianity is criticized for its tendency to locate heaven as some physical plane in the Universe. Without relative notion of place it is not possible to locate. The fault may lie more with our interpretation than the Christian truth.


But HInduism has many heavens in the spatio temporal heavens which Jesus did not know about. There is an eternal heaven, the world of Parabrahman. There is something beyond that, which is beyond any notion of distinction.

Jesus did not know any of these, as they are not found in the bible.
So Christian heaven is just Yama Loka, where Yama judges peeople either to heaven or hell. THis you cant deny. The eternal heavens are not related to judgement day.



In a sense, when Jesus says that the “kingdom of Heaven is within you”, must mean entirely different that what has been misrepresented by many.


Jesus said it correctly. The kingdom within you is the Atman. Find it. NO point searching in the sky. Jesus(Yama) teachings can be found in Katha Upanishad and we respect him a lot.

satay
06 September 2006, 10:04 AM
Let's see if this makes sense again...

According to Christianity god creates the world and man gives the man free will. man uses that free will and eats from the tree of knowledge...god gets angry and says you shall sweat thro your brow and thorws him on earth...then millions of years later one day god decides what the heck, I will just send my son to save these idiots on earth. god's son comes makes some miracles, walks on water (which is absurd in itself!), makes wine out of water...then allows a brutal murder of himself then resurrects himself and then? What happens afrer he rose from the dead???? I assume he flew away to the heaven to sit beside god's throne (or perhaps stand, not sure).

Now an analysis:
1. how did god 'create' the world? what was there before world existed? where did he get the mateial to build this world?

2. free will - if it is truly free will why must I follow this god? why can i not use my free will? giving me free will and then leaving me no choice but to use it according to his own will is not free will at all. bugus.

3. man created a mess of the world why not stop creating more souls? if god is omni everything that follows that he must have some sort of logic. if there is a bit of logic left in this god he would stop the bleeding and stop creating more souls. but he doesn't. so what I am to conclude? he must be tyrant god then.

4. why wait until only 2000 years ago to send your son to save this world? what about the people who were born 3000 years ago?

5. as an indian I can understand that the son came down here to clean up his father's mess but a logical son would have advised his father to stop the bleeding and close the soul factory.

6. walking on water is absurd! it doesn't do any thing for a man. It doesn't transform a man into a better man. why walk on water when we can perfectly wallk on earth?

7. why make wine out of water? water is good for the body!

8. why allow a brutal murder of yourself and why cry, "father, why have you forsaken me" if you are a son of god the you would know that the father has not forsaken me ...it is all divine plan of my father...what does the murder of my body accomplish?

9. what the heck to do after you get up from the dead? if you can get up after being dead then you were not really dead to begin with. if are now up after being dead...what to do now? bless a couple of followers and take off flying in the sky?

What logic!

Amazing:crazy: :doh: :confused: :eek:

A note on karma and reinarnation - Christians must deny karma and renincarnation at any cost. They have no choice but to deny it. They can not accept it as accepting it will make god's son look like a fool. So no matter how many children are born in the world that can speak different languages, can remember their past lives, can recite the gita or other scriptures and books without ever learning a word of sanskrit, can play music without ever first learning a note in this life...no matter how many thousands of cases like these happen...a christian has to drop all logic and say, "I think they are possesed by the devil". Amazing!

Seems to me that man's will is in fact becoming stronger by the day as more and more people are shunning 'any' type of religion and thus any type of God! But not to worry our loving christian god has a fire pit waiting for those.

Come to think of it, I don't mind sitting in the fire pit and burning in pain along side gautama sidharta, perhaps meditation will take another level in that pain.

satay
06 September 2006, 10:21 AM
What was Jesus doing in his missing years?

Isa mashia was in the north learning from some buddhist monks. His name can be found in a buddhist monastary up in the north...

so much for 'western historic' records.

satay
06 September 2006, 11:56 AM
Nirotu has to first understand Hinduism first

Nirotu's dumb form of grace cannot explain the vast differences we see in the world.

namaste sudarshan!

Let's try to focus on the philosophical issues instead of the person. I am sending you a pm.

Sudarshan
06 September 2006, 02:16 PM
then millions of years later one day god decides what the heck, I will just send my son to save these idiots on earth


Millions of years is a bit too cruel, but many of our christian brothers say it was only 4000 years, and believe that it was created around B.C 4000. And you should also keep in mind that he also send other messengers who were not his sons. In my opinion, he could have sent the son in B.C 3999.




A note on karma and reinarnation - Christians must deny karma and renincarnation at any cost. They have no choice but to deny it. They can not accept it as accepting it will make god's son look like a fool. So no matter how many children are born in the world that can speak different languages, can remember their past lives, can recite the gita or other scriptures and books without ever learning a word of sanskrit, can play music without ever first learning a note in this life...no matter how many thousands of cases like these happen...a christian has to drop all logic and say, "I think they are possesed by the devil". Amazing!


Actually I met a christian woman on another site, who told me she was a devout christian, but still beleived in reincarnations and all that and shared many "pagan" beleifs due to personal experience... She was previously a member on a forum( not related to religion) on which I was/am an Administrator, where I have good freindship with many Christians. So I have come across many Christians all over the world like this, and I cant help respecting and adoring some of them. However, the missionary attitude is always nauseus to me, putting down and judging others, and making fun of our religion. I was unhappy with nirotu only because called my Acharya as ignorant and said no use in surrendering to him like he did with Jesus, who was way beyond others. Later I apologized to him. I brought to his attention that Ramanuja is considered an incarnation of Adisesha, which he remarked to be hearsay. Then Jesus claims must also be hearsay. You cannot have me beleive you, without you beleiving me in the first place. Showing the bible book for proof means nothing, I could show other books from my side. It is either mutual belief or rejection, it cannot be oneway.

If you are interested you can visit this site ( of this woman):
http://www.sacred-connections.us/main.htm

Her exact words to me: ( over which I was excpetionally happy!)

Hi ,

I sooo don't follow Paganism or whatever that's all called. I am a Christian through and through. I do know that most don't agree with psychic / medium, etc however I don't let that bother me. I know what I know and I let it be. I don't ignore what I do so if someone asks me I'll tell them it's true, however, I still go to church with my family and interact in my church. My husband works at our church since he is one of the Pastor's. However, I don't agree with them that psychics and mediums are evil. Because they aren't (most...lol) They do somewhat the church does and that's communicate with the spirit world, they just say they communicate with God himself, I consider myself communicating with his helpers. I do want that conveyed in my website somewhere as well shouldn't I. I don't want people to think that just because I do what I do that I don't believe in God and what he did for us by his son.

satay
06 September 2006, 02:32 PM
Actually I met a christian woman on another site, who told me she was a devout christian, but still beleived in reincarnations ...

So I have come across many Christians all over the world like this, and I cant help respecting and adoring some of them.

hmm...now that you mentioned, it occured to me that my own wife is a devout christian with similar beliefs!!! :D but as arumna told us on CF 'she is not a good christian then'

Sudarshan
06 September 2006, 02:44 PM
hmm...now that you mentioned, it occured to me that my own wife is a devout christian with similar beliefs!!! :D but as arumna told us on CF 'she is not a good christian then'

You are right. Christians judge others too much. On one hand, they will say that a mere beleif in Jesus and nothing else matters, but at the same time they will keep judging and passing hell sentances on their own kind just because they were 'heretics'. No two people in the world beleive alike -- if we start considering others as heretics because they did not share your beleifs, then everyone in the world must be a heretic relative to the other. The Lord must be having a lot of fun with his creation, I assure you. Without knowing his true nature and his nature beyond earthly attachments, some of them portray him as a tyrant - he must be :Roll: , so to speak. All his leela, let us enjoy it, while we are given a birth to appreciate that.

nirotu
07 September 2006, 10:16 PM
Dear Atanu:


It is however, hard to agree when you say that we have undermined the grace. It is most pre-posterous thing I have heard. Who can ever undermine the grace?
Let me put it this way. I am not saying you have underestimated grace, but surely you have overestimated the power of knowledge. You have placed “jnana” before “grace” without elaborating how you acquired the “jnana” to begin with.



But What will you surrender and to whom, if you do not know the self?All I know is that you know self by Jnana but you have “jnana” as a benevolent gift of providential God through His divine grace!


Even for surrendering, “jnana” is required that the ego is not yours. It is the I exist awareness emanating from all pervading consciousness itself. From a realistic point of view such a “jnana” goes hand in hand with ego. Moment you think you have “jnana”, the strength of “I” has already taken hold of you.


Nirotu's problem (and Atanu's also) is that we believe that "Nirotu is -- a different entity from "Atanu is".
If Nirotu is distinct from Atanu, how do they arrive at that assertion? They had to have jnana to discern or realize the truth. Am I right? The question I have been asking and you have been evading is how can a muddled mind attain this knowledge or come to realize this truth? And so, that starting point, which is what I have been addressing.

Again I reiterate, I am not saying you have underestimated grace but surely, you have overestimated the power of knowledge. Other than that, we have no disagreement at all.


Best wishes. (Note: I am not God that I can bless you).
Truly, the word “blessing” is written as a short form to imply “May the blessings of God be upon you”. I hope you don’t mind me praying for you and likewise I want everyone to pray for me also.


The mind on account of forgetfullness (and conceit perhaps) has appropriated and localised the ego.


And our religion says: Forgetfullness is death.
Yes, the forgetful ego-mind can never remember or attain knowledge and therefore, only thing it can do is to hold the hand of grace. Only grace can lead you to surrender is what Christianity teaches.

So we come back again to our original point. Just like a child who does not need to understand her mother but only have that instinctive recognition is exactly what muddled mind needs.


We must keep building on the agreements.
I am game for that!


Blessings,

nirotu
07 September 2006, 10:26 PM
Dear Truthseeker:



Those who say this undermine the purpose of creation and are ignorant of divine laws and their own association with the divinity. Karma is not an inevitable path, but one cannot progress to the level of grace without being a Karma Yogi. First, try to be a good Karma Yogi, and then we will talk about grace. First try to do things in your life without any expectation. Grace can come later. Be a man first, then we will talk about God.
It is very interesting that you suggest this. Let us look at this from a realistic and a practical point. Take for example, a person who is down to his lowest state of life (highest point of misery), say from his evil karma from his previous life. Do you then consider, for that person, asking him to be a good karma-yogi first would bring any consolation? Any social worker will tell you that people touched by poverty, crime and violence do not adopt a noble resignation to their fate. In fact they will react with indignation or rebellion and in turn accumulate more bad karma. What kind of justice is this that starts more problems than it solves?

I would, instead, ask for God’s forgiveness and grace to deal with adversities.


Those cults that put grace at the helm without any element of jnana in them are the lowest stage of spirituality. These cults are responsible for all religeous strife in the world, and mere dogmas and superstitions.Please, do not bring cultic talk as it is not the context of this topic. We are talking about child like surrender that sages have shown time to time.

All religions that that put blind faith and grace above others are the worst religions and are responsible for the religeous killings, bigotry, sectarianism and dogmas - Islam and Christianity. There are no people following the path of Jnana who would be a bit sectarian, a bit dogmatic, a bit superstitious.I am sorry that you misunderstand my post. Who says one has blind faith? A child like faith is not a blind faith – it is an instinctive recognition of her/his mother. Did the child need to analyse/understand that first? No! That alone will humble the “I”.
The moment you bring in “jnana”, you bring the function of rational mind, which means surrender is still incomplete! It is shear arrogance to think that this “I” can do anything other than surrender!

In that sense faith is an assent of the intellect because faith precedes and knowledge follows. Our intellectual growth or assimilation of knowledge (Jnana) is a direct gift of God, due to our faith, a benevolent endowment from His grace! Grace and forgiveness must precede anything one attempts to do on his own!


The mature soul refers to a Jnani, not one who claims that his God is the mightiest or that he has some special recipe for immortality without evidence, or uses some circular logic to prove himself.Well said. I would also add; when one is “Jnani” there is nothing to add. However, the point I am addressing is- how did the muddled mind become Jnani in the first place? Jnani absolutely needed that grace in order to become “jnani”.


This is talking of the transition from Prakriti to Purusha stage which is impossible without grace, First identify the Prakriti and its subtleties. It is not just your body. First identify the Ravana within you with the help of your Hanuman. Rama will kill him then. Without finding that Ravana, , without the help of Hanuman, no chance of getting crowned at Ayodhya. You follow me?Let me use your beautiful example to clarify my point: Here I do see: Rama – Highest self, Ravana – Ego turned outward lost in senses, Golden deer – Maya, Seeta – forgetfulness of ego, ignorance or muddled mind and finally Hanuman – pure grace!

In Ayodhya, when Seeta was trapped, Rama (the higher self) could not come immediately. Seeta needed Hanuman to bring the ring (grace) to her, which muddled mind of Seeta saw through her tears. It was that grace that brought her back to Rama! How did Seeta get to Rama? Through Hanuman (grace).

Simply put, every action we take involves the grace of God! Even to identify the demons within you, you need the hand of grace! Those who are advanced in their pursuit of God through various paths are truly the beneficiaries of God’s providential gift of grace.


For that you have to know what the kingdom of the heaven is. Mere statements are idle talk.

Jesus said it correctly. The kingdom within you is the Atman. Find it. NO point searching in the sky. Jesus(Yama) teachings can be found in Katha Upanishad and we respect him a lot.Kingdom of Heaven: This is how I understand its meaning.
“The kingdom of heaven” is the kingdom of God-consciousness. You may call it a state of eternal bliss. They refer to the same. Firstly, all these activities that you perform (Karma-yoga, Raja-yoga, Bhakti-yoga) are means to an end and not end in themselves. Secondly, I see that only gifted person can truly achieve these paths. If you accept the premise that the gift has to be providential endowment of God, then the necessary first step would be to be accepted by God. When Jesus makes a statement that you have to be child like to be accepted, to be endowed, with these gifts, which ultimately lead you to the kingdom of God, is exactly the approach He is describing to attract divine mercy.

I do not deny in various paths that you allude to. However, I also see, people surrendering to the will of God with humbleness and sincerity can also create the good karma by which they are justified to receive the same purifying vibrations of God! The humility is emphasized in attracting divine mercy and not necessarily prior Jnana.

The kingdom is within you- refers to having Christ rule over your heart. In technical terms, Kingdom refers to province ruled by a king. Those who live in are the subjects of king. Christ is portrayed as King in scriptures. Thus, when you have Christ in you, you are in tune with Christ consciousness by being His loyal subject, which leads you to God-consciousness. Thus, the saying of Jesus; kingdom is within you, when you have me.

While I do not disagree with anything you say in general, the approach to liberate ourselves is quite different in these religions. While Hinduism may put entire thrust on the “doer”, in Christianity God sees utter helpless state man is in and wants to help purely out of love towards us.


The greatest downfall of many self proclaimed, self realized gurus (Jesus came to my mind) was that they were even unable to save themselves in danger. How will they save others?Firstly,in these exchanges we should not mix religion with spirituality. I should remind myself not to do that. I was merely referring to those who had a sort of downfall. There are many examples in Christianity that I could have named. It was just a coincidence that I named Rajneesh. Rajneesh should be given credit for standing up against the dogmatic views and ignorance presented in Christianity but he never denigrated Christ himself.

Secondly, I am sorry you feel that way. You have not really understood the meaning of His prophesized death, resurrection and what it means to mankind. Whether you could save yourself or not is not our point. Someone who could rise from death could also have saved himself. Jesus used His death on the cross as an example to show mankind the meaning of true compassion for putting him on the cross. Jesus felt the muddled mass was suffering a lot more in their ignorance than His own body on the cross.That is when He said, “ Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing!”

Thirdly, Jesus always put the father before him. For Him it was always the” wil”l of the Father. He was untouched by “I”. It is the purest of soul that could have incarnated!



What did you surrender? Your body? Your pleasures? Your home? But these were never yours to start with.You surrendered them to the rightful owner and deserve no credits. The only true surrender is the surrender of the frewwill, the "I" and "mine". You own nothing else, they all belong to God.Yes, I agree with the surrender of “I” but not “free-will”. There is gross difference between free-will as you interpret and the way the Bible believes. God created man/woman with volition. One thing that God will not violate is the free-will. God wants you to love him out of your choice and not be compelled to do so. If He did so out of force without offering a choice, that love is coerced and not from your conscious choice. Why would God want you to abandon that free-will, I do not understand!

Blessings,

TruthSeeker
08 September 2006, 05:05 AM
Hi nirotu,

Thanks for being patient. I think you certainly have some of the qualities of Christ. I think some Hindus here have chosen to attack you out of some personal agendas and I suggest you not to take these people seriously.

Nevertheless, when bringing up the topic of Hinduism, you have to bring in avatars like Krishna and Rama, or some of the well known names like Shankara or Ramanuja, and not controversial names like Osho, which looks more like a mischief rather than a discussion. Even these two people did not agree on all issues, which are reconcilable from advatin point of view, but not necessarily from Ramanuja's view. Similarly, Christianity's differences from Hinduism are easily reconcilable from the point of view of Hinduism, but not from the other side. That is why, I consider it rather futile to talk with the "other" side.

If you talk to all Hindus, you will find that many oppose the ideas ofAdvaita, and some call it a cult too, some as poison, some as demonic etc. Advaitins are not usually bothered with this, and either dismissed as statements made in ignorance or as the will of God. The reason simply is that even though advaita holds the scripture as the highest authority, it had the guts to call it as secondary knowledge, while the primary and true knowledge is that of the Atman, untainted and direct. Definitely Christianity's philosophy is not the same as Advaita, as you beleive in an external God and consider yourself as a servant who has to implicitly obey this creator failing which he would be thrown into a fire pit. Thus grace has become such a prominent thing in Christianity. Advaita does not consider God as external to you, but every aspect of God is right withinyou, and you only have to know that. The grace concept is almost meaningless in Advaita, and it is like searching for fire when you have two flint stones in your hands. Just strike the stones, why are you searching it in something external to you? Christianity grace is mixed with fear and not pure love. The same thing has been said by Madusudhana Saraswati, who wrote in his Advaita Siddhi that Dualism leads to fear of God, and fear being a coloring of the mind cannot lead to liberation. God cannot be portrayed as a fearful entity at all - he is supposed to be all loving isn't it?



Thus your ideas of man being intrinsically sinful, and needing something exteral to him to redeem on that sin, is only a pheneomenal truth or a false claim. Natrually we consider your version as a subset or a wrong doctrine.



It is very interesting that you suggest this. Let us look at this from a realistic and a practical point. Take for example, a person who is down to his lowest state of life (highest point of misery), say from his evil karma from his previous life. Do you then consider, for that person, asking him to be a good karma-yogi first would bring any consolation? Any social worker will tell you that people touched by poverty, crime and violence do not adopt a noble resignation to their fate. In fact they will react with indignation or rebellion and in turn accumulate more bad karma. What kind of justice is this that starts more problems than it solves?
I would, instead, ask for God’s forgiveness and grace to deal with adversities.


Yes, the lowliest sinner has to purify himself by repenting, reforming himself completely before even surendering to God. "Oh Lord, remove all my sins while I go and take rest and sleep", would not be vedanta. Otherwise, one could reprent and go to sleep for 50 years and be free from sin. Rip vanwinkle would be guaranteed salvation had be repented prior to his sleep, because he never sinned?

If you are purified enough, divinity will automatically descend on you. If it happens to an apprently outward sinner, it is only the result of such purification achieved in a former birth, and not by chance. If God picks people by draw of lots, that leads to partiality. If one person is a thief and another a devoted person, and if the thief had a vision of God while the devotee died without that, isn't it obvious the thief was a purified soul in a former birth, and it was only by some prArabdha that he became a thief?

So Self purification by repentance, by doing good works, doing works selflessly, and then by an unflinching love and finally searching for God alone will reveal God. All these take many lives, and if you find it easily it means most of it had been done in a former birth, Sage Ramana did not need any guru and took only seven days at Arunachala to attain self realization. He himself stated that he had realized his Self in a previous birth, but was born just because his seeds of Karma were not fully burnt. So he was born as a natural sage and needed no guru or any initiation. All these had been completed well before he was born, just a few seeds in the subconscious remained.

I would say that Christianity address only the first point, repentance and stops there. There is no concept of Yoga in Christianity. Jesus himself was a Yogi but he preached it to very few people because most people are not yet ready. So the message is contained in the bible subtly, and is not open for others. (and you have not grasped yet!)

I would say that Gnostic Christianity is in tune with vedanta - it is indeed a perfect Dharmic way. What is your view on it?



Please, do not bring cultic talk as it is not the context of this topic. We are talking about child like surrender that sages have shown time to time.


Major Definitions for Cult:

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers:
3. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
4. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Isn't Christianity one such?

Child like definition surrender is not a cult, but if the surrender insist on specific symbols, it is a cult. Child like surrender is not possible for most people, it is only possible for sages. Are you one? If not, would your Godthrown you into hell?



I am sorry that you misunderstand my post. Who says one has blind faith? A child like faith is not a blind faith – it is an instinctive recognition of her/his mother. Did the child need to analyse/understand that first? No! That alone will humble the “I”.
The moment you bring in “jnana”, you bring the function of rational mind, which means surrender is still incomplete! It is shear arrogance to think that this “I” can do anything other than surrender!


Blind faith is faith based on unverified claims. Rational faith is one based on verified claims. Blind Faith is the starting point of the journey, and it should culimate in Rational Faith. That is vedanta, for which Christianity is a starter kit. In Jnana, there is no "rational mind" because it is a concept beyond mind. Infact, the Jnana you are talking about is about blind faith (text book Jnana)

To truly surrender to God, you need to know who God is, who you are, and how you are related. Otherwise it is blind faith surrender. Dont take me wrong, but these are just facts, which would be grasped by all members of the Eastern traditions. Have you seen God? Have you verified the existance of God? If not, the beleif is blind faith regardless of however sagely one may be.

In Advaita, one can see Saguna Brahman in many ways and forms, and can be verified. But ultimate Godhead cannot be seen in any imaginable way. No human words exist for such experience. Even when jivanmuktas talk about God, they can talk only about this personal aspect of God. From the conciosuness of the absolute, no such talking is possible. That is why, even when Advaitins talk about God, they talk about love, surrender etc. True godhead cannot be described in words or in a book.



Let me use your beautiful example to clarify my point: Here I do see: Rama – Highest self, Ravana – Ego turned outward lost in senses, Golden deer – Maya, Seeta – forgetfulness of ego, ignorance or muddled mind and finally Hanuman – pure grace!
In Ayodhya, when Seeta was trapped, Rama (the higher self) could not come immediately. Seeta needed Hanuman to bring the ring (grace) to her, which muddled mind of Seeta saw through her tears. It was that grace that brought her back to Rama! How did Seeta get to Rama? Through Hanuman (grace).
Simply put, every action we take involves the grace of God! Even to identify the demons within you, you need the hand of grace! Those who are advanced in their pursuit of God through various paths are truly the beneficiaries of God’s providential gift of grace.


That Ravana is not the ego you are talking about(not nirotu). He is situated in the Trikuta Lanka, the city situated on the three peaked Hill - that is Ahamkara with its three guNas. It is not quite easy to reach there. You have to go to Dandaka forest, then Panchavati, kill the demons Khara and others, and force Ravana to snatch away your Sita. Then proceed towards Kishkinda, and made friendship with Sugriva and kill Vali. Then you have to search for Sita, then Hanuman has to jump over the ocean
and find that Ravana. All this is not possibe by blindly beleiving in some things - by blindly believing that somebody has done all this for you in advance. If you understand all these technically, you will know that Rama is the Turiya consciousness, and he is born only in samAdhi.

So killing Ravana is possible only if you reach that high stage of samAdhi. All of Ramayana belongs to the plane of samAdhi, and nothing to do with devotion or external worship or beleifs. A few times, such Turiya samAdhi is lost, like when Indrajit fells down Rama, and in such cases you need the grace of Shiva ~ Hanuman, who will fetch you the herbs of immortality. Such grace is always present and experienced in Turiya samAdhi, who told you Hinduism does not teach grace?

But to avail of grace, you need to reach Kishkinda, where Hanuman is dwelling with Sugriva. What is Kishkinda? It is right within you, find it. I am not talking of the monkey Hanuman, but of the eternal grace called Hanuman, without whom no Yoga or devotion is ever possible. He does not come to you, but you need to go to him - go to Kishkinda. Then it is all his work. It is not possible to encounter Hanuman unless you are in the neighbourhood of Kishkinda and once you reach there he will do the job for you. These are all in Treta Yuga, which is Turiya samAdhi.

In Kali Yuga, that same Hanuman=grace of Shiva will be searching for those eligible ones, whom he can instruct about the mysteries of various Yugas. Hanuman is the guru ~ grace. He takes different roles in different Yugas. You need to be eligible, by being sincerely devoted to Lord Rama, one day this eternal grace will come to you in some form. A fundamental qualification would be to become purified at heart, a soul that constantly aches and thirsts for God.




Secondly, I am sorry you feel that way. You have not really understood the meaning of His prophesized death, resurrection and what it means to mankind. Whether you could save yourself or not is not our point. Someone who could rise from death could also have saved himself. Jesus used His death on the cross as an example to show mankind the meaning of true compassion for putting him on the cross. Jesus felt the muddled mass was suffering a lot more in their ignorance than His own body on the cross.That is when He said, “ Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing!”


Many people have reserructed after death, not just Jesus. Have you read "The autobiography of a Yogi" by Swami Yogananda? Who is Yukteshwar Giri?



Thirdly, Jesus always put the father before him. For Him it was always the” wil”l of the Father. He was untouched by “I”. It is the purest of soul that could have incarnated!


Yes, until such total identity with Brahman is attained, one has to have a distinct identity. Krishna did not have one such, he was always the father - so Jesus was not as enlightened, ruling out avatarhood. When father and the son teach, whom will you listen to. I will take the father's words.



Yes, I agree with the surrender of “I” but not “free-will”. There is gross difference between free-will as you interpret and the way the Bible believes. God created man/woman with volition. One thing that God will not violate is the free-will. God wants you to love him out of your choice and not be compelled to do so. If He did so out of force without offering a choice, that love is coerced and not from your conscious choice. Why would God want you to abandon that free-will, I do not understand!


Yes, you cannot surrender freewill. It will be active for a long time, and till such surrender of it, no moksha is possible. Frewill can be surrendered only in the consciousness of Turiya, when it is known that the so called freewill is only the divine will using you as an instrument, and is an illusion. Christianity which teaches the independence of freewill apart from the will of God, cannot teach you the highest truth about religion.

We are all doomed to love God and God alone someday, that is the fate, all of us. Bible( as per your interpretation) is flawed and maybe discarded by Sanatana Dharma followers.

Nirotu, let us accept that God is so graceful, and his eternal grace Hanuman is available to anyone. There is no need for any specific saviour when this eternal (chiranjeevi) is there. Since it is only Time that separates us from God, let us move on, and not cling to any dogmas. I am sure you will find that some day through your Hanuman~Jesus, if not now, then tomorrow. We refuse that grace is selective like Christianity.

Znanna
08 September 2006, 07:30 PM
Namaste,

TruthSeeker, you struck a chord with me with this comment...


If you talk to all Hindus, you will find that many oppose the ideas ofAdvaita, and some call it a cult too, some as poison, some as demonic etc. Advaitins are not usually bothered with this, and either dismissed as statements made in ignorance or as the will of God. The reason simply is that even though advaita holds the scripture as the highest authority, it had the guts to call it as secondary knowledge, while the primary and true knowledge is that of the Atman, untainted and direct. Definitely Christianity's philosophy is not the same as Advaita, as you beleive in an external God and consider yourself as a servant who has to implicitly obey this creator failing which he would be thrown into a fire pit. Thus grace has become such a prominent thing in Christianity. Advaita does not consider God as external to you, but every aspect of God is right withinyou, and you only have to know that. The grace concept is almost meaningless in Advaita, and it is like searching for fire when you have two flint stones in your hands. Just strike the stones, why are you searching it in something external to you? Christianity grace is mixed with fear and not pure love. The same thing has been said by Madusudhana Saraswati, who wrote in his Advaita Siddhi that Dualism leads to fear of God, and fear being a coloring of the mind cannot lead to liberation. God cannot be portrayed as a fearful entity at all - he is supposed to be all loving isn't it?


Now, I'm just a mleccha :p ... so I guess to some my observations are moot ...

But ...

While I only take instruction/initiation directly from Godz ... I also have had experience which indicates an external *Godz* which is distinct from the participation of OneNess ... in other words ... I have yet another level of ontological conflict which I'm attempting to resolve :D


(a subsection follow from a posting elsewhere when I was motivated to tell stories, hehe)


This is my experience of HEr as Mistress ... the "yes ma'am" deal ...
who appeared to me in this instance.

I mentioned before a fellow I call the alien vampire thingy. I think
this guy had some sort of alien walk-in living inside his body which
had nearly consumed him, and then sought to feed on others in an
empathetic manner. She instructed me to love and heal (free) him, as
ugly and frightening as it was to me (I eventually did).

I was afraid I would forever lose my ability to *see* through my third
eye when this fellow blocked all my chakras. It was one thing being
bound in the lower chakras, but this was different, to me. The
thought of being blind, well, it was a great fear. It was that way
that I found I could Call Her into me directly, through a point on the
back of my head to free myself. Amazing what can be done when one is
sufficiently motivated :)

After that, I was a bit heady (hehe) about my new found ability to
intentionally connect with Her. I found a balance in many new
patterns of energy Flow which were torrential compared with my
previous level of competency, as I had the benefit of communion with
Her intelligence and counterweight.

I was still feeding this alien thingy, and he instantly sensed there
was WAY more energy going on ... and sought to tap into its source. I
sought to limit his access.

That night, in my usual bedtime psychic/sexual contact with him, I
blocked him from all but Manipura.

SHe didn't like that one bit.

She came into me like the Niagara Falls, pounding me with a flood of
energy beyond ... WAY beyond ... my ability to channel. "YOU WILL NOT
RESTRICT THE FLOW." I was lying on the floor, I felt as if SHe had
her foot in my back like a dominatrix, pinning me. She just kept
pounding me from head to toe with more More MORE energy. This went on
for about 8 hours. Many times, I thought I couldn't take anymore, or
found a way to divert/channel/redirect ... more More MORE kept
coming. Some time after I begged for mercy (it seemed like a couple
hours more after the begging started), and after I had no choice but
to allow myself to be entirely overwhelmed by HEr Awesomeness, my
Mistress relented.

I spent the rest of the night with my forehead to the floor, and
still, now three years later begin each day with my head to the floor,
in a prayer of thanks.

Yeah, tis nearly 4 years later now, and I still feel the need to ground myself with extreme surrender to HEr... and ...

Sooo ... the message appeared to be that separation/restriction from the OneNess was verboten ... yet at the same time, this appeared to me to come from an external source. How does this fit into anything? I get direct revelation, okay, but at the same time, there are these manifestations which I cannot rationalize as being internally generated?

How can this be rationalized within a philosophical framework? I'm some kind of freak, eh?

(Yeah, I know I'm crazy, hahahaha)


Love,
ZN

PS I've tried hard over the years to get independent confirmation of my perceptions in an experimental setting (other persons perceiving the same as me or relating observations consistent with mine) ... and have, to an extent. But, it is difficult to differentiate between what may be relayed in telepathic trance and what is independent observation ... but I do try :)

TruthSeeker
09 September 2006, 05:17 AM
Namaste ZN,



Now, I'm just a mleccha ... so I guess to some my observations are moot ...
But ...
While I only take instruction/initiation directly from Godz ... I also have had experience which indicates an external *Godz* which is distinct from the participation of OneNess ... in other words ... I have yet another level of ontological conflict which I'm attempting to resolve


Yes, external revelations are as valid as the internal ones, but all such revelations are still manifestations of the Self within. One could see God with bare eyes, hear with ears, commune in meditation and these have nothing to do with Advaita. These are all valid experiences for the experiencer. However, the ultimate experience, the summum bonum of life, cannot be different for different people. Truth is only one - many different contradictory experiences are just relative truths - that is what Advaita dictates. The only real truth is the one that does not change with respect to time or space. Whatever that changes in either space or in time, is a relative entity, and this kind of experience can have many degrees and varieties.

What is an unchanging experience? But we have never been familiar with anything unrelated to space and time - and how to know what it is, except through experience?




Yeah, tis nearly 4 years later now, and I still feel the need to ground myself with extreme surrender to HEr... and ...
Sooo ... the message appeared to be that separation/restriction from the OneNess was verboten ... yet at the same time, this appeared to me to come from an external source. How does this fit into anything? I get direct revelation, okay, but at the same time, there are these manifestations which I cannot rationalize as being internally generated?
How can this be rationalized within a philosophical framework? I'm some kind of freak, eh?

(Yeah, I know I'm crazy, hahahaha)


Perfectly valid, you are not crazy....:)

From what I understand, the one unchanging reality Brahman is of three fold nature Existance, Knowledge and Bliss. Different experiences and religions are those that seek to understand and experience Brahman with different proportions of importance for these aspects.

The classical neti neti Advaitins choose to understand the Existance aspect(Sat) of Brahman and seek to separate out Atman from Anatman.
They negate everything in a process of involution until the real Existance is found. Those Yogis who take to this path usually do not have many spiritual or emotional experiences of God, and usually dont acquire any great powers until they reach the summit. It is a safe path, but unsuitable for most.


The Raja Yogin, the Hata Yogin, those practising Tantra etc, follow the path of Knowledge( Chit) of Brahman. This path is usually dualsitic until a very high stage, and divinity is revealed in many gradual steps of awakening of consciousness. But such experience is only that of Maya. These Yogis also acquire phenomenal powers and they become omniscient. Once Maya is fully understood, it is transcended to culimate in the ultimate experience of Sat. This is a double edged path, and if you err in the process, it could cause a spiritual downfall or death.

The Ananda aspect of God is the one of pure grace and love, where realization is sought by submission to the higher power than by any devoted path like Raja Yoga or Jnana Yoga. In this path, one seeks to terminate the wheel of life and death by requesting the divine will to burn itself out in the freewill. The spiritual experiences for this kind of path is usually like visions but higher awakening( divine eye) is normally not attained until one is close to death. Total submission to the divine will is very difficult, and those who do it will find it the hard way - the higher power may subject you to a number of tests and may toy you at will to
test your level of total submission, and many protest and break out. Those liberated through this path through the love to the higher power, cling on to the love even in moksha for a long time, and perhaps even for eternity. This path will usually be dualistic or semi monistic, and such distinctions in moksha may be retained for a long time.

Whichever path you go through, the ultimate experience will be identical for the path of Sat and Chit. The path of Ananda may or may not culminate in the experience of Oneness, and is solely subject to the divine will. If "freewill" desires such separation it will remain a freewill bonded in love to the divine will. These are the infinite varieities in the manifestation of God. The path of Ananda is definitely easier to follow and is the teaching of most religions.

nirotu
09 September 2006, 10:55 AM
Dear Truthseeker:




I think some Hindus here have chosen to attack you out of some personal agendas and I suggest you not to take these people seriously.Thanks! I appreciate your regard for such exchanges. It makes me feel grateful.


Nevertheless, when bringing up the topic of Hinduism, you have to bring in avatars like Krishna and Rama, or some of the well known names like Shankara or Ramanuja, and not controversial names like Osho, which looks more like a mischief rather than a discussion.Let me clarify to you my point. I was using an example of ego-ridden spirituality that only ended with the downfall. History is replete with evidences to these. In this context it is befitting to use examples of such people, although, there are many in Christianity as well. Sages you quoted were right with God and quite don’t fit the context. Use of Rajneesh in particular was unintentional.

. . . . Thus grace has become such a prominent thing in Christianity. Advaita does not consider God as external to you, but every aspect of God is right withinyou, and you only have to know that. The grace concept is almost meaningless in Advaita, and it is like searching for fire when you have two flint stones in your hands. Just strike the stones, why are you searching it in something external to you?

Christianity grace is mixed with fear and not pure love. The same thing has been said by Madusudhana Saraswati, who wrote in his Advaita Siddhi that Dualism leads to fear of God, and fear being a coloring of the mind cannot lead to liberation. God cannot be portrayed as a fearful entity at all - he is supposed to be all loving isn't it?First of all, I am not implying external or internal. It is not ritualistic Bhakti. It is childlike innate recognition of the mother. Do not mistake my concept of grace with a ritual worship of some external agents. We are all starting with a fear-based mind. Nobody is born with the mind that is perfectly capable to discern at the beginning. The point I am making is simply this; with that as a starting point it would be a quantum leap to be at a point where so called knowledge becomes the tool. We are bridging that gap and that bridge is the “grace”.

People feel Christianity makes one “feel good” to follow because the prescription is fairly simple. On the contrary spiritual journey is not so easy. When a rich man asked Jesus, “what must I do to be saved?”. Jesus replied, “Thou shall not murder, not commit adultery,not steal, not bear false witness, honor thy father and mother, love thy neighbor as thyself.” To which the man replied, I have done them all. Jesus said, “go then sell all your belongings, give them to poor and follow me”. The man went filled with sorrow as he did not want to part with what he had and follow Christ.(Mt 19:18-22).

If things were that easy 90% of populations would be living in an enlightened state. The fact that we are all struggling shows the arduous path, that took nearly 14 years for Buddha and countless years for many sages.

Thus your ideas of man being intrinsically sinful, and needing something exteral to him to redeem on that sin, is only a pheneomenal truth or a false claim. Natrually we consider your version as a subset or a wrong doctrine.The notion of “sin” has a wrong connotation. Hinduism believes that man is essentially and morally good. The ignorance is primarily related not to sin but multiplicity and separate consciousness, which affects our conception of this universe. It’s much more a kind of metaphysical principle for which no one is morally responsible but, instead, man’s activity for his individual self “out of attachment” in this world is bad and “out of detachment” is good.

On the other hand, Christianity posits this in a man who is essentially good, at the same time has the freedom to choose to sin or not. We are naturally good but born with the capacity to “sin” (remain ignorant of “good”).

Both system of thoughts do not deny man is good but it is only in the way you play “sin” in the scheme of things.


Yes, the lowliest sinner has to purify himself by repenting, reforming himself completely before even surendering to God. "Oh Lord, remove all my sins while I go and take rest and sleep", would not be vedanta. Otherwise, one could reprent and go to sleep for 50 years and be free from sin. Rip vanwinkle would be guaranteed salvation had be repented prior to his sleep, because he never sinned?I think you have lost the meaning of “repentance” in your talk. The very meaning of the word “repent” means turn away for from activities that made you a sinner in the first place. The person who is genuinely repentant will not indulge in that old path anymore. Such a person who has experienced forgiveness will only tend to do that which is good in the sight of God. He will never stop doing the “good” and in fact that is the only thing he would want to do.

There are also people in the world who have sought repentance yet fallen from the grace of God. That shows the weakness of that person to the temptation of the world. In all these matters God knows our heart whether it is sincere or not. He is looking for repentant heart and contrite spirit and not just an outward appearance of doing so.


If you are purified enough, divinity will automatically descend on you. If it happens to an apprently outward sinner, it is only the result of such purification achieved in a former birth, and not by chance. If God picks people by draw of lots, that leads to partiality. If one person is a thief and another a devoted person, and if the thief had a vision of God while the devotee died without that, isn't it obvious the thief was a purified soul in a former birth, and it was only by some prArabdha that he became a thief?God does not pick and choose who gets to be saved. It is man’s choice to join God or not. God will not violate man’s “free-will” choice. The invitation is to all but it is upto man to decide. Thus, free-will becomes an essential part of man’s creation and makeup.

When Jesus was on the cross there were two other thieves one on each side. Man to the left said to Jesus, “if you are a messiah, why don’t you save yourself?” Obviously he did not have faith in Jesus or the works he had done. The person on right said, “You are the messiah! Please, remember me when you go to heaven”. Jesus answered him, “Today you will be in paradise with me”.(Luke 23:43). The man on right had genuine repentance. It is not the freedom from karmic baggage, but the genuine remorse and repentance that brings us closer to God.


I would say that Christianity address only the first point, repentance and stops there. There is no concept of Yoga in Christianity. Jesus himself was a Yogi but he preached it to very few people because most people are not yet ready. So the message is contained in the bible subtly, and is not open for others. (and you have not grasped yet!)I disagree. Salvation is not automatic for anyone who seeks forgiveness and repents and stops there. The process of sanctification is just the beginning at the instant you feel forgiven. The man in his entire life goes through trials of ups and downs. In all these how he conducts himself is directly related to his final outcome. God wants to know even when you are tried, are you with me or not? Do you give up and thown in the towel when trials come or overcome these adversities with the assurance that you have from God? How you handle adversity is really dependent on faith you have in God.
Many did not follow Jesus because they did not understand him and his language, full of parables and metaphors. Jesus never changed his style in order to attract crowd. He felt His words were for those who diligently sought Him. He did not want to throw pearls at swines who were not ready.


I would say that Gnostic Christianity is in tune with vedanta - it is indeed a perfect Dharmic way. What is your view on it?I am sorry I have not read it and therefore, cannot comment on that.


Major Definitions for Cult:

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers:
3. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
4. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Isn't Christianity one such?The cult may be under an umbrella of religion, the definition of cult is the guru who is acting out of his ego with like minded people as followers. Such an ego will create cult of followers around him. Few misguided people with their own teaching misrepresent and make it fanatical and that becomes cult. A cult is when the leader acts out with ego which is not burnt out completely. True sages never created cult around them. We all agree that Christ was untainted by ego. That is why, true Christianity is not a cult.


Child like definition surrender is not a cult, but if the surrender insist on specific symbols, it is a cult. Child like surrender is not possible for most people, it is only possible for sages. Are you one? If not, would your Godthrown you into hell?Ah! You missed the point. Childlike surrender is not what I compare with that of sages. A baby knows mother by instinct without any reservation of any kind. That instinctive recognition makes that baby cry out to the mother to grab her attention (trying to reach out to grace). All that baby needed to know was that mother is there. The baby only knows that mother will do the rest. The same way we cry out for the hand of grace that will lead us to do the rest.

Sages who surrendered had the gift of grace in them. It is only through that gift they were able to shift from muddled mind to the mind of focus. Their beginning cry to the Lord can be found in the famous hymnal:
Lord, lead me from darkness to light, from death to eternalty.


Blind faith is faith based on unverified claims. Rational faith is one based on verified claims. Blind Faith is the starting point of the journey, and it should culimate in Rational Faith. That is vedanta, for which Christianity is a starter kit. In Jnana, there is no "rational mind" because it is a concept beyond mind. Infact, the Jnana you are talking about is about blind faith (text book Jnana)Well, I beg to differ. Nobody argues with your definition of blind faith. That is not what I am referring to. When Jesus talks about faith, He does not mean a mere mental belief, which evaporates at the slightest contact with contrary evidence. By faith, Jesus means absolute conviction.

A very good example can be found with a Roman Centurion who at the hearing of Jesus miracles approaches from distance asking Jesus just to say the “word” so that his servant who is suffering from terminal illness could be healed. When Jesus heard this He marveled at the faith of this centurion and uttered these words “ I have not seen such a faith in entire Israel”.(Mt 8:13). Centurion was convinced in his heart that the proof of his faith lied in the intuitive knowing of the soul. And of course, as the story goes, the servant was instantly healed at the very same moment!
Child’s instinctive understanding of the mother is sufficient for child. It did not need a rational mind! When you posit “jnana” ,you do bring the “doer” doing the thinking. I am just avoiding “I” ness all together


To truly surrender to God, you need to know who God is, who you are, and how you are related. Otherwise it is blind faith surrender. Dont take me wrong, but these are just facts, which would be grasped by all members of the Eastern traditions. Have you seen God? Have you verified the existance of God? If not, the beleif is blind faith regardless of however sagely one may be.
We are back in the same catch-22 predicament!
1. To surrender you must know God.
2. You cannot surrender as long as you have ego.
3. You cannot know God if you have ego.
Please, tell me how to break away from this trap!

At the expense of repeating myself over and over again, let me put it this way. The “surrender” is one thing that needs no knowledge as a starting point. It will lead you to all knowledge you are talking about. Knowledge is not a prerequisite for surrender that you have been talking about.

Once again, I remind you and myself that the whole process is truly simple and we are making more complex than it really is! All sages and saints who reached the state of enlightenment have all uttered, “AH!” it was so simple! Yet in its simplicity lies the hardness. Look how mind wants to continue to want knowledge more and more and see how the “I” is embedded throughout all this. For mind in its simplicity lies the hardness.


In Advaita, one can see Saguna Brahman in many ways and forms, and can be verified. But ultimate Godhead cannot be seen in any imaginable way. No human words exist for such experience. Even when jivanmuktas talk about God, they can talk only about this personal aspect of God. From the conciosuness of the absolute, no such talking is possible. That is why, even when Advaitins talk about God, they talk about love, surrender etc. True godhead cannot be described in words or in a book.
I agree with you. There is nothing that can substitute for experiential knowledge of God. Advaitins had to go through intense meditation to bring themselves about that understanding.


That Ravana is not the ego you are talking about(not nirotu). He is situated in the Trikuta Lanka, the city situated on the three peaked Hill - that is Ahamkara with its three guNas. It is not quite easy to reach there. You have to go to Dandaka forest, then Panchavati, kill the demons Khara and others, and force Ravana to snatch away your Sita. Then proceed towards Kishkinda, and made friendship with Sugriva and kill Vali. Then you have to search for Sita, then Hanuman has to jump over the ocean and find that Ravana. All this is not possibe by blindly beleiving in some things - by blindly believing that somebody has done all this for you in advance. If you understand all these technically, you will know that Rama is the Turiya consciousness, and he is born only in samAdhi.

So killing Ravana is possible only if you reach that high stage of samAdhi. All of Ramayana belongs to the plane of samAdhi, and nothing to do with devotion or external worship or beleifs. A few times, such Turiya samAdhi is lost, like when Indrajit fells down Rama, and in such cases you need the grace of Shiva ~ Hanuman, who will fetch you the herbs of immortality. Such grace is always present and experienced in Turiya samAdhi, who told you Hinduism does not teach grace?

But to avail of grace, you need to reach Kishkinda, where Hanuman is dwelling with Sugriva. What is Kishkinda? It is right within you, find it. I am not talking of the monkey Hanuman, but of the eternal grace called Hanuman, without whom no Yoga or devotion is ever possible. He does not come to you, but you need to go to him - go to Kishkinda. Then it is all his work. It is not possible to encounter Hanuman unless you are in the neighbourhood of Kishkinda and once you reach there he will do the job for you. These are all in Treta Yuga, which is Turiya samAdhi.

In Kali Yuga, that same Hanuman=grace of Shiva will be searching for those eligible ones, whom he can instruct about the mysteries of various Yugas. Hanuman is the guru ~ grace. He takes different roles in different Yugas. You need to be eligible, by being sincerely devoted to Lord Rama, one day this eternal grace will come to you in some form. A fundamental qualification would be to become purified at heart, a soul that constantly aches and thirsts for God.
Please, beware of the tendency to take these metaphors literally. Without getting into metaphorical and literal details of the epic Ramayana, I would like to repeat the metaphor I was using between forgetful mind (sita) and higher-self (Rama). The bridge between them is formed by grace (Hanuman). I was trying to emphasize that in all fear, in all her confusion and in all her misery when she saw grace and its message (ring) then alone was she pacified, which brought all the trust, faith and understanding.

Need I remind you that confusion of muddled mind was such that even Sita was doubting or refusing to recognize Hanuman. Hanuman had to prove who he was by showing the ring of Rama to convince of her of the message of grace. Once she knew Rama was going to be on His way, she regained all understanding, proving once for all, the pre-requisite or #1 role of grace’s hand in our spiritual journey.

Looking back, if Rama’s wife Sita needed to know and understand from this kind of help from grace, who are we mere mortals to think any other way?


Many people have reserructed after death, not just Jesus. Have you read "The autobiography of a Yogi" by Swami Yogananda? Who is Yukteshwar Giri?If you are resurrected, you will show yourself to the world at large not a selected disciple. Christ resurrection is worldly phenomenon. He not only appeared to His own disciples but many more. There is evidential support in history.

BTW, Yukteshwar was a disciple of Mahavtar Babaji. In 1894 Babaji instructed Yukteshwar to embark on a monumental task of comparative study of the harmony between Christian and Hindu scriptures. He also told Yukteshar that his disciple (Yogananda) will go far away places to teach the same.

For an individual to claim the resurrection of his guru could also mean the fantasy of disciple like a long lost lover being sensed as right next to you- only in fantasy.


Yes, until such total identity with Brahman is attained, one has to have a distinct identity. Krishna did not have one such, he was always the father - so Jesus was not as enlightened, ruling out avatarhood. When father and the son teach, whom will you listen to. I will take the father's words.Hmmmm! If Father Krishna did not manifest in this universe as “Saguna”, then what value do you posit for Mahabharata, which clearly shows birth, life and works of Krisha? It is important to realize even in manifested state the connection between Father and Son is never lost.

All I can say is in the manifested creation, the message of Christ is very relevant because the connection between unmanifested source (Father) will always remain through Christ! Advaita may be fooling itself by saying there is no manifest form of Source. Krishna may be the purest form of manifest source like Jesus.


Nirotu, let us accept that God is so graceful, and his eternal grace Hanuman is available to anyone. There is no need for any specific saviour when this eternal (chiranjeevi) is there. Since it is only Time that separates us from God, let us move on, and not cling to any dogmas. I am sure you will find that some day through your Hanuman~Jesus, if not now, then tomorrow. We refuse that grace is selective like Christianity.

Christ message is not to be taken to the extreme as a dogma. His practical message of grace is the truth because it reflects the realities of life we live in!


Blessings,

atanu
09 September 2006, 02:53 PM
Dear Atanu:


Let me put it this way. I am not saying you have underestimated grace, but surely you have overestimated the power of knowledge. You have placed “jnana” before “grace” without elaborating how you acquired the “jnana” to begin with.




You are coming from a pre-decided premise again and again.

Knowledge and grace are not two separate things. What you are implying by knowledge again and again is simply ignorance.
Grace is ever present as the seed of awareness everywhere including me and you. Knowledge is not in books or preachings. The books or preachings are assimilated by your very own awareness.

Vedanta puts a pointer to the seed of awareness that is grace and that is within, giving rise to awareness and every other thing.





All I know is that you know self by Jnana but you have “jnana” as a benevolent gift of providential God through His divine grace!

From a realistic point of view such a “jnana” goes hand in hand with ego. Moment you think you have “jnana”, the strength of “I” has already taken hold of you.




Your concept of Jnana is what we call ignorance. None can have Turiya -- the seed of consciousness. None can say that I possess Turiya. This seed is known only in identity. And this occurs with loss of "I".

You are coming from a misgiuded and pre-decided premise.



If Nirotu is distinct from Atanu, how do they arrive at that assertion? They had to have jnana to discern or realize the truth. Am I right? The question I have been asking and you have been evading is how can a muddled mind attain this knowledge or come to realize this truth? And so, that starting point, which is what I have been addressing.

Again I reiterate, I am not saying you have underestimated grace but surely, you have overestimated the power of knowledge. Other than that, we have no disagreement at all.



We are poles apart. I reiterate that what you call knowledge we call ignorance.

Grace is the seed of awareness and that seed of awareness has no sense of separate I. It is called shivoadvaitam -- without a second.

With a sense of personal I intact, one can only worship egoistically and then blindly try to preach and convert others. And such people cause strifes.





Yes, the forgetful ego-mind can never remember or attain knowledge and therefore, only thing it can do is to hold the hand of grace. Only grace can lead you to surrender is what Christianity teaches.




This is most disgusting to me. I do not care to hide my disgust.

Long before Christ (and eternally) it is known that Grace is all. We simply call that auspicious (Shivam). We do not need to be taught about that.

And grace is ever there. But still why thoughts in mind carry one away from that grace?





So we come back again to our original point. Just like a child who does not need to understand her mother but only have that instinctive recognition is exactly what muddled mind needs.



Blessings,

Whose instinctive recognition? Who has the instinct? The child did not create it. Without understanding the instincts (gunas) and transcending them there is no chance of surrender either. Blind follower of Instincts is muddled to say the least and all arsonists, rapists, war mongers are such instinctive personalities only.

To pay you back with your own coin, I would say: God would not have given us power of discrimination had He wanted us to cling to instincts.



You have avoided to answer several questions.

Only with your cognition apparatus you can know of external things, including an external imagined god, the prints on the book, and these discussions.

What is the cognition apparatus in you? Without knowing THAT (in stillness of mind) what chance you have of knowing the true nature of external things, including an imagined god? And if you do not know the self then what will you surrender to that external imagined god?

It is high time you realised that you are only worshipping an idea/an image of your mind, which is ego. And there is no problem in that, if you desist from preaching about Christ being the only way.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
09 September 2006, 03:17 PM
Dear Truthseeker:

On the other hand, Christianity posits this in a man who is essentially good, at the same time has the freedom to choose to sin or not. We are naturally good but born with the capacity to “sin” (remain ignorant of “good”).


I simply do not understand why would god create such a situation where a man will rape/kill/plunder/ declare war/steal.

Your theory is for children.




I agree with you. There is nothing that can substitute for experiential knowledge of God. Advaitins had to go through intense meditation to bring themselves about that understanding.



Funny. You talk as if you have had advaita experience. What you know of this experience.




Hmmmm! If Father Krishna did not manifest in this universe as “Saguna”, then what value do you posit for Mahabharata, which clearly shows birth, life and works of Krisha? It is important to realize even in manifested state the connection between Father and Son is never lost.

All I can say is in the manifested creation, the message of Christ is very relevant because the connection between unmanifested source (Father) will always remain through Christ! Advaita may be fooling itself by saying there is no manifest form of Source. Krishna may be the purest form of manifest source like Jesus.


You are fooling yourself.

To know manifest Krishna one needs the unmanifest intelligence. Krishna himself has said that one who knows me as unborn mahesvara only knows. Krishna has declared "I am the Self". Infact, Jesus also said: I and my father in heaven are one. And "the kingdom of heaven is within".

When Krishna says: Submit to me, it is submission to the Self, since He has declared: I am the Self.


Today, those who try to convert others are doing so at the behest of their ego and nothing else. They have forgotten Christ.

Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
09 September 2006, 04:58 PM
If you are resurrected, you will show yourself to the world at large not a selected disciple. Christ resurrection is worldly phenomenon. He not only appeared to His own disciples but many more. There is evidential support in history.

BTW, Yukteshwar was a disciple of Mahavtar Babaji. In 1894 Babaji instructed Yukteshwar to embark on a monumental task of comparative study of the harmony between Christian and Hindu scriptures. He also told Yukteshar that his disciple (Yogananda) will go far away places to teach the same.

For an individual to claim the resurrection of his guru could also mean the fantasy of disciple like a long lost lover being sensed as right next to you- only in fantasy.

Hmmmm! If Father Krishna did not manifest in this universe as “Saguna”, then what value do you posit for Mahabharata, which clearly shows birth, life and works of Krisha? It is important to realize even in manifested state the connection between Father and Son is never lost.

All I can say is in the manifested creation, the message of Christ is very relevant because the connection between unmanifested source (Father) will always remain through Christ! Advaita may be fooling itself by saying there is no manifest form of Source. Krishna may be the purest form of manifest source like Jesus.



Christ message is not to be taken to the extreme as a dogma. His practical message of grace is the truth because it reflects the realities of life we live in!


Blessings,


'Historical evidence; for Resseruction - The accounts of various gospels.



When did the women visit the tomb?

MARK: At the rising of the sun.
JOHN: When it was yet dark.

Who were these women?

MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.
MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
LUKE: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women.
JOHN: Mary Magdalene alone.

Was the tomb open or closed?

MATTHEW: Closed.
LUKE: Open

Who else was there?

MATTHEW: An angel.
MARK: A young man.
LUKE: Two men.
JOHN: Two angels.

Where were they?

MATTHEW: Outside the tomb.
MARK, LUKE & JOHN: Inside the tomb.

Were they standing or sitting?

LUKE: Standing.
MATTHEW, MARK & JOHN: Sitting.

Did Mary Magdalene see them?

MATTHEW, MARK & LUKE: Yes she did.
JOHN: No she didn't.

Who was frightened by the men/angels?

MATTHEW: The keepers.
MARK & LUKE: The women.

Did the women see Jesus?

MATTHEW: Yes they did.
LUKE: No they didn't.

Did the women tell the disciples what they had seen?

MARK: No they didn't.
LUKE: Yes they did.

Did Mary Magdalene recognise Jesus?

MATTHEW: Yes she did.
JOHN: No she didn't.

How many disciples visited the tomb?

LUKE: Peter alone.
JOHN: Peter and one other.

Was Mary Magdalene permitted to touch Jesus?

MATTHEW: Yes she was.
JOHN: No she wasn't.

Where did Jesus appear to his disciples?

MATTHEW: In Galilee.
LUKE: In Jerusalem.

Were they convinced of the resurrection?

MATTHEW: No. Some doubted.
JOHN: Yes. All were convinced.


The reserruction is certainly a hearsay......perhaps he was really crucified, if at all he existed.;)

willie
09 September 2006, 09:30 PM
Here we have more of the one upsmanship and shows why religions have caused so many wars. Some where someone need to realize that brahman delivered devine messages to people all over the world and not to just one place.

If you don't make some effort to know more about brahman, you cannot pay someone to do it for you. The person must make the effort and I would imagine the brahman would bring that person along at what ever pace they could handle.

sarabhanga
09 September 2006, 10:03 PM
While I do agree with you that God’s unconditional love towards humanity does indeed makes provision for removing obstacles, in terms of the end-point (salvation), what truly sets Christianity apart from Hinduism is in the differing beliefs in work or merit-based salvation as opposed to grace-based salvation.

The divine law of Ahimsa (unconditional love towards all beings) leads one to Ganesha (the Isha of Ganas or the “Lord of Beings”) who swiftly removes any obstacle to salvation. And whatever path is taken, the final salvation is entirely Shiva (i.e. “Grace”) based.

Truly, it is only ignorance that sets any Dharma apart from Sanatana Dharma. :cool1:

TruthSeeker
10 September 2006, 10:01 AM
Hi nirotu,

I am no0t going to answer most of your points as they have been answered with detailed examples from my side, which you have missed because Christianity does not have answers to very basic questions. and naturally cannot have solutions. Its goal is faith based grace which is the first step, of course. You have, as usual, skipped many questions that many have asked.




People feel Christianity makes one “feel good” to follow because the prescription is fairly simple. On the contrary spiritual journey is not so easy. When a rich man asked Jesus, “what must I do to be saved?”. Jesus replied, “Thou shall not murder, not commit adultery,not steal, not bear false witness, honor thy father and mother, love thy neighbor as thyself.” To which the man replied, I have done them all. Jesus said, “go then sell all your belongings, give them to poor and follow me”. The man went filled with sorrow as he did not want to part with what he had and follow Christ.(Mt 19:18-22).


Exactly!! Christianity cannot lead to the goal because most Christians cant and wont follow teachings. Read history. They have to seek the ways of Dharma to get rid of avidya that prevents us from following the teachings. Jnana kAnda is so essential you know, without which the ignorance always stands in the way. Most cant get liberation through Christianity because you cant follow the sermon on the mount. To make it "feel good" its founders felt the need to play it safe to win numbers. Without the "concept of repentance and grace" Christianity would not be useful, and has nothing to offer for Hinduism. Hindus are also free to repent and seek the grace of God, but no man(or god) can bear the atrocities of others. You are responsible for your own sins committed in the past and present. Without this concept, there has been a lot of bloodshed associated with the history of Christianity.



When Jesus was on the cross there were two other thieves one on each side. Man to the left said to Jesus, “if you are a messiah, why don’t you save yourself?” Obviously he did not have faith in Jesus or the works he had done. The person on right said, “You are the messiah! Please, remember me when you go to heaven”. Jesus answered him, “Today you will be in paradise with me”.(Luke 23:43). The man on right had genuine repentance. It is not the freedom from karmic baggage, but the genuine remorse and repentance that brings us closer to God.


Unless this episode is a parable, it shows only the meanness of Jesus. On what basis were the two thieves selected for questioning, and one of them saved and the other condemned? Should not this opportunity be extended to every human being?

True remorse and repentance is possible only for the sins we are aware of. In our previous births, we have done a lot of atrocities for which we cannot repent, and these are part of the Karmic baggage. Even if you repent for your sins now, the Karmic seeds are still waiting to open. So you have to gain access to these. How will you do it? Repentance does not destroy the sin per se according to Hinduism. It attenuates the effect of Karma, but it cannot resolve it. If you were a mass murderer, no amount of repentance is going to matter until you have paid for these sins. One has to perform prayaschitta for certain sins, and for certain others there is no remedy that has been suggested. For eg, a murder in cold blood has no known escape without the fire of Jnana or pay for that crime..

God is a good judge above his mercy. A father cannot forgive one of his sons who murdered the other just because he asked for forgiveness. The punishment will always be given, in form of a Karmic debt. This goes with every desire of the mind and action of the body. The repentance thing is a mere political tool. You are always free to repent, but depending on your actions and the extent of repentance they may or may not protect you. God's law is the law of Karma. There is no exceptions made to anybody, not even to devas.



We are back in the same catch-22 predicament!
1. To surrender you must know God.
2. You cannot surrender as long as you have ego.
3. You cannot know God if you have ego.
Please, tell me how to break away from this trap!


There is only way to escape this trap - sacrifice, which even the divine Prajapati does.

The only way to liberation is sacrifice ( tyAga).

The highest form of this sacrifice is called Asvamedha Yaga in which the twenty one elements are sacrificed to God. The Asvamedha Yaga along with the Putra Kameshti Yaga, will lead to the birth of four sons, Rama, Bharata, Shatrughna and Laxmana, who will redeem from you.( these are the four states of the Atman) So every person has to sacrifice based on his capacity and knowledge. A man who has sacrificed his anger, lust, greed, jealosy, pride and delusion - becomes very dear to God and becomes an object of his grace. The grace thus generated remeeds a man. Jesus story is also about the symbolic blood sacrifice, the same thing done by Lord Parashurama, by the destruction of Kshatriyas and sacrificing their blood at Samantapanchaka( Kurukshetra). There is no catch 22 anywhere - learn to renounce everything to God, including the very "I" that you cling to. The rest will take care of itself. You are clinging onto 24 elements of nature that you will need to shed one by one, and knowledge about these are needed, so some form of Yoga will be absolutely necessary at some point. But dont worry about that right now, start from the basics. The five vows of complete non violence, truthfulness, situated constantly in the thought of God, non possesion and non stealing, mark the beginning of this great sacrifice. The grace of God could operate only after you have set things right yourself, while repenting and prayer can serve as guidelines in this process. Start with total non violence if you are a true mumukshu. There could be no grace unless one is established in the love of all. And no beleif in God could be neccessary for a person who is selfless and loving towards all, because he is serving God though creation. God and creation are non different, except from the perspective of avidya.





I agree with you. There is nothing that can substitute for experiential knowledge of God. Advaitins had to go through intense meditation to bring themselves about that understanding.


What do you know about Advaitin meditation? Do you even know how saintly these Acharyas are? Do you know of one monist who killed others in the name of God? Monism treats everything as the manifestation of God, and there is no divisiveness unlike your dogmas. What have your own gurus done after Jesus? Take me to one God realized soul other than Jesus now. All they have is just a set of beleifs, nothing more. The result is lack of practice of meditation - no use with mere theory. Religion must be based on verification of claims rather than blind assertion of beleifs.



Need I remind you that confusion of muddled mind was such that even Sita was doubting or refusing to recognize Hanuman. Hanuman had to prove who he was by showing the ring of Rama to convince of her of the message of grace. Once she knew Rama was going to be on His way, she regained all understanding, proving once for all, the pre-requisite or #1 role of grace’s hand in our spiritual journey.


Sita was doubting Hanuman? Arent you literally reading Ramayana? Sita is the Maya Shakti of Parabrahman, and how can the Shakti get confused? Certainly Sitaji confused you with her Maya and still active with that - beware of her!



Looking back, if Rama’s wife Sita needed to know and understand from this kind of help from grace, who are we mere mortals to think any other way?


Rama is verify you. You did not know that it is Vishnu everywhere? If you manage to reach the Treta Yuga through the practice of Yoga, and reach the state of Turiya you will no longer say "who are we mere mortals to think any other way?". Ramayana is indeed your would be story oneday,
infact the would be story of every soul.

In Kali Yuga you think that you are ordinary mortal.
In Dvapara Yuga, you find that you are directly guided by the Lord.( Arjuna-Krishna)
In Treta Yuga, you find that you are non different from Rama, and all you need to do is to kill Ravana and go back to Vaikunta.(Brahman)

These are all you only. Different stages of the same Yogi. Christianity's scope is limited to Kali Yuga. Dharma is about all the four Yugas. That is why it is a subset.



If you are resurrected, you will show yourself to the world at large not a selected disciple. Christ resurrection is worldly phenomenon. He not only appeared to His own disciples but many more. There is evidential support in history.
BTW, Yukteshwar was a disciple of Mahavtar Babaji. In 1894 Babaji instructed Yukteshwar to embark on a monumental task of comparative study of the harmony between Christian and Hindu scriptures. He also told Yukteshar that his disciple (Yogananda) will go far away places to teach the same.
For an individual to claim the resurrection of his guru could also mean the fantasy of disciple like a long lost lover being sensed as right next to you- only in fantasy.


How one sided you are?!!

You expect me to beleive in the reserruction of Jesus, while you think another one is hearsay? I did not see either and dismiss them both. Jesus resserruction is a metaphor emphasising the importance of sacrifice I mentioned earlier. The flesh is perishable, but Atman is not! So sacrifice the perishable entities, and cling onto the Atman. Follow the way of Jesus and sacrifice yourself in the crux of Jnana.



All I can say is in the manifested creation, the message of Christ is very relevant because the connection between unmanifested source (Father) will always remain through Christ! Advaita may be fooling itself by saying there is no manifest form of Source. Krishna may be the purest form of manifest source like Jesus.


Oh yeah, Advaitins were quite fooolish in allowing infiltration of Dharma in the past....but not as foolish as christians who believe their sins have been paid by another. Krishna never said he was a son of God nor ever said he was inferior to anything. Jesus mentioned so - so he was not as enlightened like him.




Christ message is not to be taken to the extreme as a dogma. His practical message of grace is the truth because it reflects the realities of life we live in!


Your messages remain a dogma because you have not shown a bit of liberalism by attacking both Buddhist and the Advaitin as foolish. What is the use of your grace when it cant reach anyone? Your dogma cannot find worth in anything outside its own dogma.:rolleyes:

Dogma is another name for ignorance.:rolleyes:

Znanna
10 September 2006, 05:55 PM
http://www.joshuah.org/Steps/Articles/D_Twins2_Bernier_Oct_9_2003.pdf


Interesting analysis of duality and trinity, in my opinion.


Namaste,
ZN

nirotu
12 September 2006, 09:51 PM
Knowledge and grace are not two separate things.
What you are implying by knowledge again and again is simply ignorance.
Your concept of Jnana is what we call ignorance. None can have Turiya-- the seed of consciousness. None can say that I possess Turiya. This seed is known only in identity. And this occurs with loss of "I".
Dear Atanu:
I am getting a sense that we are going in a circle! As much as I would like to answer all your questions, it would be better for us to decide first where we are coming from.

You are addressing everything from “Turiya” state where knowledge and grace are all one in union. From such a vantage point everything else is simply ignorance to you. That is not what I am addressing here! What I am addressing is the actual shift from ego based “I” consciousness in to “Turiya” consciousness.

Your two statements that I have highlighted clearly show your view from that state. I do not disagree with that view if you indeed view from that vantage point. But, you seem to be already on the peak of the mountain bypassing the journey to the peak.

All along I have been addressing a practical way as to how this loss of “I” occurs leading to the identity of “Turiya” knowledge. This inner shift in consciousness is what has been the subject of all previous postings, as one can see, requiring the hand of grace.

If you have attained that state, that’s great. In that state you can surely claim all our knowledge as shear ignorance. But I assure you, large part of humanity has not yet attained that lofty goal. For them, how to get there has been the focal point. Therefore, in the realm we are discussing the knowledge and grace are different in that “grace” still is unmerited favor and knowledge is providential gift of God and both play deciding role in our journey with primary emphasis on “grace”.

The truth of the matter is that our “jnana” at any level, represents only some aspects of reality. It is not complete until it represents the whole of reality. Such a possibility of knowing is complete, only when the individual knower is free from all defects. In “samsara” this is not possible, though such an aspiration always exists.

Why don’t we come to agree upon the central topic? Let us agree on one topic. For example, “How does ego-consciousness transfer into “Turiya” consciousness?” We may be talking about slightly different points of spiritual journey. May be, first we ought to define the level of consciousness (ego-I versus Turiya) and go from there.

While Turiya awareness is the goal for every one, how one does undertake the journey into that subtle realm from matter realm truly comprises spiritual journey. Personally, I do have that great desire to move into that mystical space that is both physical and spiritual at once.

Let us all make sure we all are coming from same view point, otherwise, we are like 6 blind men addressing 6 parts of the same elephant from different vantage points each claiming to see “his version” of the truth.

Our exchange, including that with others, has been very enlightening and I hope to continue but, just like a graduate student getting ready with research, has to have consensus of thesis subject so that he is able to plum the depth of the subject.

Blessings,

atanu
13 September 2006, 04:28 AM
Dear Atanu:
------
You are addressing everything from “Turiya” state where knowledge and grace are all one in union. From such a vantage point everything else is simply ignorance to you. That is not what I am addressing here! What I am addressing is the actual shift from ego based “I” consciousness in to “Turiya” consciousness.

-------

-------

While Turiya awareness is the goal for every one,

Blessings,


Accepting that Turiya consciousness is goal for all is the way. That itself is grace. Self effort in the form of meditation and enquiry is required after that. Without Self effort no gain accrues. Br. Upanishad says: "Knowing this (ayamatma brahma) one should meditate".

However, as many have not come to the stage of even theoretically knowing "ayamatma brahma", all possible paths (for different grades of seekers) are well explained in Gita by Lord Himself.


Specifically for you, even after knowing that Turiya is the goal, why should you persist to hold on to the appearance of innumerable ego-bodies as real? Considering the diversities and the boundaries to be real and not just modifications of the underlying single Turiya, how can you ever be one Turiya?



And for shifting from ego I to Turiya I, one has to search for the ego I. A dead body does not say "I wish to live". Then who/what says "I" in you? Is it ever possible to discard the ego I without investigating it? The main point is that there is no place or no time when grace is not. What lacks is self effort.


Om Namah Shivayya

TruthSeeker
13 September 2006, 09:28 AM
Why don’t we come to agree upon the central topic? Let us agree on one topic. For example, “How does ego-consciousness transfer into “Turiya” consciousness?” We may be talking about slightly different points of spiritual journey. May be, first we ought to define the level of consciousness (ego-I versus Turiya) and go from there.


Didn't you read what I wrote - One moves from ego-consciousness into the Turiya consciousness by sacrifice. By sacrifice of all elements that create the ego-consciousness. The ego consciousness is rooted in the physical body, the astral body, the causal body, and some say that there is another very subtle ego.(super causal)

So moving from ego consciousness to the Turiya consicousness involves shifting of the ego deeper and deeper until it is one with the source from which it originated. Your physical body comprises of five elements - win over them first, by developing detachment. True detachment cannot development without developing mastery over the physical body, and knoweldege about it. The astral body consists of organs of senses and action, the mind and the subtle body of five elements. The causal body consists of the intellect. The super causal body is the individual soul beyond the nature, and is connected with Brahman in one of the three ways - salokya( living with Brahman), samipya ( living near Brahman), sarupya ( having great similarity with Brahman). This is technically the Turiya consciounsess. Turiyatita or "beyond Turiya" is cessation of dualty. even of a superficial kind.( some dualty exists in Turiya depending on the depth of samAdhi)

Many traditions do not disntinguish between Turiya and Turiyatita. How does one get to these states?

Only by deliberate meditation cultimating in savikapa samAdhi, nirvikalpa samAdhi and beyond.( guided by the grace of a God realized guru) Other means are preparatory means to engage in such meditation which require consideration detachment and purity to culminate in samAdhi. Final liberation is only through samAdhi, there are no other ways, whether you follow Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga or Bhakti Yoga or anything else. Repentance is useful in the early stages of Yoga so that we do not repeat the same mistakes that led to many births and breaks in Yoga. If you are established in Yama and Nityama, rest of the progress will happen on its own accord. Wherever one finds helpless, hopeless, or finds obstacles they might be surmounted by surrendering to God, whose grace will remove the obstacles in the way. But the meditative effort is certainly required, and there is no short cut. If you think there is a short cut, it just means that you have not qualified to the stage of engaging in such meditation. Perfect surrnder is certainly liberating, but it is impossible without higher awakening and in the absence of Turiya consciousness.

It is wrongly concluded that meditation is the way of philosophers and not of devotee. Meditation leads to vision of God, and makes one a better devotee than the one without. Our love and surrender for God grows exponentially with the knowledge of God attained in meditation and will one day lead to cessation of dualty between you and God.

nirotu
13 September 2006, 12:48 PM
Accepting that Turiya consciousness is goal for all is the way. That itself is grace.



One moves from ego-consciousness into the Turiya consciousness by sacrifice.

Dear Atanu and Truthseeker:

Once again both of you are getting into details and running with it and still missing my main point. We have failed to communicate at the same frequency! Let me clarify my view that started it all.

All of your thesis points to the same ego "I" theoretically knowing that “Turiya” is the goal. If you accept the premise that accepting Turiya is the goal and that in itself the grace then how does this “I” turn away from the senses and material pull and becomes conscious of “Turiya”? I mean not just from theoretical assertion but truly becoming conscious of it.

My friends, let us be honest. Which among us is not afflicted by ravages of bodily and material afflictions (Klesa)? Which among us not felt insecure when bank balance suddenly dropped by $1000? Or which one of us not felt the pain from our own bodily affliction? It is not as easy to ignore (mere illusion) as Atanu says.

For this sense driven “I” to turn from this attachment or cravings to become conscious of the true goal is not a small feat! Such a transition or an initial jump is enabled only by the hand of grace. All the sacrifices, Yoga – Patanjali that you both allude to will all come much later.

Rama’s wife Sita needed to know just this – the hand of grace is there, to turn her fear based mind in to one that is radiating with confidence.
That is exactly what our “I” needs in order to make that initial shift from worldly consciousness to Turiya consciousness. Then after I agree with you all regarding the process of attaining it.

As I said earlier you seem to be driven more into acquiring it without first realizing how to get in to that mode. Therefore, let us pick an area that we all agree on and make sure we are talking of the same trunk of the elephant.

Blessings,

atanu
14 September 2006, 03:22 AM
Dear Atanu and Truthseeker:

-----
My friends, let us be honest. Which among us is not afflicted by ravages of bodily and material afflictions (Klesa)? Which among us not felt insecure when bank balance suddenly dropped by $1000? Or which one of us not felt the pain from our own bodily affliction? It is not as easy to ignore (mere illusion) as Atanu says.

---------

As I said earlier you seem to be driven more into acquiring it without first realizing how to get in to that mode. Therefore, let us pick an area that we all agree on and make sure we are talking of the same trunk of the elephant.

Blessings,


Namskar Nirotu,


Who has not felt the burning of the samsara? In the absence of burning I would't be longing for that highest plane of peace called shantam advaitam shivam. Now nothing will give peace except shivam.


Regarding the latter part, I do not know what we are talking about. The ways are summarised in Gita very well. Grace appears as Guru and picks up the right way. So, no problem.

THE POINT IS THAT THE EGO "I" ITSELF HAS TO MAKE EFFORT THEREAFTER, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT FOR EVERY STEP OF THE EGO I, GOD TAKES 10 STEPS.


But the nice agreement has been about the Turiya conciousness being the goal for all.


Regards, Bye.

nirotu
14 September 2006, 01:42 PM
Regarding the latter part, I do not know what we are talking about. The ways are summarised in Gita very well. Grace appears as Guru and picks up the right way. So, no problem.


Dear Atanu and Truthseeker:

This is precisely the point I have been stressing. Grace does appear in the form or guru as you have nicely pointed out but only when the arrogant ego has become childlike and turned towards grace. Such humbling and reorienting towards grace is what is needed in the initial stages. That has been my point all along.




THE POINT IS THAT THE EGO "I" ITSELF HAS TO MAKE EFFORT

Just like you are saying regarding later effort, I am saying as a prerequisite also the ego has to turn towards grace. Practically speaking this first simple act is far more difficult, as you might also know from scriptures which have likened the human mind “I” to a wild monkey that has become completely drunk and stung by a scorpion. For this mind to turn away from its habitual preoccupation towards grace deserves far more attention than it has been given. Once this first step is made everything else falls in place.

Once we understand that, we have in complete agreement with each other.

I thank you for your thoughtful and prompt insight.

Blessings always,

TruthSeeker
14 September 2006, 04:02 PM
Namaste Nirotu,

No , none of points have been missed except you have not followed what we have been saying.



My friends, let us be honest. Which among us is not afflicted by ravages of bodily and material afflictions (Klesa)? Which among us not felt insecure when bank balance suddenly dropped by $1000? Or which one of us not felt the pain from our own bodily affliction? It is not as easy to ignore (mere illusion) as Atanu says.


It is not easy to ignore, and infact the opening to God comes in the form of obstacles in life. People who have material happiness are far less likely to search for God than the ones who do not find them. Vitamin M is the single biggest factor that shuts out God from life. If man gets what he asks for, then who wants God, or what is the motivation? Man's search for God or true happiness comes from realizing over many incarnations that happiness resulting from transient things always lead to misery. So such detachment for material things does not come in a single day. Repeated failures to obtain any happiness makes some one inclined towards God. This makes him change himself and develop divine qualities. When a certain level of purity has been reached this way, God's grace acts on him in the form of a guru and in some cases through God himself. The very beleif in God comes only when some reformation has happened. It motivates you to become better and better as an individual, until you realize that your only objective in life is God, and nothing else. This is the perfect setting for the manifestation of God's grace. The grace is always present within otherwise and in the form of the Karmic law, which is a good teacher and showing you the right directions whenever you stray away.

If you have an arrogant ego and oppress others, the Karmic guru will cut you down to size and bring you down to your knees. God has embedded his grace into his divine law that never truly allows you run off with an arrogant ego. What do you think will happen to the likes of Hitler? Unless his actions were justifications of a previous Karma, he would be sliced to nothing in his future births. Ego appears when you are rich, strong and powerful. But the law of Karma will reduce you to nothing and rid you of the ego. When you are thus reduced to a nobody, you will find consolation in God. Initially, God will remain just a consolation, but such beleif will progress all the way to God realization in the end.

What I mean to say it you never need to seek grace at all. It is there ever present. If you progress to a stage where you love all,and established in truth, and have turned Godward, there is nothing that stops this grace from acting. Your freewill in the form of attachment to perishable things prevent the grace from operating.

On the other hand, if you are looking for God's grace without making an effort to bring out the divine qualities in you, what you are looking for will be stalled and you may ride some rough weather before you become an object of his grace. You must be fit enough to behold the divintiy, so God will put you through a "training" course that will accomplish that...:)

atanu
15 September 2006, 11:01 AM
Dear Atanu and Truthseeker:

Just like you are saying regarding later effort, I am saying as a prerequisite also the ego has to turn towards grace. -----

Once we understand that, we have in complete agreement with each other.

I thank you for your thoughtful and prompt insight.

Blessings always,

We agree except for the fact that ego is playing a role. Understand that till a stage, mind does not know anything about cosmic self but knows only the body self and its pleasures.

Can you find fault in a man for this? Concept of sin as taught to christians (in some Hindu traditions also) is alien to good sense. I do not know how the desires came in me and neither do I remember God warning me. It is only through conscience (viveka, which is grace) that one begins to discriminate between what is good and what is merely pleasurable. And before the dawning of this discrimination there is no way ego-mind can do anything but to follw the dictates of desire.

It is only after Guru gives a path that the ego-mind can have a conscious goal.


I hope Shri TS's excellent arguments will sink home in you. I add that if you have been given Jesus as the Guru (who is God Himself) you are fortunate and one day you will realise that it is first essential to know oneself before trying to reform the environment, since you are the environment. Like mind forgot its source it also does not remember that it is the creator. That is the nature of mind. No sin.



Om

nirotu
15 September 2006, 01:56 PM
No, none of points have been missed except you have not followed what we have been saying.

My dear Truthseeker and Atanu:

All that I have been trying to say is that with all its misery, karmic weight and arduous journey that you have been so eloquent in describing, there is a far simpler way out. All this can be bypassed by a simple act of becoming childlike and hold the hand of grace. It may look simple to the mind that wants complex answers but in its simplicity lies the elegant truth. That simplicity is missing in all these exchanges. Because you don’t see it, regrettably, you miss it.



It is not easy to ignore, and in fact the opening to God comes in the form of obstacles in life. People who have material happiness are far less likely to search for God than the ones who do not find them. . . . . .Repeated failures to obtain any happiness makes some one inclined towards God. This makes him change himself and develop divine qualities.
Now, it's good for all of us to take our needs to God. In fact, we're instructed to take our needs to God. You may have been sincere is projecting God this way but in my view, it is a narrow view, which projects God as somewhat of an attention seeker. He seems to impose hard times on you only to have you come to Him. Instead, I believe, it would make God all the more happy to see you come even when you are in the midst of happiness and enjoying your prosperity. How many can do it today when they are so caught up in making and possessing material happiness? That requires faith in knowing who God is and not what He can do for you. Therefore, He'd much rather have you come in faith than have you come because of fire. Bible is full of stories that show the power of true faith!


What do you think will happen to the likes of Hitler? Unless his actions were justifications of a previous Karma, he would be sliced to nothing in his future births.

If, for a moment, Hitler had laid down his arms and just acknowledged and turned to grace (becomes like a child) then grace would have, in spite of all his karmic baggage, picked him up. This has been demonstrated over and over again by enlightened souls like Ramakrishna, Mother Teresa and even Christ. It was not the karmic weight that they went after but the fallen soul! I bring back again to your attention regarding the sinner who was crucified next to Jesus who acknowledged his sins and asked for redemption with contrite heart. That’s all it took to make his conscience free of guilt!

Once again, I take the analogy of a parent. Does mother ever needs or demands that her child be at a certain level of knowledge in order her to love that child? She does that simply because it is her child. All that we have to do is to become the child of that mother (grace). While your mind may be inclined to go through “karma” to shed its weight, you may not believe, there simply is another way!

The perennial call of Christ refers to the same. “Come un to me those who are heavy laden – come to me childlike.” He is not saying that first you pass some rigorous test then come to me but simply asking us to be childlike in faith.

Lord Rama when walking through the forest comes across a crippled, untouchable “Shabari” who possessed some berries. When Lord Rama asked for some, she replied, “Lord, I am an untouchable woman, how can I offer to you?” Lord Rama did not say, first become no-untouchable in order to accept it. To Rama, despite her situation (metaphor for sinful nature), her childlike devotion to Rama all that mattered to Rama.

Perhaps, we need to get less theoretical and pay more attention to these scriptural metaphors.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
15 September 2006, 02:51 PM
If, for a moment, Hitler had laid down his arms and just acknowledged and turned to grace (becomes like a child) then grace would have, in spite of all his karmic baggage, picked him up.


Sounds very easy. No wonder Christianity can get very popular with illiterate peasants.

You might want to answer this question. Would a Hitler be able to do that, having acquired terrible impressions in his mind? True Love for God arises when it is pure, not otherwise.

You may have heard of the story of Kovalan and Kannagi?




Kovalan, the son of a wealthy merchant in Kavirippattinam, married Kannagi, a young woman of legendary beauty. They lived together happily in the city of Kaveripoompattinam, until Kovalan met the dancer Madhavi and fell in love with her. In his infatuation he forgot Kannagi and gradually spent all his wealth on the dancer. At last, penniless, Kovalan realised his mistake, and returned back to Kannagi. Their only asset was a precious pair of anklets (cilambu--- hence the name of the epic), filled with gems, which she gave to him willingly. With these as their capital they went to the great city of Madurai, where Kovalan hoped to recoup his fortunes by trade.

The city of Madurai was ruled by the Pandya king Neduncheziyan. Kovalan's objective was to sell the anklets in this kingdom so that he and his wife would be able to start their lives over. Unfortunately, around the time he set out to sell the anklets, one anklet (out of a pair) was stolen from the queen, by a greedy court member. This anklet looked very similar to Kannagi's. The only difference was that Kannagi's were filled with jewels and the queen's very filled with pearls, but this was not a visible fact. When Kovalan went to the market, he was accused of having stolen the anklket. He was immediately beheaded by the king's guards, without trial. When Kannagi was informed of this, she became furious, and set out to prove her husband's innocence to the king.

Kannagi came to the king's court, broke open the anklet seized from Kovalan and showed that it contained gems, as opposed to the queen's anklets which contained pearls. Realizing their fault, the King and the Queen die of shame. Unsatisfied, Kannagi tore out a breast and flung it on the city, uttering a curse that the entire city be burnt. Due to her utmost chastity, her curse became a reality.

The city was set ablaze resulting in huge human and economic losses. However, after the request from the goddess of the city, she withdrew her curse and later, attained salvation. This mythological story was composed by the poet Ilango Adigal. A fascinating, but ironic, fact about this epic is that it portrays Madhavi, Kovalan's amorous lover, as an equally chaste woman. Manimekalai, another epic, is written in praise of her.



A true repentance for a person will be a reflection of his past, and its gravity will instantly cause him a heart attack and he will die, just like this king. No point in muttering "I repent, I repent" etc.





This has been demonstrated over and over again by enlightened souls like Ramakrishna, Mother Teresa and even Christ.


If Hindu saints have ever played a part of the salvation of a well known sinner, it was only because that soul had reached the end of the Karmic cycle inspite of the outward sinfulness.

If you insult devotees of God you will be forced to be born as an atheist or wicked person, and sin is washed away by such a birth. Such a person can be saved by saints, but not every thief and robber. These are exceptions than a rule.

No incarnation will ever work against the law of Karma....that is the divine law. You transcend fate only either by a vision of God or by complete surrender( not the Christain "faith").

TruthSeeker
16 September 2006, 05:22 AM
Hi nirotu,

You are right when you say that the repentent Hitler would be saved. He might be spared of the fury of hell depending on the extent of his repentance. However there would be no equivalent repentance possible for an ignorant Hitler who destroyed so many people, so some time in hell is unavoidable. Anyway, these have nothing to do with the Turiya consciousness we have been talking about.True repentance, coupled with
a strong resolution of not repeating the mistakes is a step towards enlightenment.( which you closed down as the final accomplishment!)

Dharma talks about three destinations after death. The dream state (Taijasa) or the astral world, where the soul is judged( the Judgement Day!) by Lord Yama(Jesus) and either sent to heaven or hell. Christianity is primarily talking of this destination. This stay may be short or long. It has many grades of experience. Christians who commit any sins and repent are saved by Yama and sent to the heaven, and those who do not repent are sent to the hell.

The state of deep sleep( Pranjna) or the Brahma Loka. This is the high heaven of no return to earth. Christians who have followed the teachings of Jesus to the core, would probably reach this world, and live with Brahma, who is God the father(creator of earth and heaven). Those who reach here will attain Turiya consciousness through the grace of Brahma much later on.

The state of Turiya is progressively non dual, and at its peak, no indidividual existance remains. This is not addressed by Christianity, and these states are not attained by the repenting layman, but only by a fully awakened sage free from all sin of dualty.

Hindus are very much aware of the teachings of nirotu, and how repenting for sins would save us from the wrath of Yama and his hellfire. All these states after death can be known and experienced right here on earth, while you are still alive.(no need to die to verify them)

There is nothing in Christianity that is not covered by Dharma. Christianity's "easy" ways are known to Dharma adherents as the way to heaven. Hindus also know that these heavens are perishable and not of lasting value.

Since there is nothing much going on here, except repetitions, I am quitting of this discussion until I find something more solid to reply on.

nirotu
16 September 2006, 07:21 AM
You might want to answer this question. Would a Hitler be able to do that, having acquired terrible impressions in his mind?


Dear Sudarshan:

Hitler did not do that because he surrendered to his own will. That simple act of child like surrender to the grace did not take place in his life. You see, grace would have done the rest if only he had taken that first step. That simple first step is what I have been talking about all along. You see, freewill plays a role in our lives, doesn’t it? That is one thing God will never violate. The choices we make shape our lives, and likewise, the choice Hitler made shaped his life.

Arjuna, the greatest warrior who had the most powerful weapon, Gandeeva, could single handedly take on the entire army of Kaurva. Yet, he humbled himself with a childlike surrender bowed before grace with a desire for greater wisdom. He made that initial move and rest was up to grace to lead him. Grace does not come seeking you but you have to make that first move- that’s all. What stops people from doing that is the pride.

You see, it is all a matter of heart and not of mind. There is a tendency in you to make religion a more an affair of the head than of the heart or will. All you keep bringing is some formula to follow in order to attract grace yet ignore that initial step. In the absence of such a simple initial act, a mechanical repetition of the formula “I am Brahman” is a sorry substitute.

Blessings,

nirotu
16 September 2006, 07:27 AM
Since there is nothing much going on here, except repetitions, I am quitting of this discussion until I find something more solid to reply on.

Dear Truthseeker:

I think you are right. You recognized before I did. Let us not waste anymore of the precious "bandwidth" on this.

I do thank you for your thoughtful insight and your perspective.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
16 September 2006, 09:36 AM
Namaste Nirotu.



Hitler did not do that because he surrendered to his own will. That simple act of child like surrender to the grace did not take place in his life. You see, grace would have done the rest if only he had taken that first step. That simple first step is what I have been talking about all along. You see, freewill plays a role in our lives, doesn’t it? That is one thing God will never violate. The choices we make shape our lives, and likewise, the choice Hitler made shaped his life.


Hitler could not do it because he had not evolved enough. As simple as that. He will be allright in due course. While your God is so considerate towards a Hitler and forgives all his sins just because he repented, but does not care a least for many others who do not beleive in God, yet have Godly qualities? I find no logic in this. Beleif in God and seeking God's grace is itself not accident, and freewill has nothing to do with it. A Christian cannot understand. You think God had some short comings and he created people to serve him and he expects obedience. We think there was no need for creation of any kind, and he never created any soul. If God were graceful like you say nobody would be in this wilderness of the cruel world. We think God is omniscient and nothing has happened here without God's will nor will anything happen in future.

Krishna has explicitly stated that in Bhagavad Gita.

O Arjuna, as the Supreme Lord, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things in future. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows.(7.26)

This sets to rest anybody concerns for others, and the Lord is just sporting and has definite plans for everybody. They will beleive in God when he decides, and will seek him when he wants. If you have these qualities, be thankful for that.

Frewill does not exist from God's perspective since that would compromise the omniscience of God. Any being that is not omniscient cannot be God. Saints and sages will talk a lot about the glories of God, but you will pay heed only when your time comes.




Arjuna, the greatest warrior who had the most powerful weapon, Gandeeva, could single handedly take on the entire army of Kaurva. Yet, he humbled himself with a childlike surrender bowed before grace with a desire for greater wisdom. He made that initial move and rest was up to grace to lead him. Grace does not come seeking you but you have to make that first move- that’s all. What stops people from doing that is the pride.


I guess you have never been reading a single post here. It has been explictly stated by many people in this thread, that grace has to be sought by you by rising to that level - by getting rid of your mental impurities. This is the apparent freewill, You cannot choose grace without deserving it. That would be incompatible with Hindu Philosophy. Most devoted people who are in bondage in the world were definitely devotees
in former births, but that that is not sufficient. Your devotion must be of a unique nature to win's God grace.





You see, it is all a matter of heart and not of mind. There is a tendency in you to make religion a more an affair of the head than of the heart or will. All you keep bringing is some formula to follow in order to attract grace yet ignore that initial step. In the absence of such a simple initial act, a mechanical repetition of the formula “I am Brahman” is a sorry substitute.


Sorry, I am not an advaitin who claims "I am Brahman". I am a servant of Lord Krishna, Apart from his graceful nature, this creation is a sport for him, and he expects you to win your liberation by having a unique devotion. If not, I would not be in bondage now, after many past incarnations. It just shows people have not risen to the mark set by the Lord, whatever it is. The mark is certainly more than the "Christian faith". Surrender to God means completely surrender of everything.

There is a huge barrier that separates man and God, and there is need for equal contribution from both man and God to bridge this gap. The soul on liberation is nearly equal to God according to most Hindu traditions, can you imagine that? How is it possible to make such a quantum leap in a single day after death? So spiritual progress will happen only in stages, and for most Hindus who think of God being the material cause of everything will only laugh at your concept of grace. It is only the Lord who is present everywhere, in you and me, and where should we seeking grace? Everything in life happens as per divine will and you can even move your finger without that divine power acting through you. You birth, death and liberation are at the sole discretion of this All Powerful, All wise and Allmighty God.

Man on his own effort alone can never cross the barrier, and at the same time he cannot remain silent too, since the sport of God requires him to make effort to find him. You must try to find God by complete surrender of all actions and thiinking of God all the times, 24 X 7. I dont beleive in any other way. If you skip the path of Bhakti Yoga , the path of enlightenment, you need to place all trust in God and must eat, bath, sleep and even breathe God to win his grace. It is like a competetition between souls as to who can do it best, and if you are not amongst the best, you have another round.;)

As Christianity says, freewill is your danger. Use it fully to spend every moment of your life in thinking of God and keep awaiting him. That is the perfect surrender you can do, and anything else will not be sufficient to win your liberation. Dont just profess to trust in the grace of God and waste away you life in doing mundane activities - that will not take you to the goal.

The only true surrender to God is keeping the mind focussed on God as much as you can, and doing every action dedicated to God, which will lead to vision of God. Otherwise it is only partial surrender only.

Sudarshan
16 September 2006, 11:35 AM
What is true love and surrender to God?

Dhruva was born a son of the King Uttanapada (who was the son of Svayambhuva Manu) and his wife Suniti. The king also had another son Uttama, born to his second queen Suruchi, who was the preferred object of his affection. Once, when Dhruva was but a child of five years of age, the two princes playfully raced towards their father's lap. But, the headstrong Suruchi chided Dhruva and insulted him for trying to woo the attention of his father, when he did not deserve it because "he was not born to her." She further mocked at his plight, by asking him to redeem himself by seeking Vishnu's blessings.

Suniti consoled the distraught child, by asking him to take Suruchi's words seriously and to observe penance in meditation of the Lord. She bid him farewell as he set out on a lonely journey to the forest. Dhruva was determined to seek for himself his rightful place, and noticing this resolve, the divine sage Narada appeared before him and tried to desist him from assuming a severe austerity upon himself at such a tender age. But, Dhruva's fierce determination knew no bounds, and the astonished sage guided him towards his goal by teaching him the rituals and mantras. The one mantra which Narada taught and which was effectively used by Dhruva was OM NAMO BHAGAVTE VASUDEVAYA.

Having been advised thus, Dhruva started his penance, and went without food and water for six months, his mind fixed on the Lord. The austerity of his penance shook the heavens and the Lord appeared before him, but the child would not open his eyes because he was still merged in his inner vision of Vishnu's form described to him by Narada. Lord Vishnu had to adopt a strategy by causing that inner vision to disappear. Immediately Dhruva opened his eyes and seeing outside what he was all along seeing inside his mental eyes, prostrated before the Lord. But he could not utter a single word either because of his childhood or because of the consternation he felt on seeing the Lord before him. The Lord touched his right cheek by his divine conch and that sparked off his speech. Out poured forth a beautiful poem of praise of the Lord in 12 powerful verses, which together are called Druva Shruti.

Having spent a long time in the Lord's remembrance he even forgot the objective of his penance, and only asked for a life in memory of the Lord. Pleased by his penance and by his stuti, Vishnu granted his wish and further decreed that the lad would attain Dhruvapada - the state where he would become a celestial body which would not even be touched by the Maha Pralaya, or the final cataclysm.

atanu
21 September 2006, 09:27 AM
Dear Sudarshan:

Hitler did not do that because he surrendered to his own will. That simple act of child like surrender to the grace did not take place in his life. ----





Neither has surrender taken place in you Nirotu. You have repeatedly preached of holding god's hand in child like fashion. Are you doing it? Can you see the hand? Show me the hand and I will also grasp it. Do not teach what you have not experienced. I see you contradicting yourself again and again. Earlier you said that without grace nothing happens. Now you say: Hitler did not surrender. Could he surrender even if he wanted?

Can you say: "Yes, I seem to have contradicted myself"? No you cannot. Since you have not surrendered.



You see, it is all a matter of heart and not of mind. There is a tendency in you to make religion a more an affair of the head than of the heart or will. All you keep bringing is some formula to follow in order to attract grace yet ignore that initial step. In the absence of such a simple initial act, a mechanical repetition of the formula “I am Brahman” is a sorry substitute.

Blessings,





Is your confused gibberish sorry substitute for anything? Nirotu, you know very well that "I am Brahman" is not a japa mantra for mechanical repetition but a realisation of the true being in the heart but you are using such statements with a hidden motive, which is clear like daylight to me.

You are acting with a design for a purpose and that is no surrender dear.

Om

nirotu
22 September 2006, 03:04 PM
Originally Posted by nirotu
Dear Sudarshan:

Hitler did not do that because he surrendered to his own will. That simple act of child like surrender to the grace did not take place in his life. ----


Neither has surrender taken place in you Nirotu. You have repeatedly preached of holding god's hand in child like fashion. Are you doing it? Can you see the hand? Show me the hand and I will also grasp it.
Yes Atanu, I am the first one to acknowledge that, where I am now, I have not been able to fully surrender! Yes, it’s been a struggle with me. That’s precisely why I am emphasizing the starting point from “ego-I” plane to a childlike one as a key to the rest of our journey, which may appear simple yet is the most difficult part. While this act may appear simple, don’t underestimate the hold of ego. Given the nature of matter it takes time. If I may say so, the fact that we are able to engage in a dialogue of this nature (instead of steeped in worldly thought) already shows that, in our own simple way, we are holding the hand of grace.

Otherwise, can you imagine struggling Nirotu now actually believing and muttering and claiming the “knowledge of truth” when in fact his reality is quite different (as you have pointed out!)? While such a goal is lofty and noble, let us be honest not deny the harsh reality of the starting point.

As in any mathematical presentation, for example a graph, the starting point is required to make sense out of the whole data and to give a meaning to the data.

Do not teach what you have not experienced.
I do not intend to teach you or anyone. I am reminding us how an ego minded “I” can think it can do it all and yet deep inside, the struggle goes on. I have shown well in my above notes, I am also, as much if not more, in the midst of this same struggle. Any comments that we make here are not suggesting that we have attained it but we are sharing the way to attain it. I do believe, unless one actually attains it (enlightenment) same struggle is shared by every human being.

I see you contradicting yourself again and again. Earlier you said that without grace nothing happens. Now you say: Hitler did not surrender. Could he surrender even if he wanted?
Given what I have been emphasizing, the answer for Hitler would be yes. All Hitler needed to do was take that initial step. Why did he not do that? All he needed was to realize that his ego was due to his disconnect with God! It is well known that all drive to power and ambition comes from the fear of being alone. There is an old adage that goes something like this, “Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely”. In my view, he claimed himself to be just as powerful as God and felt lonely at the top! Thus, did not choose to surrender to the will of God. Hitler needed to realize that he was not alone and that hand of grace with outstretched arms was waiting for that initial move from him. It all depends on the nature of man, nature of God and the connect between the two. Obviously, in case of Hitler there was this deep disconnect.


Can you say: "Yes, I seem to have contradicted myself"? No you cannot. Since you have not surrendered.
Let me assure you that I am not contradicting but consistent. In this struggle, that is about all one could possibly do – surrender by overcoming that first hurdle. This amazing simple looking act itself is quite difficult to do due to the pull of the matter world.

I caution here, the word surrender is quite a deep word. It is not a surrender of a self-realized person that I am talking about but an initial act.

If Christ (grace) could forgive those who crucified Him, think how much grace would do to help those who just wish for Him or think of Him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nirotu
You see, it is all a matter of heart and not of mind. There is a tendency in you to make religion a more an affair of the head than of the heart or will. All you keep bringing is some formula to follow in order to attract grace yet ignore that initial step. In the absence of such a simple initial act, a mechanical repetition of the formula “I am Brahman” is a sorry substitute.

Blessings,



Is your confused gibberish sorry substitute for anything? Nirotu, you know very well that "I am Brahman" is not a japa mantra for mechanical repetition but a realization of the true being in the heart but you are using such statements with a hidden motive, which is clear like daylight to me.

You are acting with a design for a purpose and that is no surrender dear.
I hope you can see with an open heart, from my response, that there is no hidden agenda or a motive, which is farthest from my mind. I have been very honest in my words. Please, do not misinterpret to mean something that is not true.

When “ego-I” mutters “I am Brahman” without ever taking that initial step, it can spend the whole life time caught in that loop with no way out. Now it really begins to think “I am God”. I am not addressing the experiencing of “I am Brahman” but, who is muttering it. Is it “ego-I” or “ego-free I”, which again brings us back to the same theme of how much that initial shift is needed.

So my friend, since we are dealing with such a subtle and complex matter, I urge you that when my comments appear contradicting, please try to see them in the light of my basic idea of initial shift in man. Only in this context will they appear consistent.


Blessings,

atanu
23 September 2006, 02:44 AM
------
When “ego-I” mutters “I am Brahman” without ever taking that initial step, it can spend the whole life time caught in that loop with no way out. Now it really begins to think “I am God”. I am not addressing the experiencing of “I am Brahman” but, who is muttering it. Is it “ego-I” or “ego-free I”, which again brings us back to the same theme of how much that initial shift is needed.

--------


Blessings,


This post of yours was of a different flavour.

But please check up, how carelessly you tend to denigrate advaitic experience of sages which are enshrined in time less scriptures. Instead of saying "I do not have the experience" you have often denigrated as value less the experiences of which you have no idea at all.

Can I denigrate experience of Christ lovers like that? It is always OK to say "Well this is my position based on what God has ordained for me". Possibly, having no grounding in the awareness of Karma, you are not appreciating that there is no single prescription for all jivas. And also you contradict your "grace is all" statement when you assume the role of a reformer.


And regarding "I am Brahman", there is absolutely no possiblity of this experience with even a trace of desire present and individual ego is nothing but desire. But scripture encourages us to contemplate, enquire, and meditate on the knowledge -- to know that ego is simply a notion, which has solidfied as if.


Namaskar and Regards

Om Namah Shivayya

nirotu
23 September 2006, 01:05 PM
This post of yours was of a different flavour.

But please check up, how carelessly you tend to denigrate advaitic experience of sages which are enshrined in time less scriptures. Instead of saying "I do not have the experience" you have often denigrated as value less the experiences of which you have no idea at all.
My dear Atanu:

Once again you take my words out of context. This is not pertaining to the Sages but only in the functioning realm of “ego”. Once again, I urge you (possibly for the last time) to please view all my comments in the light of my basic premise which is addressed as the starting point of the “ego” state and not from “Turia” state.

Sages have truly devoted every moment of their entire life to be immersed in the experience of God. That is why they are called “Alvars”. Repeadly, you failed to grasp the level I am coming from (ego-I state). As you and I well know, no true Sage is functioning in this realm that I am talking about. So the leap that you make has no logic in the context of my comments.

There is a fundamental difference between us. While I am addressing the ego realm, which I claim to be the “starting point” of human spiritual journey, you are addressing the “goal” of the journey. As long as this difference exists we will go in circles. Therefore, unless you keep my paradigm in mind, this talk will be of no value.


Possibly, having no grounding in the awareness of Karma, you are not appreciating that there is no single prescription for all jivas.
With all due respect, I beg to disagree with you. I do think there is a single, simple prescription for all jeevas and that is to become humble and childlike and this starting point becomes catalyst for the rest of the spiritual journey.


And regarding "I am Brahman", there is absolutely no possiblity of this experience with even a trace of desire present and individual ego is nothing but desire.
With the above statement of yours, I rest my case! The harshness of the pull of ego can’t be any clearer than what you say. But if the pull is so strong, only an equal and opposing pull of grace that can break it if only that ego can make that initial turnaround to grace.


But scripture encourages us to contemplate, enquire, and meditate on the knowledge -- to know that ego is simply a notion, which has solidfied as if.
While we are strongly encouraged to ponder over knowledge in a meditative mind, we need not condemn human reality as illusory if it is unable to lift the veil, which covers all ultimate truth.

Once again I emphasize that unless we can agree on the fundamental context within which the comments are being made, it might be pointless to continue.

Blessings,

TruthSeeker
24 September 2006, 08:11 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

Why are you always in stage one? You mentioned that grace is the starting point of the journey and everyone accepted here. The grace has given me beleif in God, and I beleive in a supernatural power, and know that there is something beyond my perishable body and the thinking mind. I also realize that if I die without obtaining a vision of this supreme being, I will be born again to suffer in this world. So what am I supposed to do to acheive this end?

What is Christianity's answer to this question? Should I just beleive that Jesus has done everything needed to achieve this end, and all I need to do is to beleive in his story? You have not suggested any practical solution, except repentance and faith- which cannot lead to the goal by themselves.

You have terribly misconstructed Atanuji. He has clarified that different people have different temperaments in accordance with their nature acquired from previous birth. Those who have achieved a good progress in spirituality will retain the impressions and will be born with a higher consciousness and awakening and they might need no one to guide them towards God. But those who still percieve this perishable world apart from rahman, must undertake some spiritual discipline for the realization of this goal and this method is not the same for everyone. Some people benefit from doing works without enjoyment of fruits, some from profuse devotion towards the Personal God, and some people are gifted with the ability to meditate on the Absolute.

The devotion and surrender towards God cannot be accomplished by force, it comes on its own accord due to my sincereity in the accomplishment of the goal and by acts of purity which trigger the grace of God. Without doing any spiritual practice to purify the body and mind, no progress is possible. God cannot destroy your material desires as it is infering with your freewill. Beleiving in the grace of God must be supplemented with earnest pursuit of one spiritual discipline in accordance with your temperament and Karma. Hinduism does not teach otherwise. Your freewill in the form of material desires will stand as an obstacle and cannot be crossed over without developing intense devotion towards God, so intense that the world appears superflous to you by comparison. That is not possible without a higher awareness about God, and for the worldly minded men still enamoured of wealth and fame have no chance. Bhakti Yoga is the meditation on the personal God, staring from a symbolic image of God such as a linga or a form like that of Krishna, culminating in a vision of the Cosmic Universal Form of God, which bestows grace and destroys the Karma. This is one way out of the worldly bondage.

The other way is to directly engage in Self Realization or the Impersonal Absolute, if you are qualified due to such practice performed in an earlier birth.

You have not moved from stage one, and have not given us any practical method to follow. You might probably start from strictly following the "Sermon on the Mount" to the very word instead of emphasising the words "grace" and "surrender". Prove them by deeds rather than by words. If these rules are not there to be strictly followed, the religion is just materialsm in disguise. These will constitute approximately the Yamas and Niyamas of Yoga, and will serve a long way in further progress. Dont rest until you have permenently settled in the consciousness of God. Cast aside mere words like surrender and grace, and prove them by actions that culminate in the final goal. If a person could think of God 24X7, he would certainly achieve the goal, and whatever you do now must head in that direction if you are very serious of God realization in this birth. Nobody has known any short cuts. To attain God, think of God all the time, there is no other way that guarantees it.

atanu
24 September 2006, 02:32 PM
My dear Atanu:

There is a fundamental difference between us. While I am addressing the ego realm, which I claim to be the “starting point” of human spiritual journey, you are addressing the “goal” of the journey. As long as this difference exists we will go in circles. Therefore, unless you keep my paradigm in mind, this talk will be of no value.


Absolutely. There is. You are stuck since you consider the ego-body a the real being.




With all due respect, I beg to disagree with you. I do think there is a single, simple prescription for all jeevas and that is to become humble and childlike and this starting point becomes catalyst for the rest of the spiritual journey.


Then why can't Hitler be childlike? It is a bogus prescription. Childlike quality is again a result and cannot be the starting point.




While we are strongly encouraged to ponder over knowledge in a meditative mind, we need not condemn human reality as illusory if it is unable to lift the veil, which covers all ultimate truth.



I have talked of reality of jiva's ego and you are changing it to a much bigger dimension.

Can you tell me what is ego and Where is it?


Note: This thread header is so inappropiate now.

Sudarshan
24 September 2006, 03:04 PM
Then why can't Hitler be childlike? It is a bogus prescription. Childlike quality is again a result and cannot be the starting point.


You dont have to even seek a Hitler. A childlike quality in an adult is a rare quality. A child does not tell lies, does not know deciet, does not harm others knowingly, love selflessly etc. Have you seen how two children of the same age love each other? I wonder how many "adult children" really exist. Nirotu is right about becoming a child, but it is not the starting point at all. Looks nearer the end point to me.

Znanna
24 September 2006, 03:19 PM
You dont have to even seek a Hitler. A childlike quality in an adult is a rare quality. A child does not tell lies, does not know deciet, does not harm others knowingly, love selflessly etc. Have you seen how two children of the same age love each other? I wonder how many "adult children" really exist. Nirotu is right about becoming a child, but it is not the starting point at all. Looks nearer the end point to me.


"Childlike" ...

What does this mean? To me, it means doing the things which one does before learning that they can't be done.

Perhaps the starting point and the ending point are the same? Or perhaps there is no point, only the circle ;)




Love,
ZN

Sudarshan
24 September 2006, 03:50 PM
"Childlike" ...

What does this mean? To me, it means doing the things which one does before learning that they can't be done.

Perhaps the starting point and the ending point are the same? Or perhaps there is no point, only the circle ;)




Love,
ZN

Hmm--you start as a human child that follows the mother (guru) obedientlly and unquestioningly, then learn to grow up into a teen, later become a mother yourself, until in your mature age you finally become a divine child. (instead of the human child which is in ignorance, but divine child is all wise).

To reach the human child stage is not very easy. You wont easily follow the mother without having full faith in her. In God's case there is no evidence to start with, so unless a strong faith is planted there for some reason, Nirotu's logic wont work. Such faith will come on its own according to the lessions given by the law of Karma, which Christianity cannot explain.

satay
24 September 2006, 09:01 PM
Grace Grace Grace!
Howcome the so called ex-hindus do not know that 'Grace' exists in all systems of sanatana darshana!

Be childlike is the first step in 'all' systems of sanatana dharma!

How can Shiva's grace be ignored?
How can Vishnu's grace be ignored?
How can Shakti's grace be ignore?

unreal...

I can't believe what you guys are arguing about...grace is not exclusive to christianity and neither is the requirement of having a 'guru'!

As we have repeatedly said here and on other forums, "Christianity has nothing new or nothing special to offer to dharma adherents especially sanatana dharma adherents."

Once again...Grace is there, 'childlike' requirement is there, requirement for a guru is there...

Just because someone didn't take enough time to understand these systems properly is not our fault...it is due to their own karma...

With respect,

Sudarshan
25 September 2006, 03:31 AM
Grace Grace Grace!
Howcome the so called ex-hindus do not know that 'Grace' exists in all systems of sanatana darshana!

Be childlike is the first step in 'all' systems of sanatana dharma!

How can Shiva's grace be ignored?
How can Vishnu's grace be ignored?
How can Shakti's grace be ignore?

unreal...

I can't believe what you guys are arguing about...grace is not exclusive to christianity and neither is the requirement of having a 'guru'!

As we have repeatedly said here and on other forums, "Christianity has nothing new or nothing special to offer to dharma adherents especially sanatana dharma adherents."

Once again...Grace is there, 'childlike' requirement is there, requirement for a guru is there...

Just because someone didn't take enough time to understand these systems properly is not our fault...it is due to their own karma...

With respect,

True, the guru does everything for you...but does he do it for everybody? Why, or why not? Faith and grace are fundamental to all religions, what sets apart Hindu Dharma is that it explores into the nature of these, and also takes a step beyond.

While periodically repeating that faith is essential, grace is essential, Christianity does not explain why most people do not avail of them, and even do not explain why Christians colonized and oppressed others in the name of God. Wait, these are not true Christians. But where are the "true" ones?

Why isn't a person childlike in the first place? Christianity claims that this is rebellion against God conducted under the supervision of Satan. We have much better explanation than that.

Let us put this in sequence.

Nirotu's claim 1: A person must become humble and childlike for the grace to be conferred on him.

Hindu Answer 1: Agreed. But it is not the natural behaviour of an adult to be a child. So how can I become childlike? (Reason: Karma for Hindus and "original sin" for Christians make it impossible for one to be child like by default, so it means child like behaviour comes from some former deeds.)

Nirotu 2: Through the grace of God.

Nirotu's claims 1 and 2 are contradictory.

Hindu 2: That would be a cyclic argument. To become childlike one has become purified by devotional and/or meditative practices. All these devotional and meditative practices are done with an ego that is puffed up with pride and egoism, which is finally melted by the love towards God generated from the practices and finally becomes child like. Even an atheist gets purified whenever he comes across a saint by chance, or accidentally does a good deed towards God or devotees, or even while becoming a good human being. Similarly, most devotees have human ego and all human weaknesses to start with. The solution is faith, which leads to performance of religeous activities and good deeds, which lead to inner purity - true devotion and child like mentality are natural products of devotional activity ~ the transition of tAmasic Bhakti to sAttvik Bhakti does not take place in a day but over a period of time.

nirotu
26 September 2006, 04:30 PM
Absolutely. There is. You are stuck since you consider the ego-body a the real being.

Dear Atanu:

You must understand that my comments have been addressing the practical aspect of the nature of journey. Unless one is self-realized and enlightened there will remain traces of ego-I functioning in all of us and thereby begging the need for the starting point. Just when you think you have transcended all, you are hit by the remnant trace of ego-I again. That is why this process can take life time of work as shown by sages and saints. Therefore, the knowledge that deliberately ignores the harsh realities of ego-I (as the starting point) is an ignorance in itself.



Then why can't Hitler be childlike? It is a bogus prescription. There it is! You see how hard it was for Hitler to even consider this available option! There is a trace of Hitler and Ravana in every ego that we all have that prevents us from turning to and availing that grace. That is why you can see how hard that is to all of us. If one grasps it, it is very simple but the grasping itself is hard part that can take a life time.

A good analogy I can offer is the common Indian metaphor of making curd (Yogurt) from fresh milk (Jaag Lagna). Once the culture that is added is caught on then one is rest assured that curd will get done. Diligent housewives watch for this initial step of whether Jaag Lagee or not. Similarly, once the turnaround takes place, grace is assured for the asking.


Childlike quality is again a result and cannot be the starting point. I must emphasize the difference between the “childlike”ness of realized Sages and childish cry of the baby. The childlikeness I am emphasizing in my comments is more of a baby’s cry for the mother, that baby’s instinctive recognition of the presence of mother (grace), as opposed to “childlike”ness that comes from complete dissolution of ego-I as in the higher self. The tears that Sri Ramana had and the tears of a Baby may appear the same but they are from two entirely different points in their journey.

Again, I remind us of the paradigm I am talking from, which is the crucial point in this discussion. Despite my repeated plea, you seem to hold on to the wrong end of the stick. Once again I summarize that most basic initial act of the ego, becoming a wailing baby for his mother, is simple and hopeful and, if I may say so, is the only starting point of the journey. Basically, Sita through her tears must see Hanuman (grace) to reach Sri Ram (higher self).



Can you tell me what is ego and Where is it?
No, I cannot prove where ego is any more than I can prove where God is! I can simply say this: Unless one transcends completely and, I mean completely, one is always in the grip of ego thereby begs the starting point. Because, even in “Turiya” state a person experiences lingering thoughts imposing sense activation.

Blessings,

nirotu
26 September 2006, 04:34 PM
Hindu 2: That would be a cyclic argument. To become childlike one has become purified by devotional and/or meditative practices. All these devotional and meditative practices are done with an ego that is puffed up with pride and egoism, which is finally melted by the love towards God generated from the practices and finally becomes child like. Even an atheist gets purified whenever he comes across a saint by chance, or accidentally does a good deed towards God or devotees, or even while becoming a good human being. Similarly, most devotees have human ego and all human weaknesses to start with. The solution is faith, which leads to performance of religeous activities and good deeds, which lead to inner purity - true devotion and child like mentality are natural products of devotional activity ~ the transition of tAmasic Bhakti to sAttvik Bhakti does not take place in a day but over a period of time.

Dear Sudarshan:

This is where all of you misunderstand and misinterpret my comment. I must emphasize the difference between the “childlike”ness of realized Sages and childish cry of the baby. The childlikeness I am emphasizing in my comments is more of a baby’s cry for the mother, that baby’s instinctive recognition of the presence of mother (grace), as opposed to “childlike”ness that comes from complete dissolution of ego-I as in the higher self.

I do agree with you that the childlike ness of the Sages that you allude to and, agree that it is the goal. But I am not referring to that at all! I am still talking about that initial turning point! How did that come about? If you look at all of my previous responses on this thread, you will see this point stressed over and over again. Otherwise, there is no disagreement with you on the actual process of achieving that goal.

Let me illustrate my point by taking you as an example: You are very devoted to Sri Ramanuja and his philosophy. There may be an imaginary person of similar age, possibly grew up with you, who is indulging into a total opposite (worldly) thing. For this to take place there must be an initial event that took place in both of you that turned you both in to these respective direction. What is that initial event in you that took you to Sri Ramanuja? That is what I am addressing here. That event or the “x-factor” we are calling the starting point, which is simple yet so elusive that gets very easily bypassed under the concepts of the whole journey.

I bet that simple act of yours; instinctively knowing the presence of Sri Ramanuja, itself made you a magnet to attract more of him and his words! While your imaginary friend is still steeped in the worldly grip of matter.

Blessings,

nirotu
26 September 2006, 04:43 PM
Why are you always in stage one? You mentioned that grace is the starting point of the journey and everyone accepted here.

Dear Truthseeker:

First of all, thank you for recognizing where I am coming from. That is very important for me. Second of all, I never said that grace is the starting point. Grace is always there throughout our journey. It is the ego that has to make the first move towards that grace!


The grace has given me beleif in God, and I beleive in a supernatural power, and know that there is something beyond my perishable body and the thinking mind. I also realize that if I die without obtaining a vision of this supreme being, I will be born again to suffer in this world. So what am I supposed to do to acheive this end?
You intellectual ascent is a gift resulting from the abiding faith that you posit in this supernatural power. But Hitler could have had the same if only he had turned to that grace! My point here is, it was you who made the choice to join the good (God) and not the evil. It was you who made that initial move for which God was not responsible. Again and again I am reminded of how an individual exercises his free-will. When this free-will turns to grace instead of “worldly pursuit” it becomes a magnet that attracts grace


What is Christianity's answer to this question? Should I just beleive that Jesus has done everything needed to achieve this end, and all I need to do is to beleive in his story? You have not suggested any practical solution, except repentance and faith- which cannot lead to the goal by themselves.
It is a very wrong notion to just believe in Jesus to be saved! It is just as bad as someone who believed all his life only to have doubt at the last moment of his life.
It is not mere acceptance in head that you have been saved but to truly bear the cross everyday in his or her life. In fact, Jesus warned of more fiery trials after you accept Him. Again, we are not talking of repentance and surrender (which comes later) but simply reaching out to grace. Please, don’t mix up blind fanatical faith with child like knowing we are talking about. It is the instinctive knowingness we are talking about. It is that knowingness you have to cultivate.


You have terribly misconstructed Atanuji. He has clarified that different people have different temperaments in accordance with their nature acquired from previous birth. Those who have achieved a good progress in spirituality will retain the impressions and will be born with a higher consciousness and awakening and they might need no one to guide them towards God. But those who still percieve this perishable world apart from rahman, must undertake some spiritual discipline for the realization of this goal and this method is not the same for everyone. Some people benefit from doing works without enjoyment of fruits, some from profuse devotion towards the Personal God, and some people are gifted with the ability to meditate on the Absolute.
I perfectly understand where Atanu is coming from. Unfortunately, he seems to posit everything from a level that is far off in my journey. If he had just recognized our respective positions then what we say to each other would have made perfect sense. That is why, I had specifically requested, even to you, to define our respective realms. You always seem to think from the realm of sages who have already accomplished the goal.

The difference between the childlikeness of realized Sages and childish cry of the baby need to be clarified. The childlikeness I am emphasizing in my comments is more of a baby’s cry for the mother, that baby’s instinctive recognition of the presence of mother (grace), as opposed to “childlikeness that comes from complete dissolution of ego-I as in the higher self. The cry of Ramana and that of a baby may appear same but they project two different realities coming from two different points in their journey.
My point is simply this: it does not a matter where you are in this journey we all have the trace of that ego, That in itself begs for the starting point of the simple act of turning to grace.

The devotion and surrender towards God cannot be accomplished by force, it comes on its own accord due to my sincereity in the accomplishment of the goal and by acts of purity which trigger the grace of God.
You seem to think a man has to evolve to a level to accrue grace. I beg to differ in that the ego, once turns to God, grace will be automatically offered for the asking. It is the turning point I refer to. With that grace on your side, your Knowledge and Bhakti will automatically increase. The invisible unifying force of grace will always be increasing.

Interestingly, you mention devotion and surrender without first suggesting how that transition to devotion and surrender took place from the ego-steeped worldly matter. That transition is what I am talking about.


Without doing any spiritual practice to purify the body and mind, no progress is possible. God cannot destroy your material desires as it is infering with your freewill. Beleiving in the grace of God must be supplemented with earnest pursuit of one spiritual discipline in accordance with your temperament and Karma. Hinduism does not teach otherwise. Your freewill in the form of material desires will stand as an obstacle and cannot be crossed over without developing intense devotion towards God, so intense that the world appears superflous to you by comparison. That is not possible without a higher awareness about God, and for the worldly minded men still enamoured of wealth and fame have no chance. Bhakti Yoga is the meditation on the personal God, staring from a symbolic image of God such as a linga or a form like that of Krishna, culminating in a vision of the Cosmic Universal Form of God, which bestows grace and destroys the Karma. This is one way out of the worldly bondage.
There is no dispute here at all. All these practices are a result of catalytic force derived from the ego-I making that initial turn to grace!


You have not moved from stage one, and have not given us any practical method to follow. You might probably start from strictly following the "Sermon on the Mount" to the very word instead of emphasising the words "grace" and "surrender". Prove them by deeds rather than by words.
These statements are truly telling of your opinion more so than the truth itself. The Beattitudes expressed in the “Sermon on the Mount” is applicable to every human being that is hungry for God. When Jesus says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” He does not talk about pauper in some way. To be “poor in spirit” is to have divested one’s inner being, of desire for attachment to material objects. To be “poor in spirit” is to possess spirituality that never makes an ostentatious display of ego and its vainglories of the higher self (now you know what I mean!)

Blessings,

Sudarshan
26 September 2006, 05:45 PM
Let me illustrate my point by taking you as an example: You are very devoted to Sri Ramanuja and his philosophy. There may be an imaginary person of similar age, possibly grew up with you, who is indulging into a total opposite (worldly) thing. For this to take place there must be an initial event that took place in both of you that turned you both in to these respective direction. What is that initial event in you that took you to Sri Ramanuja? That is what I am addressing here. That event or the “x-factor” we are calling the starting point, which is simple yet so elusive that gets very easily bypassed under the concepts of the whole journey.


Hindu reason for the difference percieved between two such people is the difference in their prArabdha karma. One is born in a Srivaishnava family by performing many meritorious deeds in former lives. The birth by itself is not useful unless one beleives in the faith and also keeps up its dictates. Without any such thing I may be born in some remote tribal village of cannibals, drinking human blood far away from the grace of God.;)

Nirotu, why are some people born as cannibals feasting on human flesh, and others born to religeous parents? Certainly God's grace does not penetrate into most people of such behaviour, and most of them will never ever even hear about God in their entire lives. Dont you think there are factors that govern our birth beyond our control? What is that? There are factors beyond freewill - they are past Karma.

It is Lord Narayana who has entered into all the life forms you see around you. When he awakes you from this slumber of samsAra, you go in search of him. Until then you cannot become child like, not can you seek grace and nor will grace find you anywhere. The dinvinity works inside you by showing you signs in bits and pieces. At some point of time you take the hint and move forward. Even the beginning child like faith is not the starting point of the journey. The starting point is complete ignorance of everything.



I bet that simple act of yours; instinctively knowing the presence of Sri Ramanuja, itself made you a magnet to attract more of him and his words! While your imaginary friend is still steeped in the worldly grip of matter.

Blessings,

Why do we bother about the imaginary friend? Nobody beleives in anything without circumstance. Most Srivaishnavites are Srivaishnavites because they were born to such parents. Why weren't others so lucky? The materialstic imaginary friend will have his day too...let us leave that to God and not pass judgements.

Apart from such birth circumstances, personal experiences miracles or revelations can draw one towards God. Sometimes they happen in unexpected quarters. You typically call that as God's grace. But such grace is not random according to Hinduism but follows only from Karmic law. God is revealed only to the deserving, and to the one chosen by God. God does not play a game of dice: - all laws are set in Gold and the same universal law applies to everyone. There are no random events in the confines of space-time - all things happen to the very precise mathematical and scientific laws embedded in the theory of Karma.

Whatever faith one may have, God will certainly lead you to him. But the laws that govern us remain unchanged. A beleif in God does not alter the laws of Karma as evident from Godly people undergoing all trauma in life. There are only two ways to escape the effects of the Karmic Law and win your liberation : -

1. Obtaining the knowledge (vision) of God through exceptional devotion { Bhakti Yoga}
2. Surrender Completely in every sense from the physical body down to the lowest levels of ego you are aware of.(Prapatti)

If you fall short of any of these two - you are bound to be affected by the Karmic Law, and subject to the domain of Dharmaraja, and also your wheel of life and death will roll unless you resort to 1 or 2 in perfection.

I am certainly aware of where you are coming from :- you have in mind nirhetuka kripa or causeless mercy of God towards everyone, which is the teaching of some Hindu schools. Most Hindus reject this on grounds of unfairness because causeless mercy cannot be random, and cannot even require a beleif in God to be a prerequisite. It is like helping a poor man, but making him say that you are his saviour. If God's mercy were causeless, there would be no bondage to a single soul in the universe. Consequently, the grace showered is solely subject the law of causation. The more good and noble deeds you do, the more you will be attracted towards God, become child like...

TruthSeeker
26 September 2006, 10:00 PM
Hey Nirotu,



You seem to think a man has to evolve to a level to accrue grace


Yes, it has to be . Whichever religions failed to recognize this fact, set up a devil, and a hellfire to those who were not fully evolved yet. Evolution is the natural law of the universe. We have all evolved from the root Prakriti to the gross elements, so the involution has to be in that sequence. The bible is not a treatise on philosophy, but just a mythology and a story book and book on a way of living(ethics). You cannot expect it to teach you anything related to the evolution and involution. If you will read well into the bible mythology perhaps you will be able to find bits and pieces of vedanta in it.( I suppose you have not found any yet!)

To give you an example of why one has to evolve to benefit from grace, just consider a muslim terrorist or a Christian who lived during the times of crusades or inquisitions. All these people, including the terrorist have intense devotion for God, and they do all these solely for securing heaven. A suicide bomber is strictly speaking a fanatic devotee, possibly has much more faith in God and his grace than any of us, but his evolution is so incomplete that the beleif in God has led him nowhere yet. He beleives so much in God, but God has led him to be brainwashed and grow up in environments where hate is taught along with God. This terrorist is so much aware of God;s grace and even considered himself as a servant of God and considers himself to be completely surrendered to God by virtue of his activities. What has God's grace done to show him the right way? Christianity cannot even attempt to answer this because it has no concept of evolution!


God is like electric current. If you approach it with the right conditions, it will be a usable form of electricity. If you are not evolved yet, it will give you a powerful electric jolt, just like the muslim terrorists. Take for instance Kundalini Yoga. Kundalini can be awakened by forceful methods, but if you are not prepared for it by considerable purity of thoughts and actions, it will be devastating. On the other hand, Kundalini can awaken without any techniques when you meet the right conditions - when establshed in love for all, free of envy, which do not imply a belief in God.

These muslim terrorists would be far better off as atheists. Even God is not suitable for everyone, and is suitable only for people who have evolved to a certain stage. When Christianity was taught to some unevolved souls, they killed and brutalized the whole of Europe in the name of God. God is suitable only for souls that are evolved to some extent. In former days, even the leaders of the Catholic Church proved that they were totally unevolved - custodians of religion butchered people calling them as heretics etc.




You always seem to think from the realm of sages who have already accomplished the goal.


It is not necessary to have accomplished the goal to be talking about it. Have you seen Jesus or the heavens mentioned in the bible? So we are on the same boat. Hindu religion has to retain its mysticism, and higher philosophical truths and not be contained within the kindergarten of religion. So Hindu cannot compromise anything and reduce everything to just the fundamentals. Christianity cannot think beyond.



These statements are truly telling of your opinion more so than the truth itself. The Beattitudes expressed in the “Sermon on the Mount” is applicable to every human being that is hungry for God. When Jesus says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” He does not talk about pauper in some way. To be “poor in spirit” is to have divested one’s inner being, of desire for attachment to material objects. To be “poor in spirit” is to possess spirituality that never makes an ostentatious display of ego and its vainglories of the higher self (now you know what I mean!)


Christianity is the right way for Christians alone, and has nothing new to offer for Hindus.
Every religion has its objectives, and the way of life.
Christianity's goal is to show the way to reach heaven and worship the God of Judgement, Yamaraja.
Vaishnvaite goal is be united with Vishnu and for Shaivites it is with Shiva.
All these goals are different and they have a corresponding way of life and prescribed way to attain that.
Those who strictly follow the dictates of the guru will attain to the goal of his religion. Thus, no two religions can be considered equivalent and nor suitable for everyone because our Karmic impression creates diferent needs and desires for us.
Christianity cannot offer anything for Dharma adherents for this reason.
The goal of Advaita is the union with Brahman, and Christianity does not show the way for this, but just shows the way in the opposite direction. So how could Christianity be suitable for everyone? As a Hindu, one has to strive for the world of Brahman ~ Vishnu, Shiva , or try to reach the state of Advaita, and Hindu teachings address both these needs. Christianity does not address either of these goals. Heaven is a very inferior goal in after life for Hindus. The God of Judgement Yama has to be completely transcended according to Hindu Dharma.

Now take the religion of Buddhism, for instance. They do not beleive in the role of God or dieties in the process of salvation. Yet Buddhas are enlightened beings. Buddhists are morally very upright people, and this goodness alone takes them to God some day. Beleif in God CANNOT be a prerequisite for starting the spiritual journey - such an assumption is unwarranted.

I have never seen people as compassionate as Buddhists even amongst religeous people - on the average. Dont you think such people will find God easier than the so called narrow minded intolerant believers of the grace of God?

As a Hindu, one could acquire the knowledge of the 24 principles of the universe without any involvement of God, through scientific process of mind control. God's role comes truly when transcending this Prakriti of 24 principles, because those beyond are directly related to God, and not his universal manifestation. So theoretcially, Buddhists could cover the entire ground of nature without any beleif in God, trhough mere meditative techniques combined with their sound moral principles.. Transcending Prakriti will not be possible without the intervention of the divine, because the intellect is incapable of percieving God in anyway. Buddhism can therefore take you a high stage ~ The stage of Vali in Ramayana. But Lord himself will show you the way at that point. The difference between Vali and Sugriva is that both are in possession of knowledge of all the 24 principles, Vali(aviveka) does not know that it is the Atma that pervades these elements, while Sugriva(viveka) knows that. However, should you become a Vali, Lord Rama will kill you and take care of you. You can thus realize God even by remaining an atheist all along the spiritual journey. I dont advocate the path of atheism or even Advaita to anyone, as both these are harder to follow than the way of Isvara. However, they are still options for suitable people. How can Christianity be useful for an atheist? Hinduism is the only religion that serves all people, right from an atheist or advaitin. If somebody does not beleive in God then he can realize God as the energy that pervades this infinite space, by resorting to appropriate techniques of meditation. If he does not beleive in such meditation too, then let him wait until his Karma is suitable. Christianity has no answers for many people.

One could take to God and his role anywhere along this journey of involution, or postpone it until the final stage. There is no question that God;s involvement will remove the hurdles in the way. Christianity has no concept on the metaphysics nor on the principles on which vedanta is founded, and you are not in a position to judge the truth in it. When everybody in the world settles for the goal of Yamaloka and abandons the mysteries of Yoga, Christianity will be suitable for everybody. And that might just happen in Kali Yuga. Religions like Christianity and Islam have more numbers because most souls are only eligible to attain these temporary heavens. A learned Hindu will not get impressed by the doctrines of religions like Christianity which does not have the concept of Yoga and moksha.(but only heaven)

atanu
27 September 2006, 11:56 AM
------------



No, I cannot prove where ego is any more than I can prove where God is! I can simply say this: Unless one transcends completely and, I mean completely, one is always in the grip of ego thereby begs the starting point. Because, even in “Turiya” state a person experiences lingering thoughts imposing sense activation.

Blessings,


Hi Nirotu.

Merry go round.


All that you have said is known well to most Hindu's. Actually for a very long time, i have not grasped what you want to say, except that two or three times you showed cynicism towards application of knowledge of Advaita. Grace, surrender, self-less work, bhakti, jnana all have to come together to transcend.



Ego cannot be overcome without knowing what it is.

Let us stop the cliche.


Om Namh Shivayya

Sudarshan
27 September 2006, 12:21 PM
Jnanin has the ego - "I have jnana"
Bhakta has the ego - "I have bhakti"
Prapanna has the ego - "I have surrendered"

It is ridiculous to talk of transcending ego. The only way is to stop talking about it. Ego can never be transcended, it will exist in some form. What is the problem when a true jnanin says "I have jnana"? If ajnanin says that he is a liar. Jnana is the knowledge of the Lord in his three aspects of Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam, and it is perfect for a jnanin to say "I have jnana" according to Srivaishnavism. Unless this is a lie and uttered in the mode of ignorance, such a jnanin is never accused of possessing an ego.

If Nirotu says that "I, this body called Nirotu has surrendered to Jesus", the material ego is self evident.

In the ultimate sense, the Jnanin, Bhakta and Prapanna are one and the same. They all have ego, but not the ego born of Prakriti. For Christianity, body=ego, and hence Nirotu cannot possibly appreciate anything related to Jnana and Bhakti, and is always stuck at the idea of Prapanna.

Surrendering of ego, cannot require me to know what ego is, as the ego is revealed only on surrendering tt. Surrendering of ego thus means relinquishing doership of acts. When you do something, assume that it is the Lord who did it, using you as an instrument. Dont do something wicked and assume that the Lord did that, as it amounts to self deception. Surrendering of ego requires you to surrender your thoughts to God as well - which means to engage in the constant thought of God. When all acts and the mind are thus dedicated to God, it is called surrender of ego. Whoever does this perfectly, to him, the true ego will be revealed by God. That ego is not to be surrendered, it is your only true possession( the rest are surrendered because they are perishable), the soul of the nature of pure omniscience and bliss.

satay
27 September 2006, 02:54 PM
Hi Nirotu.

Merry go round.


All that you have said is known well to most Hindu's. Actually for a very long time, i have not grasped what you want to say, except that two or three times you showed cynicism towards application of knowledge of Advaita. Grace, surrender, self-less work, bhakti, jnana all have to come together to transcend.



Ego cannot be overcome without knowing what it is.

Let us stop the cliche.


Om Namh Shivayya
namaste,

It is almost fasionable these days to 'attack' advaita!
Christians in particular and people in general forget that the Sri Madva's and Sri Ramanuja's system already are beyond christianity's god concepts and all this is available to be consumed by the hindus as well as the ex-hindus yet people still choose not to consume them and 'attack' advaita showing their ignorance of it!

if advaita doesn't make sense to you don't beat your head on the wall...move on! Hinduism already has higher concepts developed compared to other religions so again...nothing new here for us to consume.

amazing...

this thread is way out of context...and one of these days I am going to take the time to move posts elsewhere on the site.

Znanna
27 September 2006, 05:51 PM
namaste,

It is almost fasionable these days to 'attack' advaita!
Christians in particular and people in general forget that the Sri Madva's and Sri Ramanuja's system already are beyond christianity's god concepts and all this is available to be consumed by the hindus as well as the ex-hindus yet people still choose not to consume them and 'attack' advaita showing their ignorance of it!

if advaita doesn't make sense to you don't beat your head on the wall...move on! Hinduism already has higher concepts developed compared to other religions so again...nothing new here for us to consume.

amazing...

this thread is way out of context...and one of these days I am going to take the time to move posts elsewhere on the site.


Namaste, satay,

What context may there be to advaita? :D

Why trouble Urself with needless admin? I like this thread, as I feel more free to comment without reference to Scriptures, here, and request U leave be.



Love,
ZN
(no offense intended)

satay
27 September 2006, 10:25 PM
Namaste, satay,

What context may there be to advaita? :D

namaste,
You got me!



Why trouble Urself with needless admin? I like this thread, as I feel more free to comment without reference to Scriptures, here, and request U leave be.



Love,
ZN
(no offense intended)

needless admin eh? You are right... :cool1:

Sudarshan
28 September 2006, 04:17 AM
if advaita doesn't make sense to you don't beat your head on the wall...move on! Hinduism already has higher concepts developed compared to other religions so again...nothing new here for us to consume.


Advaita has no use when coming to discussion with Christianity. The former teaches "I am God" and the latter teaches "I am servant of God", and regardless of the arguments, no conclusion can be reached. In the former "I" is synonymous with grace, while in the latter it comes from an external vastly superior entity only upon your humble request.

As somebody who holds a middle ground, I have to agree 50-50 on both sides. In our teachings, God's grace can be earned through merit ( Bhakti Yoga), or by confessing that "I am unworthy of earning the merit on my own" - which will strike balance either from the perspective. As a practice though, there is more emphasis on surrendering than on earning because of the practical considerations in the world we live.

We have to realize that these are just opinions, whether one should earn the merit through unique devotion attained through the practice of Bhakti Yoga, or is the alternative available by merely confessing that I am unworthy, is purely subject to showing scriptural authority. There are scriptural authority for both. What is the real truth, cannot be easily judged without having a personal encounter with God, because words of different Acharyas are opinions, while a direct encounter with God is true knowledge. In the path of "surrender" a direct encounter with God does not usually happen because of obvious reasons - If you confess that you are unworthy of God and also claim that you dont take effort to gain the merit, there is not much chance that God will be revealed before death. Thus schools based on "surrender" do not preach about realizing God in one's lifetime - that includes Christianity, Islam etc. Very naturally, Sri Ramanuja says that the prapanna( the one who chooses the way of surrender) must not expect anything from God, whether it be material or spiritual. A prapanna is not even to ask for a vision of God because it contradicts sureender which stands for "accepting God's will for everything including a vision granted to you". In Sri Ramanuja's words, the truly surrendered never complains about anything in life however bad it maybe, or ever requests God to do some favour for him, material or spiritual.


It is easy to see thus that the schools of the latter kind will always be dogmatic and of an unverified nature, but no one can dispute the fact that one who truly surrenders this way will be indeed be saved by God. The point to remember though is that surrender is not very easy, and is not the same as faith, but a much higher order faith. Both Madhvacharya and Shankara disagree with the concept of "surrender" that was taught by Sri Ramanuja, but I certainly disagree with both of them - because it is questioning God's omnipotence. There are numerous places in the Gita where the path of surrender has been advocated, either as an aid to other means of Yoga or as an independent means in itself. I do however agree that "true surrender" is not easy, and in some sense as difficult as Bhakti Yoga itself. Entrusting oneself fully to the Lord, is a trait that does not come naturally to human beings, and most of us want to come out of the samsAra by our own merit. Both approaches are valid.

atanu
28 September 2006, 07:06 AM
Advaita has no use when coming to discussion with Christianity. The former teaches "I am God" and the latter teaches "I am servant of God", ------


I am sorry Sudarshan. Advaita does not teach "I am God", since God in the conventional sense has an aham and a function. That advaita does not teach.

"I am the nameless limitless spirit" that is all.

Sudarshan
28 September 2006, 07:38 AM
I am sorry Sudarshan. Advaita does not teach "I am God", since God in the conventional sense has an aham and a function. That advaita does not teach.

"I am the nameless limitless spirit" that is all.

This is only rehashing what I said...

Please clarify then - How are you related to God? And what is God? If God is the "nameless limitless spirit", then you have not said anything differently.

TruthSeeker
28 September 2006, 09:07 AM
Hi Nirotu.

Merry go round.


All that you have said is known well to most Hindu's. Actually for a very long time, i have not grasped what you want to say, except that two or three times you showed cynicism towards application of knowledge of Advaita. Grace, surrender, self-less work, bhakti, jnana all have to come together to transcend.



Ego cannot be overcome without knowing what it is.

Let us stop the cliche.


Om Namh Shivayya

People who talk too much about surrender do tend to think they have surrendered more, eh? Ceasing to look for God and criticizing those who do so = Surrender.:D

There was an ISkCONite on this forum who sent me PMs threatening me with hell for writing "advaita nonsense" here. His PMs stopped only when I hinted that I might report the PMs to admins. So much talk about surrender when there isn't even the basic courtesy towards others whom you do not even know in person.

nirotu
28 September 2006, 10:24 AM
Jnanin has the ego - "I have jnana"
Bhakta has the ego - "I have bhakti"
Prapanna has the ego - "I have surrendered"

Well said, Sudarshan! I could not have put it better myself except add one more thing to this pot.

“Pure Advaitan” has and will always have ego – “I am Brahman”.

While this is not directed to you or any VA follower, you can see, how ridiculous it seems at times! The very people who hold it as a passion in their life to divest from “I-thought” (I, me, mine), are holding firmly on to the same.

I have disagreed with you on many occasions, there are times I feel you make lot more sense then some of the pure “advaitans” over here, who tend to bypass or deny the reality of the ego-I body sense.

I agree with Sri Ramanuja who says, “I am part and parcel of God but I am not God.” He maintains this distinction at every level.


It is ridiculous to talk of transcending ego. The only way is to stop talking about it. Ego can never be transcended, it will exist in some form. What is the problem when a true jnanin says "I have jnana"? If ajnanin says that he is a liar. Jnana is the knowledge of the Lord in his three aspects of Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam, and it is perfect for a jnanin to say "I have jnana" according to Srivaishnavism. Unless this is a lie and uttered in the mode of ignorance, such a jnanin is never accused of possessing an ego.However, I do believe that the knowledge that you and I have represents only some aspects of reality, it is not complete until it takes in the whole of reality. The errors in our knowledge cannot possibly be removed until the knowledge itself becomes complete and comprehensive (the point where individual knower becomes free all defects). In sansara that you and I live in, this is not possible no matter how aspirant one is! Because, even the highest knowledge is still partial.


If Nirotu says that "I, this body called Nirotu has surrendered to Jesus", the material ego is self evident.

In the ultimate sense, the Jnanin, Bhakta and Prapanna are one and the same. They all have ego, but not the ego born of Prakriti. For Christianity, body=ego, and hence Nirotu cannot possibly appreciate anything related to Jnana and Bhakti, and is always stuck at the idea of Prapanna. For Nirotu, ego is ego no matter where its source is! It can be material or spiritual. Such differentiation becomes meaningless. A thief is a thief regardless of the gravity of his crime! Regardless of all concepts of all Jnana or Bhakti, unless one is completely enlightened one always has “ego-I”, as you have alluded to, and that will bring always to the point I am talking about.

The remnant trace of ego-I will seize the enlightened state and think of itself as “I am enlightened”. This is what happened to many “false” gurus and cults who were almost there yet that trace-ego took hold of their enlightened state and so the downfall. While respecting your belief, it makes sense to me in Jesus’s words, “ I am the son of my father” (holding the hand of the Father). Only in that cry of Baby for mother or its muttering of I want mommy, there is no entity I.



Surrendering of ego, cannot require me to know what ego is, as the ego is revealed only on surrendering it. Surrendering of ego thus means relinquishing doership of acts. When you do something, assume that it is the Lord who did it, using you as an instrument. Dont do something wicked and assume that the Lord did that, as it amounts to self deception. Surrendering of ego requires you to surrender your thoughts to God as well - which means to engage in the constant thought of God. When all acts and the mind are thus dedicated to God, it is called surrender of ego. Whoever does this perfectly, to him, the true ego will be revealed by God. That ego is not to be surrendered, it is your only true possession( the rest are surrendered because they are perishable), the soul of the nature of pure omniscience and bliss.
You are making an act out of surrender! Why would an ego turn away and surrender? I agree with you the way you put it. This initial act of surrender, which is lot harder than it looks, can become simplified by simply holding the hand of grace.
If I say I cannot surrender my desire without the helping hand of grace (we are back to our starting point!).


Blessings,

nirotu
28 September 2006, 10:27 AM
Ego cannot be overcome without knowing what it is.[/font]

Hmmmmm!!!
Let me try one last time. You mentioned that ego cannot be overcome without knowing it. Who is the knower in that instant?
If you are claiming that ego is trying to know itself then you truly are going in a circle like a dog chasing its own tail.
On the other hand, if you are claiming that the “higher self” knows the ego then question I am asking is how did this ego become the “higher self”.

This question has been our subject of discussion all along!!!!

Blessings,

nirotu
28 September 2006, 10:45 AM
The bible is not a treatise on philosophy, but just a mythology and a story book and book on a way of living (ethics). You cannot expect it to teach you anything related to the evolution and involution. If you will read well into the bible mythology perhaps you will be able to find bits and pieces of vedanta in it.( I suppose you have not found any yet!).

Dear Truthseeker:

In the interest of keeping this discussion focused, I shall refrain from answering tangential points, which bear no relevance. However, it will make a good subject for a new thread to really see what “Historical truth” is and what “Myth” is.


To give you an example of why one has to evolve to benefit from grace, just consider a muslim terrorist or a Christian who lived during the times of crusades or inquisitions. All these people, including the terrorist have intense devotion for God, and they do all these solely for securing heaven. A suicide bomber is strictly speaking a fanatic devotee, possibly has much more faith in God and his grace than any of us, but his evolution is so incomplete that the beleif in God has led him nowhere yet. He beleives so much in God, but God has led him to be brainwashed and grow up in environments where hate is taught along with God. This terrorist is so much aware of God;s grace and even considered himself as a servant of God and considers himself to be completely surrendered to God by virtue of his activities. What has God's grace done to show him the right way? Christianity cannot even attempt to answer this because it has no concept of evolution!The ego is fearful entity! We are not talking about blind fanatical faith of the ego. As you all know, the ego is driven by fear. Fear will turn blindly and dominate as in case of terrorist, Hitler, Osama etc. We are not talking about ego becoming fanatical but the ego that is humbling and becoming a baby!

Ravana was biggest Bhakta of God and yet his ego (Ahankara) was focused only to destroy Sri Ram. This shows there is a blind side to the faith posited in ego. You may ask why would God grant such an outcome to Hitler or Ravana and not to Ramana. As I said above, this arises from the two sides of ego itself. Again, I am talking about humbling ego, which again falls down to man’s choice of his free-will. When a person is determined to do his way, God will simply step aside and take its course knowing fully that the person will return to God one day.

Somehow, you all seem to take a simple point and make it complex issue when in fact there is no need. Let us not take seemingly simple idea and make it more complex and theoretical than it really is.


God is like electric current. If you approach it with the right conditions, it will be a usable form of electricity. You are right about “right condition”. What you say right condition we are calling “initial humbling”. We may be differing in semantics. When that initial condition truly occurs, all traces of fanaticism, violence and blindness disappear. I know it sounds suspiciously simple but such is the power of grace when one turns to it.


It is not necessary to have accomplished the goal to be talking about it. Have you seen Jesus or the heavens mentioned in the bible? So we are on the same boat. Hindu religion has to retain its mysticism, and higher philosophical truths and not be contained within the kindergarten of religion. So Hindu cannot compromise anything and reduce everything to just the fundamentals. Christianity cannot think beyond.Because of such thinking, one is in this bondage endlessly, forever, chasing that ever elusive plane. It need not be that way. With what I am talking about, there is no such thing. Grace has the power to liberate you once and for all!

Let me end with this thought.

To accrue grace, which leads to highest state one does not have to evolve by adhering to Dharma rules as a precondition! While the rules of Dharma may be sufficient condition for a normal spiritual growth, it is not a necessary condition. There are cases of sudden conversion, upsurge of the spirit from seemingly common souls, which I witness daily in my walk of life. These people never had any education in spirituality, or any strong inclination to turn to God yet give us a testimony of conversion that is very touching.

As Dr.Radhakrishanan puts it, “The freed souls sometimes smile at the irrelevance of the painful scrupulosities and anxious questionings about ceremonial propriety which worry those in the lower stages of life” (Book: Indian Religions)

Therefore, Truth Seeker, all I can say is, let us all be cautioned with over-conceptualizing and let us try to make this spiritual journey as practical as possible.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
28 September 2006, 11:04 AM
I agree with Sri Ramanuja who says, “I am part and parcel of God but I am not God.” He maintains this distinction at every level.


If soul is part and parcel of God, and that is what you believe, why do you agree with eternal damnation? In one of our old conversations, you were so clear that if somebody rejects God, then that is the end of him, and he will be rejected by God. Is it even imaginable that something that is associated with God could ever meet such a fate? I think Christianity is pure dualism. Hell for holding wrong beleifs is incompatible with the "part and parcel" theory. You might go to a temporary hell for being wicked, but not for wrong beleifs.




However, I do believe that the knowledge that you and I have represents only some aspects of reality, it is not complete until it takes in the whole of reality. The errors in our knowledge cannot possibly be removed until the knowledge itself becomes complete and comprehensive (the point where individual knower becomes free all defects). In sansara that you and I live in, this is not possible no matter how aspirant one is! Because, even the highest knowledge is still partial.


I disagree. It is possible to have complete and comprehensive knowledge about God right here in this world - for a Bhakti Yogi. Bhakti Yoga comprises Astanga Yoga and allied disciplines, which are alien to Christianity. So your judgement is based on Christianity, and is not true of any sect of Hinduism. Do you think moksha is a place? Then why do you think somebody needs to go to heaven to know how it looks like? Moksha is evolved consciousness, and it is independent of space and time. It is possible to be a Jnanin in this world, though I dont digress into what constitutes Jnana. All Brahmins of old were Jnanins. In Tamil, a Brahmin is explicitly called as "parppAn" which means a seer.(sage).



You are making an act out of surrender! Why would an ego turn away and surrender? I agree with you the way you put it. This initial act of surrender, which is lot harder than it looks, can become simplified by simply holding the hand of grace If I say I cannot surrender my desire without the helping hand of grace (we are back to our starting point!)


I agree with your "holding of grace", but I disagree with most Christians in this regard. Most Christians simply claim to beleive in some saviour, but are outright materialsts. Remember, one who has surendered must keep his premises of surrender - surrender is complete acceptance of whatever God gives you in accordance with your Karma, and never aspiriing to create any new Karmas in the way. In my opinion, only Bhakti Yogis of the past, who are still unliberated can really surrender to God.

Though it is argued within Srivaishnavites that God forgives any sins after the act of surrender, this would be completely unacceptable from my point of view. Such "licenses" to sin cannot be given to anyone, neither for prapannas nor jnanins. What happens if you drink poison and beleive in the grace of God? If your faith is so good, God will come and save you. Similarly, Karmic law is immutable - if you expect God to save you from this, your faith must be of a similar order. If you truly believe that God can do anything for you, then God will. But faith in words are not sufficient, it must be deep rooted. Your faith must be reflected in your thoughts and actions.

Sudarshan
28 September 2006, 01:02 PM
“Pure Advaitan” has and will always have ego – “I am Brahman”.


You did not get it correctly: These verses of equality are actually the egos of liberated souls.
"I am He" , means I have extreme similarity with He, otherwise there would be no need to use "I" and "He" separately. Similarly, other such abedha vAkyas have a similar meaning. The idea is to say that the liberated soul is almost equal to Brahman( boga mAtra sAmya linga ca), but not one and the same, and dependent on Brahman for existance. Accepting such a distinction avoids the need to posit unnecessary and artificial meanings on the scripture, like calling the world as an illusion etc.

I am personally not offended when someone says "I am Brahman". This is quite true, and it means I am almost equal to God, yet superficially different from Brahman. The soul does not possess the property of omnipotence like God, that is why it is in bondage now. No one with omnipotence can ever get trapped in samsAra, that is, there must be entities apart from God or functioning as a mode or characterstic of God. However, the soul is both omniscient and optionally omnipresent in moksha.

I am afraid I beg to differ from Christianity, and fully approve the ego "I am Brahman" as long as this is understood in its correct semantics.(in moksha)

I would agree more with advaita than Christianity because I think Christianity is very primitive, and its concept of God and soul are far apart from reality.

satay
28 September 2006, 02:14 PM
“Pure Advaitan” has and will always have ego – “I am Brahman”.

While this is not directed to you or any VA follower, you can see, how ridiculous it seems at times! The very people who hold it as a passion in their life to divest from “I-thought” (I, me, mine), are holding firmly on to the same.


namaste nirotu,

the following seems more ridiculous than 'I am Brahman':

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

thanks,

satay
28 September 2006, 02:18 PM
I think Christianity is very primitive, and its concept of God and soul are far apart from reality.

As a close friend puts it, "christianity is for peasants" obviously, he means for those of us who are spiritual peasants.

Why would a hindu go for the primitive god concepts when bhakti movement is so widely accessible and GOD himself has given clear instructions on how to reach him directly.

:rolleyes:

satay
28 September 2006, 02:21 PM
I think Christianity is pure dualism.

and sri Madva's system is available for those who are interested in pure dualism. Proving my point again that christianity has nothing new to offer to hindus.

TruthSeeker
28 September 2006, 02:28 PM
Namaste Nirotu,



In the interest of keeping this discussion focused, I shall refrain from answering tangential points, which bear no relevance. However, it will make a good subject for a new thread to really see what “Historical truth” is and what “Myth” is.


Evasive! Please show us where the bible and the vedas stand in terms of philosophical depth. Bible is just kid's book. Vedas are for grown ups.



The ego is fearful entity! We are not talking about blind fanatical faith of the ego. As you all know, the ego is driven by fear. Fear will turn blindly and dominate as in case of terrorist, Hitler, Osama etc. We are not talking about ego becoming fanatical but the ego that is humbling and becoming a baby!
Ravana was biggest Bhakta of God and yet his ego (Ahankara) was focused only to destroy Sri Ram. This shows there is a blind side to the faith posited in ego. You may ask why would God grant such an outcome to Hitler or Ravana and not to Ramana. As I said above, this arises from the two sides of ego itself. Again, I am talking about humbling ego, which again falls down to man’s choice of his free-will. When a person is determined to do his way, God will simply step aside and take its course knowing fully that the person will return to God one day.
Somehow, you all seem to take a simple point and make it complex issue when in fact there is no need. Let us not take seemingly simple idea and make it more complex and theoretical than it really is.


The issue is actually more complex than it is. You have repeatedly mentioned about humbling ego but have not specified why some one has it and the other does not!



Because of such thinking, one is in this bondage endlessly, forever, chasing that ever elusive plane. It need not be that way. With what I am talking about, there is no such thing. Grace has the power to liberate you once and for all!
To accrue grace, which leads to highest state one does not have to evolve by adhering to Dharma rules as a precondition! While the rules of Dharma may be sufficient condition for a normal spiritual growth, it is not a necessary condition. There are cases of sudden conversion, upsurge of the spirit from seemingly common souls, which I witness daily in my walk of life. These people never had any education in spirituality, or any strong inclination to turn to God yet give us a testimony of conversion that is very touching.


Each one thinks to his capacity. Some students in the class though that those who work hard are fools and one who beleives in the grace of the teacher are promoted! If you are truly able to surrender that ego, well and good for you and means you have evolved through the path of Dharma. One who thinks he has a shortcut over the other is certainly deluded! I had a Pentecostal neighbour, who had an attack of Typhoid. He refused to take any medicines even with his family pressurizing him. He kept repeating the name of Jesus and died. This I call as true surrender. Apart from complete surrender, I dont find much sense in what you say, apart from all Hindus already know. Gneral Hindu view is the path of enlightenment, which need not be gradual, subject to right conditions. It is possible to get enlightenment in a single birth by the grace of God, under the right conditions. Until we see the hand of God, we have our duty to work towards the goal, and not skip Dharma rules. Dharma is a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation, and Dharma is the awakening of Ajna Chakra. If you are truly established in the love of God and righteousness, your Ajna Chakra would awaken, and lead you to liberation by Mother Durga herself showing you the way...until such an event happens, that is the vision of Saguna Brahma, one has the duty to engage in Dharma and sAdhana for liberation.

No Hindu said that a Christian must abandon his Dharma and start following something else. The true follower of any religion attains the goal of the religion, but true followers are rare, one in a million...

Regarding your comments on "upsurge of the spirit from seemingly common souls" or even wicked souls, this can be explained only by Hinduism. Such awakening happen due to sAdhana performed in previous births, and when conditions are ripe, they burst forth. Try repeating the name of Ram repeatedly. It may not produce immediate effect, but it will wait for proper conditions before your inner eye awakens. Nothing happens by accident. Nothing happens by wishful thinking - everything happens by effort, but even such effort bears fruit only by the grace of God. It is not important how and why you approach God, but it will go through an evolution onlly and when you have matured enough, you will automatically find God.

Sudarshan
28 September 2006, 02:46 PM
and sri Madva's system is available for those who are interested in pure dualism. Proving my point again that christianity has nothing new to offer to hindus.

Sri Madhva's system is very beautiful and has no comparison with Christianity. The main point I disagree with this system is that Madhva says that the intrinsic nature of the soul is fixed and some souls are destined for permanent hell inspite of any efforts, and some would ever keep incarnating regardless of their efforts. The problem with dualism is that it always presents the aspect of a fearful God ever ready to punish. I cannot reconcile with any idea that God should be feared.

Sudarshan
29 September 2006, 06:21 AM
To accrue grace, which leads to highest state one does not have to evolve by adhering to Dharma rules as a precondition! While the rules of Dharma may be sufficient condition for a normal spiritual growth, it is not a necessary condition.


wow. What do you know of Dharma? I am not surprised that Christians tried to evolve without adhering to Dharma. The history of Christianity is ample proof.



There are cases of sudden conversion, upsurge of the spirit from seemingly common souls, which I witness daily in my walk of life. These people never had any education in spirituality, or any strong inclination to turn to God yet give us a testimony of conversion that is very touching.


Indeed, the stories of Christians leaving Christianity is also very touching. And how many of them embrace Dharma is also very touching after their encounters with the spirit of the God of Hinduism. Education is not a prerequisite for spiritual development, and we Hindus know that much better than anybody else. Sometimes education and shAstra jnana can work against spiritual development too, as too much rational thinking can rob one of the innocence that is needed to be a devotee.

There are what are called arthavAda, or eulogizing one point over the other. There are many key points to attaining perfection, and no religion addresses all of them simultaneously as it is beyond the capability of ordinary human beings. So every religion talks about one or more of the concepts unerlying the attainment of perfection. For eg, Shankaracharya laid more stress on Jnana than anything else and completely put down Karma Yoga. Sri Ramanuja laid much more emphasis on devotion and surrender than anything else. Madhvacharya held that even Jnana and devotion cannot lead to salvation, and only grace of God can. Like these, every religion tries to project one aspect above the other. Christianity and Islam have similarly highlighted certain aspects over the other. That is why we have so many religions in the world. We take birth in all these religions many times in different births, and gradually acquire all the skills needed to attain perfection. A Hindu does not put down others for this reason, because he knows the bigger picture.

However, a particular religion does not tell its followers that it is partial and incomplete, as it would lead to lack of confidence in the followers. The goal of every religion is to tell the followers that it is complete and the only truth, but is founders were certainly aware of the bigger picture. If they were not, then they were not enlightened and their claims may be dismissed. Truly enlightened people see the utility of all concepts and religions, and all of them deserve a place in the kingdom of God and his infinite variety. Hindus are sometimes forced to oppose religions like Christianity because the bigger picture is missed by most followers of Abrahamic religions. They keep shouting "my elephant has two tails" like kids!!

Just read these sample stories to see how certain points are highlighted beyond proportion:

1. The story of Ajamila. ( to show how even remembering the Lord without devotion is a gift)
2. The story of Valmiki ( how sometimes even a sinner can become a sage)
3. The story of Jaya and Vijaya. ( which shows that one is not free from the danger of samsAra as long as dualty is present, as technically a curse is impossible in Vaikunta. If you think you are apart from God, danger stalks you even in Vaikunta)
4. The story of Vyasa.( which shows that a person of any parentage can be a sage, so much for the unwarranted attacks on Hinduism)

The list can go on...

That does not mean any of these is an absolute truth and we should steer clear of following these kind of lives to the extent possible. Perfection is attainable by man, and perfection gives salvation. Every man is a mini avatar, in various degrees - he needs to investigate and realize this. Calling oneself a sinner is a practical reality, but the sinner must progress to divinity someday. Every man has the capability, and will do it in his own way. All religions are there to contribute their share....:)

Sudarshan
29 September 2006, 08:48 AM
As a close friend puts it, "christianity is for peasants" obviously, he means for those of us who are spiritual peasants.

Why would a hindu go for the primitive god concepts when bhakti movement is so widely accessible and GOD himself has given clear instructions on how to reach him directly.

:rolleyes:

The Lord gave us the instruction in one single verse - why do we look for any other source.

11.55

Whosoever performs all acts like the study of the scripture, considering them as several modes of worship, 'he works for Me.' He who 'looks upon Me as the highest,' namely, one to whom I alone am the highest purpose in all his enterprises, has Me as 'the highest end.' He who is 'devoted to me,' i.e., is greatly devoted to me and hence unable to sustain himself without reciting My names, praising Me, meditating upon Me, worshipping Me, saluting Me etc., he who performs these always considering Me as the supreme end --- he is My devotee. He is 'free from attachments,' as he is attached to me alone, and is therefore unable to have attachment to any other entity. He who is without hatred towards any being, is one who fulfils all the following conditions: his nature is to feel pleasure or pain solely on account of his union or separation from Me; he considers his own sins to be the cause of his sufferings (and not the work of others or that of God); he is confirmed in his faith that all beings are dependent on the Lord. For all these reasons he has no hatred for any one.

Summary:

1. One who is unable to live for a moment on earth in the separation of God.
2. One who has no interest in anything other than the Lord.
3. One who works solely for the Lord.
4. One who has no hatred even towards enemies.

These are the sure ways to attain the feet of Krishna, and these are the means to secure his grace. A Hindu need to look for no further guidance or saviours, and all instructions have been summarised in a single verse. The rest of the Gita shows how to attain these qualities, starting from the basics of beleif in God, worshipping God, working for God, thinking of God, meditating on God etc.

nirotu
30 September 2006, 01:33 PM
the following seems more ridiculous than 'I am Brahman':

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

Dear Satay:

I am surprised that you feel that way. In my view such utterances “I am Brahman” or “I and MY Father are one” can only come from the divine. Even the enlightened one has only the privilege to say, “ God has become me” and not “I am become God”. In my view, only one who can say that has to be divine in all respects.

The soul at any level, higher or lower” cannot utter these words unless it is the trace of ego that takes hold of him. You see, any one who claims that he is God, whether in his evolving state or enlightened state, he is blaspheming the very God he is trying to reach.

Can a wave ever become ocean? The ocean can remain without wave but wave cannot remain without ocean. Likewise, souls can never claim the authority to be God at any level. Souls are part of God but never become God.

You sit on a fire, claiming you are fire, you will inevitably suffer the consequence of pain and suffering even though it was never the intention of fire to burn you.

In that sense, either Christ is telling the truth or He is lying. Again, in my view, if historical events, fulfillment of prophesized birth and crucifixion, innumerable miracles is any indicator of truth proclaiming His Divinity, then I am convinced that Jesus is telling the truth. Do you think Jesus is lying?

Look at the parallel verse from Gita in Chapter XIV and verse 27 and translation goes like this- “And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.” Here again Krishna, according to this verse, declares Himself to be divine (I am Brahman).
Do you think Krishna is lying here?

I would be interested to know what makes you believe one not the other?

Blessings,

nirotu
30 September 2006, 02:37 PM
You did not get it correctly: These verses of equality are actually the egos of liberated souls.

"I am He" , means I have extreme similarity with He, otherwise there would be no need to use "I" and "He" separately. Similarly, other such abedha vAkyas have a similar meaning. The idea is to say that the liberated soul is almost equal to Brahman( boga mAtra sAmya linga ca), but not one and the same, and dependent on Brahman for existance. Accepting such a distinction avoids the need to posit unnecessary and artificial meanings on the scripture, like calling the world as an illusion etc.


Dear Sudarshan:

I agree in principle but somehow the connotation of the phrase “I am Brahman” has wider implication and could be misleading at times. But I do not agree they refer to ego-liberated souls.


In my view, even the truly liberated soul does not have the authority to claim, “I am Brahman”, rather it is more of an experience of “God becoming me “. It is God’s grace that grants them to feel, as Jesus did, “I am my Father are one”. I reconcile the ecstacy of "self-realized" soul saying "I am Brahman" this way: A completely liberated soul in the heat of its experience finds such a union where it is difficult to draw the line of distinction. It is because liberated soul does not have mind as it has transcended every thought-originating mind, and therefore, does not see that distinction. However, liberated souls keep their identity or individuality throughout eternity.


I like to think the liberated soul is like a fetus in mother’s womb always feels secure, safe and connected with the mother all the time through the cord. Mother feels joy of carrying this fetus, nourishing with good food (always eating for both), and carries with her wherever she goes. The fetus may experience oneness with the mother but it is never one. It will always be the part of the mother but never can assume as mother.


For a realized soul it is only the beginning of that transcendental realization. It still needs to move forward through several stages until it has the ultimate realization of the absolute. I believe, that when Jesus says, “ In my Father’s house there are many mansions”, He is referring to these different stages (different or many mansions) for evolved souls.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
30 September 2006, 02:47 PM
Dear Satay:

I am surprised that you feel that way. In my view such utterances “I am Brahman” or “I and MY Father are one” can only come from the divine. Even the enlightened one has only the privilege to say, “ God has become me” and not “I am become God”. In my view, only one who can say that has to be divine in all respects.

The soul at any level, higher or lower” cannot utter these words unless it is the trace of ego that takes hold of him. You see, any one who claims that he is God, whether in his evolving state or enlightened state, he is blaspheming the very God he is trying to reach.


Agree - Brahman is all, but all cannot be Brahman. This purely a one sided equation. I doubt if christianity even says this. I believe it says God made man in his own image? That looks like Dvaita to me- with its bimba pratibimba vAda. Because Vishsitadvatins beleive that God and soul are connected in much more than merely a part.

See this -

yada pasya pashyate rukmavarnam kartaaram isam purusham brahmayonim tada vidvan punya pape vidhuya niranjana paramam saamyam upaithi.( Mu Up 3.1.3)

"When the jnani ( freed from the bonds of Karma) sees the Lord, he attains supreme equality with him."

How are you going to interpret "supreme equality"? Hindu scripture is very clear that the distinction between man and God is very thin. There maybe difference at every level, but the difference almost dies out in liberation. You become like water dissolved in milk - virtually indistiguishable and inseperable. If this is not what Christianity preaches, then there is no point pushing the divinity of Jesus in specific. Vishistadvaitins hold that barring the functions of cosmic governance, both the soul and God are equal - in bliss, in knowledge etc. God is so magnanimous as to grant you equality with him on almost every respect - that is why he is worthy of being called graceful, loving, Lord, and being worshipped.. I worship Lord Narayana because he is worthy of it, and has the ability to share all he has with me. God is God because of his exceptional qualities and grace - he elevates you to a position that is almost equivalent to him.




Look at the parallel verse from Gita in Chapter XIV and verse 27 and translation goes like this- “And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.” Here again Krishna, according to this verse, declares Himself to be divine (I am Brahman).
Do you think Krishna is lying here?

I would be interested to know what makes you believe one not the other?

Blessings,

Krishna not only claimed to be divine but proved it showing that the entire infinite universe rested inside him. What did Jesus do? Walking on water and healing the leper can be done by every Yogi in India. What man cannot is to show that he is infinite- not even the enlightened ones. Jesus never did, because he even cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". Krishna never needed any help from the above, and was always in control of proceedings. He proved that he was God - what more proof is needed when he has shown that the countless universes reside in him, and he resides in every atom of the universe?

Jesus filling the prophecies in a personal opinion and one sided.
Please read this: http://www.geocities.com/bennoah1messiah/ to have another view, the Jewish view.

Sudarshan
30 September 2006, 03:13 PM
I agree in principle but somehow the connotation of the phrase “I am Brahman” has wider implication and could be misleading at times. But I do not agree they refer to ego-liberated souls.


Yes, that would be a Christian perspective. While Advaita treats them as identical, Vishistadvaitins also read it in the same way, but interpret in the sharira-shariri bhAva, or the body-part way. I dont beleive Christianity supports any idea of the soul have such connection with God.



For a realized soul it is only the beginning of that transcendental realization. It still needs to move forward through several stages until it has the ultimate realization of the absolute. I believe, that when Jesus says, “ In my Father’s house there are many mansions”, He is referring to these different stages (different or many mansions) for evolved souls.

Blessings,

This part is quite acceptable. Moskha is certainly in stages, moving through sAlokya ( living with God), samIpya ( nearness to God), sArUpya ( having great similarity with God) and sayujya ( inseperable union with God)

But these stages are all attainable on earth itself, and Christianity lacks any means to attain them. They are all possible through the practice of Bhakti Yoga where intensive love for God attained by the rigorous practice of Yoga that reveals God in many steps. Following the path of grace without Yoga leads either to Brahma Loka or to sAlokya mukti from where you continue to evolve until sAyujya is attained.

Sayuja is the state where extreme equality with God is attained. I doubt if Christianity has anything to this effect apart from your personal opinions, if at all you accept this.:)

Sudarshan
30 September 2006, 03:27 PM
Most Hindus, except Dvaita accept the Brahman is both instrumental and material cause of the universe. I have not seen even one Christian even come close to this. In Chrisianity, Creator and Creation are indeed disconnected.

nirotu
30 September 2006, 03:41 PM
Evasive! Please show us where the bible and the vedas stand in terms of philosophical depth. Bible is just kid's book. Vedas are for grown ups.
Yes Truthseeker, you are right about that. The Bible is for kids because the goal is to become childlike! The so called adult version of scriptures you refer to keep one’s mind entangled, constantly keeping endlessly engaged and never reaching the goal.


My goal here is not to compare religions or try to be one up but keep the focus in mind and that is the practical nature of journey undertaken by any one of us. Otherwise, it simply becomes a mind game without accomplishing anything positive.


I do believe, regardless of one’s knowledge, the practicality of the nature of journey remains the same. That is what needs to be addressed rather than going in a tangent.



You have repeatedly mentioned about humbling ego but have not specified why some one has it and the other does not!
That is because some have grace and others do not! Many have that initial recognition (turning point) of grace, whereas others turned their back on to it. It all depends on which direction one is facing. If it is turned towards right direction, he beckons grace. That I call initial turn to grace and what you call “right condition”.

Ravana’s Bhakti was unparallel. His devotion to God and practice of meditation was intense. Yet, look how far away he was from having the grace of Rama. Because, he never made that initial turn around by humbling himself to the grace. Ravana’s Ahankara (ego) kept him far away from that grace.


Judas, a disciple from the innermost circle of Jesus, in spite of being with the divine lost the hand of grace. It was not that grace wasn’t seeking him but he was leading himself far away from grace. Jesus never violated Judas’s free will. Again, Judas failed to make that initial turn.



Each one thinks to his capacity. Some students in the class though that those who work hard are fools and one who beleives in the grace of the teacher are promoted! If you are truly able to surrender that ego, well and good for you and means you have evolved through the path of Dharma. One who thinks he has a shortcut over the other is certainly deluded! I had a Pentecostal neighbour, who had an attack of Typhoid. He refused to take any medicines even with his family pressurizing him. He kept repeating the name of Jesus and died. This I call as true surrender. Apart from complete surrender, I dont find much sense in what you say, apart from all Hindus already know. Gneral Hindu view is the path of enlightenment, which need not be gradual, subject to right conditions. It is possible to get enlightenment in a single birth by the grace of God, under the right conditions. Until we see the hand of God, we have our duty to work towards the goal, and not skip Dharma rules. Dharma is a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation, and Dharma is the awakening of Ajna Chakra. If you are truly established in the love of God and righteousness, your Ajna Chakra would awaken, and lead you to liberation by Mother Durga herself showing you the way...until such an event happens, that is the vision of Saguna Brahma, one has the duty to engage in Dharma and sAdhana for liberation.
At the expense of repeating like a broken record, let me summarize this way. My view is that there is a simpler way as a starting point that is humbling and turning towards grace. That instant recognition of the presence of grace is essential. What these “Only dharma”, “Only devotion”, “Only Bhakti” need is the knowingness of the matter-bound –I of the Father (grace). Grace is availed not when you reach certain “chakra” but when you most need it at any level.


I am not here to argue with you on theology but simply discuss the practical nature of journey and how our mind works in relation to that. I just don’t understand why it seems so difficult a point. Perhaps, it is the “simplicity” and that in itself might be a problem with your mind, which wants to have complex answers. At least from Sudarshan's answers it is clear he is determined to fight with me in theology with complex nomenclatures. I am afraid, I am not interested!!

Blessings,

Sudarshan
30 September 2006, 04:52 PM
I am not here to argue with you on theology but simply discuss the practical nature of journey and how our mind works in relation to that. I just don’t understand why it seems so difficult a point. Perhaps, it is the “simplicity” and that in itself might be a problem with your mind, which wants to have complex answers. At least from Sudarshan's answers it is clear he is determined to fight with me in theology with complex nomenclatures. I am afraid, I am not interested

Fighting with you? We are right on the same track, whoever has contributed on this thread. The first goal is faith, which you been repeatedly stressing. What to do after turning to God's grace? You have not mentioned anything except telling us grace takes care of everything else....that part is rejected by all Hindus.

Even Srivaishnavites would disagree with such a view. Both Vedanta Desika and Alvars have categorically denied any salvation for people who desire for material things. Those who desire material things while clinging to grace will get all there desires fulfilled before the grace lifts them out of the well. Nammalvar openly says that first throw away the worldly bonds and then seek the feet of the Lord.

For a Srivaishnavite, just turning to grace is not sufficient. There are three mantras which must be meditated upon with great devotion and sincereity every day. You must live a sin free life, with no excuses. If you break the commandments of Acharyas, prAyaschitta has to be performed depending on the kind of offence, without a single exception. You have to follow the five fold PancharAtra worship everyday, which means most of your time is spent in divine contemplation. You have to perform the daily prayers including the Sandhya Vandanam without fail everyday without expecting any results. You have to do all you activities with the sole aim of pleasing the Lord. To put in a nutshell, God must become your sole objective in life, yet you must discharge every dutiy in life, depending on your varNa dharma. If you not live upto the ways as mentioned above there is no guarantee that you will be granted salvation( some exceptions are allowed based on the situations in life), grace or no grace. Because of serious limitations on a human being to surrender to God, one can perform Acharya niSTa, or surrender to the guru, and if the guru is truly enlightened and alive, and pleased with you, he will be able to redemm you from any sins committed unknowingly. Sins committed knowingly will incur the Karmic penalty no matter what, and will stall your salvation. The path of Bhakti Yoga is harder but allows you to manipulate the Karmic law due to enlightenment and thus save yourself. The way of surrender requires you to be truly sinless.

Your first part is correct, we must turn to God and seek his grace. You have not mentioned what are the requirements of a Christian and how he must lead his life, and totally avoided the question. Perhaps you will now point to the "Sermon on the Mount" and say that is the recommended way of life. What happens if a person does not live upto it? Hinduism in general rejects that any person who breaks the laws of his Acharyas could get moksha, because there is always another opportunity to do it right . In Christianity, you either just beleive or perish - no middle ground, so much for your earlier mocking of the law of Karma.

TruthSeeker
30 September 2006, 06:13 PM
Yes Truthseeker, you are right about that. The Bible is for kids because the goal is to become childlike! The so called adult version of scriptures you refer to keep one’s mind entangled, constantly keeping endlessly engaged and never reaching the goal.


Mind is entangled in thoughts as long as it is not one pointed, and the religion must be focussed on that. How do you propose to attain the one pointedness?



My goal here is not to compare religions or try to be one up but keep the focus in mind and that is the practical nature of journey undertaken by any one of us. Otherwise, it simply becomes a mind game without accomplishing anything positive.


Your goal here is to promote Christianity and its gospel. I have not observed anything else.



I do believe, regardless of one’s knowledge, the practicality of the nature of journey remains the same. That is what needs to be addressed rather than going in a tangent.


Correct - we are on the same page.



Ravana’s Bhakti was unparallel. His devotion to God and practice of meditation was intense. Yet, look how far away he was from having the grace of Rama. Because, he never made that initial turn around by humbling himself to the grace. Ravana’s Ahankara (ego) kept him far away from that grace.


Ravana is not the arrogant ego that you have wrongly imagined. Ravana is the master of his senses and mind , his only defect is that he still has an ego.( which you cant have, not even the humble ego you are talking about) Had you been 1% of Ravana, you would have been liberated long ago. Ravana's stealing of Sita is a well defined in process in Yoga( the usage of tAmasic mAyA to destroy ahamkAra), which you wont understand. (it is not abduction by a demon!) It is a great progress if you can become a Ravana, aim for it! Ravana is a just a door step away from moksha, infact the closest one can get to.



Judas, a disciple from the innermost circle of Jesus, in spite of being with the divine lost the hand of grace. It was not that grace wasn’t seeking him but he was leading himself far away from grace. Jesus never violated Judas’s free will. Again, Judas failed to make that initial turn


Yes, so dont become a Judas - be a Christ all your life.



At the expense of repeating like a broken record, let me summarize this way. My view is that there is a simpler way as a starting point that is humbling and turning towards grace. That instant recognition of the presence of grace is essential. What these “Only dharma”, “Only devotion”, “Only Bhakti” need is the knowingness of the matter-bound –I of the Father (grace). Grace is availed not when you reach certain “chakra” but when you most need it at any level.


At the expense of repeating like a broken record, let me summarize this way. My view is that there is a simpler way as a starting point that is humbling and turning towards grace. That instant recognition of the presence of grace is essential.

But what is the definition of a humble ego that you have repeatedly used?
1. Established in universal love, called as non violence
2. Established in Truth. ( except in times of distress or a public welfare)
3. Established in constant dwelling of God.
4. Not possessing more than what is necessary.

I hope your definition of a humble ego is the same as these? Or can it violate these?



I am not here to argue with you on theology but simply discuss the practical nature of journey and how our mind works in relation to that. I just don’t understand why it seems so difficult a point. Perhaps, it is the “simplicity” and that in itself might be a problem with your mind, which wants to have complex answers. At least from Sudarshan's answers it is clear he is determined to fight with me in theology with complex nomenclatures. I am afraid, I am not interested!!


Me neither. I agree it is better to keep the topic to ones capacity. Simplicity is always good - be happy with your journey. As somebody said earlier, talk to a peasant like a peasant.

Hinduism simplies the journey to the four cardinal points raised above - whether you beleive in God or grace is totally immaterial. Because without these, no grace is going to function and become manifest anyway.

satay
30 September 2006, 10:00 PM
Dear Satay:

I am surprised that you feel that way.


namaste,
My comment was in the context of your post where you said, "I am Brahman" is ridiculous at times.



[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Can a wave ever become ocean? The ocean can remain without wave but wave cannot remain without ocean. Likewise, souls can never claim the authority to be God at any level. Souls are part of God but never become God.


sorry...I have no time for this...
btw...wave is the ocean...wave doesn't exist without the ocean. But I digress. There is no point in discussing this.




Look at the parallel verse from Gita in Chapter XIV and verse 27 and translation goes like this- “And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.” Here again Krishna, according to this verse, declares Himself to be divine (I am Brahman).
Do you think Krishna is lying here?


Krishna is not 'divine' only...he is That!

Sudarshan
01 October 2006, 09:58 AM
Krishna is not 'divine' only...he is That!

Jesus was an aMSa of Krishna, just like other people. mamaivAMsho jivaloke...(15.7)

Not all early Christians beleived that Jesus was God. Emporer Constantine declared that "Jesus was God" based on a voting majority. Those who beleived otherwise were threatened with blasphemy and punishment. Most of the bishops thus never visited the First Council of Nicaea in fear of getting punished. Those who beleived that "Jesus was God" voted in favour of this view. More than 1500 bishops were invited though only around 300 turned up, and those who stated that "Jesus is not God" were punished. Had all the invitees turned up, it would have been a different story, but still Constantine would have prevailed.

Jesus became God only by a voting majority. There is not much evidence in the bible to support this theory except for the odd verses. In most places Jesus appears to concede that he was an ordinary man, and that the father was greater than him, and also cries out for God's help during crucifixion. There is a verse where Jesus says that he was not "good" (Mark 10:18).

In any case, if such a person did exist, he was man of sound moral principles, and truly knew his relationship with his father Krishna. We can certainly respect this great soul and bow before him and he deserves as much respect as any other Acharyas of our land. All glories to Jesus baba.:)

If you take away the fact that Jesus was crucified, and bore all the sins of man by undergoing pain for all the sins to be committed in future, there is nothing special in Christianity. It is just like one among the zillions of faiths out there.;)

satay
01 October 2006, 03:00 PM
In any case, if such a person did exist, he was man of sound moral principles, and truly knew his relationship with his father Krishna. We can certainly respect this great soul and bow before him and he deserves as much respect as any other Acharyas of our land. All glories to Jesus baba.:)


As a hindu I have respect for all gurus of all faiths including jesus baba, a confirmed advaitin.

The Father and I are one! yes, indeed!
Dear Jesus baba, there is no difference in Turiya!

Sudarshan
01 October 2006, 09:48 PM
Judas, a disciple from the innermost circle of Jesus, in spite of being with the divine lost the hand of grace. It was not that grace wasn’t seeking him but he was leading himself far away from grace. Jesus never violated Judas’s free will. Again, Judas failed to make that initial turn.


That depends on how you interpret the character named Judas.
Gnostic Christianity sees Judas as a spiritual leap, and as a victory over carnal forces.
The Gospel of Judas says that It was Jesus who asked Judas to betray him, so that mankind could be saved, and if this is right then Judas did a very noble act.

Your assessment of Judas in the way you have mentioned actually questions the very foundations of Christianity. If Jesus did not intervene even to save one of his own disciples, and allowed them to go down the drain, then who can place their trust in Jesus?

The freewill thing is addressed only by Hinduism, and not by Christianity. You might make yourself humble before God and seek his grace, but the freewill will interfere with this every moment. Every circumstance in your life dictate terms to you. You might behave child like at times, only to fall to the snares of materiallsm a minute later. Judas episode more than anything proves that God does not interfere with the freewill of the soul. Just seeking the hand of grace, is hardly sufficient, unless the hand is held constantly until death. If a disciple of Jesus could not do it, then how many can? History demonstrated that most Christians cant.

Knowing very well about human nature and its inherent tendency to fall to the snares of the world, Hinduism suggests many mandatory and optional disciplines so that the child like nature may be maintained. The root cause of this problem is not the actions, but our mind. If you can find a way to regulate this mind, that will reflect in your actions. If mind can be made equipoised and focussed, all pitfalls relating to freewill can be avoided. If mind is balanced, then circumstances in life can no longer control your actions. If gold does not entice your mind, Judas would never have betrayed Jesus for those thirty pieces of silver. Judas problem was trusting in Jesus without trying to control his mind that was still vulnerable to greed. Did beleif in Jesus prevent his mind from getting carried away by greed? No.

That is what Hinduism addressed. The cause of evil are the thoughts that arise in mind. If you could find a way to arrest these thoughts, and concentrate them on God, you can never get carried away by freewill. One could achieve this by systematic meditation. One could acheive this by constantly engaging in devotional worship and so on. Just grabbing the hand of grace is not enough - it needs to be supported by a constant effort to quieten the mind, and make it balanced and not led away by wordly charms. As Jesus has shown himself, he does not care to save even his trusted disciples who get carried away by such evil tendencies. The guru can only give advice and teaching - we have a significant role in our own salvation. There is a stage beyond which guru will do everyting, but you have to qualify for that by commitment.

The days that Judas remained with Jesus faithfully could never go waste, just because he betrayed him. Whatever good deeds and sincerity has been displayed in the past will have their fruits. God never deserts his devotees. If you have spent some effort in God realization, and then forget about it and get carried away, it does not negate your earlier practice. Sin has its punishment, but it cannot stand in the way of further progress nor can it cancel the many hours you have worshipped God in the past. If Christianity claims that Judas went to hell, it is an absurd claim and proves that Jesus was very mean, who forgets whatever good was done, just for one mistake.

sarabhanga
02 October 2006, 03:00 AM
Namaste,



"Behold the Man whose name is the Branch" ~ and behold the Rudra whose name is Sthanu !

The "Passion of Christ Jesus" is simply derived from the tapas kRSTeSu, and the kRSTayas have long praised agni (and thus also the rudra sthANu) as rAjA kRSTInAm.

And when it is also understood that Judas and Jesus are one and the same, the Christian story makes a lot more sense! ;)

Sudarshan
02 October 2006, 07:07 AM
There was a famous Tamil Novelist named vaduvUr Duraiswamy Iyengar, who published a very voluminous work proving that all these religions were "ill copied" versions of vedic dharma. What arrogance these people must have to resell it to Hindus as the "absolute truth"?

He was the guru of the famous Tamil writer kothanAyaki. When he released his work during the British rule, the missioniares were alarmed at the depth in his works, and they succeeded in banning the sale of this book. He was a rich zamIndAr, who still went against the ban and succeeded in distributing a few copies, before they caught and persecuted him, and snatched away all his wealth. He died a life of immense poverty - his only "sin" was he expressed his freedom of speech, which the missionaries could not tolerate. Duraiswamy Iyengar was a scholar in several languages and knew Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew and hence there was enormous depth in his works. I have never seen this book - and my many attempts to locate this book did not suceed. Most people do not even know that Duraiswamy Iyengar wrote this work ( he is famous as a novelist) because he was brutally supressed like Galileo.

atanu
03 October 2006, 11:36 AM
Hmmmmm!!!
Let me try one last time. You mentioned that ego cannot be overcome without knowing it. Who is the knower in that instant?
If you are claiming that ego is trying to know itself then you truly are going in a circle like a dog chasing its own tail.
On the other hand, if you are claiming that the “higher self” knows the ego then question I am asking is how did this ego become the “higher self”.

This question has been our subject of discussion all along!!!!

Blessings,


Exactly. This question has been begging attention. And it was cleared away but you have brought it back several times, as if in sleep walking. I doubt that you are reading anything?

Question: Who is the knower in that instant?

Answer: Who is the knower in this instant? Why, leaving this instant you are jumping to that instant? Know the knower now and your stupidity will vanish. Do you think that you are an intelligent being? You are deluding yourself. You are just like a radio -- a voice seems to sing inside but there is no being inside. Find the knower right away and not at that time.

Question: If you are claiming that ego is trying to know itself then you truly are going in a circle like a dog chasing its own tail.

Answer: I have done it and found no tail. I request you to do it once and see.

Ego has no power and does not do anything. It is Karma and God's will that does everything. But an ignorance exists that "I am something -- a big intellectual called Nirotu and I have to spread holy thoughts to people. Absolutely,I must do this. What I think holy is absolutely holy". This is your way of spinning like a dog trying to get hold of the tail. I did it some time back dear and do not do it now. You are in it even now and will continue till you realise that you are a cipher.

And my ego continues like this: "I have to realize the Self". This is ignorance. Self is always realized. Had it not been, then I would not be aware of the I. The only hindrance is a wrong sense of I. It is called granthi -- a noose. In practical terms it amouts to equating oneself to Prana (Vayu) or even worse to the flesh.


Question: On the other hand, if you are claiming that the “higher self” knows the ego then question I am asking is how did this ego become the “higher self”.

Answer: The one ego that is true is AHAM cry of the Self. Ego is an awareness of "I" of Brahman. Ego is not a being but simply a notion and a notion does not become the higher Self. In fact nothing becomes higher Self, which is always there unchanging. If something was to become higher Self today then surely that is not the Higher Self.

Turiya is unchanging.

Your ego is the notion: "I am something -- a big intellectual called Nirotu and I have to spread holy thoughts to people. Absolutely, I must do this. What I think holy is absolutely holy. I must teach Christ and Dvaita to people. Else all are doomed."


Who are you? Remember yourself as a sperm? And on a bit more contemplation you will find that you were a desire which got a sperm as a body. And then the sperm grew. And where was this desire existing? No.No. You must enquire yourself.

You do not exist as you believe yourself to exist -- as a discrete particulate being. Believing this particulate being to be of some importance, as if it has independent intelligence is the ignorance. The simple truth is that the being you believe yourself to be has no intelligence. It is dead. That is why Lord says in Gita: Forgetfullness is death. But forgetfullness can be overcome after the death only. One has to be born twice in this life alone.

nirotu
03 October 2006, 04:18 PM
I have done it and found no tail. I request you to do it once and see.

Stop right here and focus on the statement!! In this statement you are admitting yourself that you made that shift. If you are truly honest to yourself, you will admit that a shift has occurred in you from state “A” to a state “B”. That shift is what I have been addressing all along and emphasizing the role of grace in that transition.

What I call that “a leap” cannot be done without turning to grace. You may have been able to achieve that but still are not admitting role of grace in that initial event that transformed you to a new state.

While I do not deny all yogic practices that exist to make this shift, those who succeeded will tell you their experience of initial turn to grace and it’s role in their continued journey.

We are obviously addressing different parts of the elephant and not the whole elephant. While our discussions are very interesting, they are leading us nowhere. The missing link in all these is the common perspective, which I had addressed several posts ago, for us to define.

Once again I request that if you want to continue with illuminating exchange we should decide on a single topic then we can go deep into it. Otherwise, it seems like a futile chase!!



Who is the knower in this instant? Why, leaving this instant you are jumping to that instant? Know the knower now and your stupidity will vanish. Do you think that you are an intelligent being? You are deluding yourself. You are just like a radio -- a voice seems to sing inside but there is no being inside. Find the knower right away and not at that time.

If any of us right “this instant” knew the knower, it would be the end of our quest and such a being could then be equated with Ramana Maharishi. Let us be little cautious of trivializing the actual journey. There is quite a distance between “this” instant and “that instant” and I guess judging from our responses to each other, we all have a long way to go! Again my point is to make "distant instance" to "present" requires the presence, acceptance and humility in holding the hand of grace.

If any of us is in a state on knowing the knower, we would not be going in a circle. We would be exhibiting higher power of illumination. The hallmark of something coming from the higher-self is its ability to illuminate the listener. Obviously, this is not happening here.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
03 October 2006, 04:47 PM
To be fair, I have to give this point to Nirotu, and Atanu seems to oversimplify things by skipping the actual transition from the lower to the higher ego. We do have a material ego we cant deny until the very end point of the journey, and grace is the chief driver of this material ego towards the spiritual ego. My objections to Nirotu are due to the fact that he denies the role of the devotee in this process, but I am all with him when he says that grace operates throughout the journey.

There is absolutely no point in asking who is the knower. Atanu himself knows himself only as Atanu, the body, who types on the keyboard with the help of his mind. Until someone has transcended this material ego completely, it makes no meaning to associate oneself with spiritual ego and deny the perceptional evidence. Follow any means to shift from the lower ego to the higher ego, but dont deny the material ego until you have transcended it - you can never make that transition without the grace of God, which Nirotu is so explicit about.:)

Znanna
03 October 2006, 07:57 PM
In quantum theory, the act of observation changes the observed phenomenon.

"Knowing the knower" in this context seems to me an oxymoron. It is only the reflection of the knower which can be "known", however in my opinion, the experience (as opposed to the knowing so to speak) can be direct.



Znanna
/on topic, hehe

atanu
04 October 2006, 12:28 AM
Stop right here and focus on the statement!! In this statement you are admitting yourself that you made that shift. If you are truly honest to yourself, you will admit that a shift has occurred in you from state “A” to a state “B”. That shift is what I have been addressing all along and emphasizing the role of grace in that transition.



Well. You must be joking. I have always maintained that grace is always there else I would not be aware in the first place. On the contrary I am saying that ego has no role since it has no truth.

The shift has occured in the notion existing in the consciousness and not in me. Like a person who knows the truth of unreality of a mirage will still see the mirage but will not be fooled by the illusion, the knowledge of absence of a physical ego, clears the notions.

Brahman is ALL. Ego -- that "I exist as an individual or I am a soul" is not true.





If any of us right “this instant” knew the knower, it would be the end of our quest and such a being could then be equated with Ramana Maharishi.
Blessings,



So? Does this constitute a reason not to involute and enquire? What you say impels me to renew my efforts. That is a support.

It has been said above that a journey starts with a single step. All that you say is acceptable from the word go, since you said nothing new. I have not denied anything. But you are still not complete and what you say is cliche. It is easy to say give up ego/surrender etc. But how? One has to take a step.

Take a step. Where is your ego? What Vedanta terms as Neti Neti is a step which grace will compel every one to start. Hindus who do not place faith on Neti-neti are under illusion.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
04 October 2006, 12:34 AM
To be fair, I have to give this point to Nirotu, and Atanu seems to oversimplify things by skipping the actual transition from the lower to the higher ego. We do have a material ego we cant deny until the very end point of the journey, and grace is the chief driver of this material ego towards the spiritual ego. My objections to Nirotu are due to the fact that he denies the role of the devotee in this process, but I am all with him when he says that grace operates throughout the journey.

There is absolutely no point in asking who is the knower. Atanu himself knows himself only as Atanu, the body, who types on the keyboard with the help of his mind. Until someone has transcended this material ego completely, it makes no meaning to associate oneself with spiritual ego and deny the perceptional evidence. Follow any means to shift from the lower ego to the higher ego, but dont deny the material ego until you have transcended it - you can never make that transition without the grace of God, which Nirotu is so explicit about.:)

Well. This little trick of Nirotu was known to me and I had mentioned it earlier. When did I say that grace has no role at any stage? On the contrary what I say is just the reverse. Ego has no role. It is ignorance and it has to be uprooted. While ignorance lasts, it only obstructs. And for that purpose grace will impel the mind to examine what ego is. This is inevitable. Ego is known as Bhanda Asura (The Untrue Demon).When Rig Veda says "Rudra the destroyer of heroes and benefactor of man" it only means that. Bhandasura will be destroyed anyway-- holding on to it will be painful.


I have not denied the stepwise transition etc. What we are discussing here is Nirotu's insistence that Neti-Neti of Vedanta has no value compared to his vague instructions.

When Brahman alone is all this, then where is the physical ego? The physical ego is also Brahman -- albiet a form of Brahman. And you are absolutely incorrect that Atanu knows himself as Atanu only. How can you speak for a consciousness which is not in your plane? Atanu -- the limited consciousness knows very well that Self alone is Pragnya, the Taijjassa and vaisvanara. The Self alone experiences.





Follow any means to shift from the lower ego to the higher ego, but dont deny the material ego until you have transcended it


How you differ from Nirotu?Accepting the physical ego as truth, even when knowing that Brahman is all these? Well. Whatever, consciousness accepts as truth becomes the manifested truth in that plane of consciousness -- which is chintamani. You never can evolve out of ego trap with this fixed notion. And there would be no value of Brihadarayanaka Upanishad's dictum that: Knowing this meditate.


One can avoid being trapped in a mirage if one knows the reality, though He may still see the mirage. Brahman is ONE and Sarva is that knowledge, which keeps one free of samsara even while one acts in it.

Om

atanu
04 October 2006, 12:48 AM
In quantum theory, the act of observation changes the observed phenomenon.

"Knowing the knower" in this context seems to me an oxymoron. It is only the reflection of the knower which can be "known", however in my opinion, the experience (as opposed to the knowing so to speak) can be direct.

Znanna
/on topic, hehe


I have always placed high value on your crisp statements. Yes, the knower is known in identity alone -- and then it does not remain knowing. It is BEING. You say "it is only the reflection of the knower that can be known". Even that leaves a knower as the reality. Whose reflection it is? It is reflection of the knower only. The knower remains through all stages -- whether the state is of waking, dreaming, sleeping or Turiya. The knowing/knower/the knowledge are the trinity as concept but it is ONE. It is the knowing itself.


Saying "To BE THAT" is dangerous though; one may be persecuted like Christ was in a lower plane of consciousness. In lower plane of consciousness "To Be that" is perceived as a claim of being God. I just take this opportuninity to state that devoid of desire and devoid of a personal localised "I", one is absolutely powerless. Power has no meaning in that plane.


Mata Durge Namah.

atanu
04 October 2006, 01:43 AM
In quantum theory, the act of observation changes the observed phenomenon.

----
Znanna
/on topic, hehe


Dear ZNN,

This used to be a pet theme with me. You know Einstein and Bohr had long debates on the subject? Einstein came out with a virtual experiment which is known as EPR paradox. EPR paradox confounded the world and still it does. I have always felt that Bohr was correct from the perspective of a sensual experiencer. Einstein was correct from the perspective of the experience itself -- from the central point.


True, investment of energy to try to know the truth alters the state itself.


That is why it is said: The Seer himself is the truth.
That is why it is also said: In silence of mind and body the Seer is known.


Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
04 October 2006, 10:18 AM
Well. This little trick of Nirotu was known to me and I had mentioned it earlier. When did I say that grace has no role at any stage? On the contrary what I say is just the reverse. Ego has no role. It is ignorance and it has to be uprooted. While ignorance lasts, it only obstructs. And for that purpose grace will impel the mind to examine what ego is. This is inevitable. Ego is known as Bhanda Asura (The Untrue Demon).When Rig Veda says "Rudra the destroyer of heroes and benefactor of man" it only means that. Bhandasura will be destroyed anyway-- holding on to it will be painful.



That is your theory - with not much practical value. You, as Atanu is still with a body and a mind, which you still consider as Atanu. This body and mind are the vehicle to the higher ego, called the intellect, which is the vehicle to the Purusha. Can you deny this? How could you skip several steps and claim to abandon material ego in total? Looks like dogma to me.



I have not denied the stepwise transition etc. What we are discussing here is Nirotu's insistence that Neti-Neti of Vedanta has no value compared to his vague instructions.


Nor do I think so...it is a misinterpretation of the context. To say that Brahman is not this, not this, you need to know "this" first. Let us say that you want to deny the material reality of tanmAtras, but rather know them as Brahman. How will you do that without even knowing what the tanmAtra is? You are putting the horse before the cart.




When Brahman alone is all this, then where is the physical ego? The physical ego is also Brahman -- albiet a form of Brahman. And you are absolutely incorrect that Atanu knows himself as Atanu only. How can you speak for a consciousness which is not in your plane? Atanu -- the limited consciousness knows very well that Self alone is Pragnya, the Taijjassa and vaisvanara. The Self alone experiences.


Speak from what you know already. No point in using theory.




How you differ from Nirotu?Accepting the physical ego as truth, even when knowing that Brahman is all these? Well. Whatever, consciousness accepts as truth becomes the manifested truth in that plane of consciousness -- which is chintamani. You never can evolve out of ego trap with this fixed notion. And there would be no value of Brihadarayanaka Upanishad's dictum that: Knowing this meditate.


With the grace of God, you cant know, eh? To those who live in the constant thought of God, in any form, the material ego is destroyed directly by God. This is the pitfall of your idea which fails to recognize such a simple concept.

Even if you following the path of Yoga - there is a need to go through a series of stages like savitarka, nirvitarka, savicara, nirvicara, and then upto the root Prakriti. I do not even know what you claim by "ego trap". Basically, in Yoga, the meditation is performed on the deepest tattvam that you have attained, and to involve it into its "originating" tattvam. The material ego always takes the form of the object under meditation during the process of samyama. Samyama on Atma is not possible until you have completely knowledge of Prakriti. How would you deny your mind without knowing what the mind is? How would you deny the elements without knowing what they are? How do you deny the intellect without knowing what it is?

Most of us know we are not the body. But most of us cannot deny that the source of "I" is the mind. Whatever we do, should be logically on this "I", and try to master it, before you can go further up. Doing otherwise would be a kid directly enrolling in the graduate class.

nirotu
04 October 2006, 02:00 PM
To be fair, I have to give this point to Nirotu, and Atanu seems to oversimplify things by skipping the actual transition from the lower to the higher ego. We do have a material ego we cant deny until the very end point of the journey, and grace is the chief driver of this material ego towards the spiritual ego. My objections to Nirotu are due to the fact that he denies the role of the devotee in this process, but I am all with him when he says that grace operates throughout the journey.

There is absolutely no point in asking who is the knower. Atanu himself knows himself only as Atanu, the body, who types on the keyboard with the help of his mind. Until someone has transcended this material ego completely, it makes no meaning to associate oneself with spiritual ego and deny the perceptional evidence. Follow any means to shift from the lower ego to the higher ego, but dont deny the material ego until you have transcended it - you can never make that transition without the grace of God, which Nirotu is so explicit about.
Sudarshan, I am happy that my response makes sense to you. You have clarified it well. However, I would like to emphasize, while I have been explicit about the role of the grace, I have not by-passed the role of a devotee or a person involved. In fact, it is the person’s free-will choice that is the starting point. That starting point, child like recognition of grace, turning away from material world and crying out to grace is what makes or breaks path, which was not recognized earlier in our discussion.

All steps – Bhakti, Yoga, Devotion, Jnana and purification will spontaneously flow “with and through” the hand of grace. While Atanu is correct in theoretical sense, he seems to turn blind eye to the harsh practical reality of the material-ego. Atanu has to know, knowing it in theory and, at the same time, living in this present condition does not make ego vanish as unreal.

I am glad that you agree with the practical nature of journey.

Blessings,

nirotu
04 October 2006, 02:08 PM
Well. You must be joking. I have always maintained that grace is always there else I would not be aware in the first place. On the contrary I am saying that ego has no role since it has no truth.

Atanu, I am beginning to wonder about you. Nobody denies the fact that in your current position you never denied the presence of grace. As for your response so far, I have maintained what you say is “truth” in the ultimate sense. The unreality of ego is true only in that ultimate realm. But, are we there yet? Unfortunately, you seem to be always talking from that realm by-passing all steps in between including the starting point.

While ego has no ultimate reality, but one cannot deny, it can impinge a powerful “waking state” reality for us now. In creation, we do experience “I” as real, while it may be all unreal in the ultimate sense. Let’s face it, it is all a theory and knowing in theory does not make ego vanish. This practicality is what is reflected in Sudarshan’s response. Therefore, I keep emphasizing the word “practically speaking” and the need of that starting point.

A simple analogy I can provide here is where you can have a complete knowledge of your car’s operation (how to start engine, rev up engine, put in gear and drive etc,). If you sit in your living room and think of all these, will it get you anywhere? Until you practically get into the car turn the ignition (starting point) and burns the fuel (will be provided from grace), the car will not be on its way. Otherwise, the car will be simply sitting in the garage collecting dust while, in side the house you will be sitting with complete knowledge of its operation. Will it serve any purpose for you?

That is exactly what Sudarshan is saying! Do not bypass the starting and middle steps and expect to reach the destination. I feel, Sudarshan is touching and seeing the same part of the elephant as I am and that is why he is able to see my point.

Atanu, my dear friend, you have such a good grasp of the “what” and the “why”, but if you can tie it together with the “how” then we have “Atanu Maharishi” in the making.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
04 October 2006, 03:21 PM
I am glad that you agree with the practical nature of journey.


I did not find any problems even with Shankara's teachings in this regard. For the "neti neti" path of Jnana Yoga, Sri Shankara's Brahmasutra Bhaashya puts forward the following prerequisites.

1. Discrimination between the eternal and the perishable.
2. Mind control and sense control.
3. Desirelessness of the fruit of actions.
4. Desiring for liberation

So people who talk about the path of negation must atleast fulfil these conditions, and then commence the study and practice of vedanta.

1) and 4) are prerequisites for any religion, but 2) and 3) cannot be be prerequisites. Mind control and sense control come from either former practice of Karma Yoga or Bhakti, and 3) comes from former practice of Karma Yoga.

The best way to follow in my opinion is to develop the tendency to yearn and cry for God by whatsoever means. "Waiting upon the Lord" is also a valid path recognized in the nine ways of attaining Lord Vishnu.

shravanam - constantly hearing about stories and glories of God, which keeps the mind focussed
kirtanam - constantly singing the glories of God.
smaranam - constant remembrance of God throughout the day.
pada-sevanam - serving the cause of God.
arcanam - worshipping God with flowers and other means
vandanam - prayers to God
dasyam - surrender the being to God
sakhyam - feeling close association with God
atma-nivedanam - self surrender, or the practice of meditation on the indwelling Lord.

All of these are considered to have the same potency and meant for people for different temperaments. All these modes of worship involve a false ego that yearns for God, and from that point it is left to God to lead the soul to liberation. Calling these as acts of ignorance is a colossal ignorance. The premises always from dualty, which we see right now, and we can find out later where the journey will end at - whether it remains dualstic, or qualified monistic or monistic - but the way of attainment in the early stages are identical.

atanu
04 October 2006, 11:26 PM
------
All steps – Bhakti, Yoga, Devotion, Jnana and purification will spontaneously flow “with and through” the hand of grace. While Atanu is correct in theoretical sense, he seems to turn blind eye to the harsh practical reality of the material-ego. Atanu has to know, knowing it in theory and, at the same time, living in this present condition does not make ego vanish as unreal.

I am glad that you agree with the practical nature of journey.

Blessings,

He He. To borrow a term: YMMV.

It is not by one's sweet choice that one begins a spiritual journey. It is always when the so-called real material ego gets thrashed then only one looks for grace and finds it within finally.

Your prescription of sweet submission is a fake. Only wise can do it as Lord Krishna has expounded four kinds of devotees.

Only the wise can submit sweetly. All others do it on their knees.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
05 October 2006, 12:12 AM
Atanu, I am beginning to wonder about you. ----Unfortunately, you seem to be always talking from that realm by-passing all steps in between including the starting point.


Dear Nirotu I will not mince words. I have wondered about you all through. I have wondered at your subtle smooth polished way. And I had mentioned it earlier.


I have not discounted the steps. Repeatedly I have said that. Your jumping to conclusion that I recommend by-passing the initial steps, is your fantasy alone. Suarshan supports you since He is an exoteric god lover as of date. What I am saying is that without wisdom one does not submit of one's sweet will. Rudra makes such people bow down.

And on this thread I am not talking to general public on a general path. I am talking to Nirotu who has said that "Turiya is the final aim of all". Such a person should know what is Self, as Turiya is the Self.

Why you are again and again coming snooping to the same issue is, however, not beyond me. This is the way of missionary. Be sweet. Look for poverty. And strike. It is not love of god. It is love of power and influence.

And finally, I am not here to prescribe paths. I am here to help myself alone. Gita is there as the full prescription. Wherein Lord says: self has to lift the self. Meditation has been prescribed. We have been talking about this Jnana aspect which is lacking in Christianity (or it is suppressed).

Not as a prescription but as a goodwill I suggest that please come down from your high pedestal and look for what you are missing and desist from looking into what others are missing.




------. Let’s face it, it is all a theory and knowing in theory does not make ego vanish. This practicality is what is reflected in Sudarshan’s response. Therefore, I keep emphasizing the word “practically speaking” and the need of that starting point.



he he. This is what is amazing about you. You are most subtle. How nicely and how calmly you negate the jnana of Vedanta as theoretical. Actually some people here do not catch your subtle ways.


For that matter The Bible is also theoretical. What you preach is still more theoretical and impractical also since you are not holding the hand of god and you will never hold his hand. Whereas most of us know what Keno Upanishad teaches us: the One by whom the mind is thought is That. God is the "I" within. It is most practical and direct.






Atanu, my dear friend, you have such a good grasp of the “what” and the “why”, but if you can tie it together with the “how” then we have “Atanu Maharishi” in the making.

Blessings,


Nirotu, if you are so sure of this prescription then why do you not become Saint Nirotu or Maharshi Norotu? You bother about others tooooooooooo much. Bother about your self. The love that is God is in the self.


And I have asked "how" right from the beginning. I asked you how will you propose to hold god's hand, which you prescribe to others? And I asked whether you are holding his hand or not?

Saint Nirotu can't get me love (god), since he does not have it. High time I be content with your blessings and get out for safety of myself. he he.


Om Namh Shivayya

atanu
05 October 2006, 12:19 AM
I did not find any problems even with Shankara's teachings in this regard. For the "neti neti" path of Jnana Yoga, Sri Shankara's Brahmasutra Bhaashya puts forward the following prerequisites.

1. Discrimination between the eternal and the perishable.
2. Mind control and sense control.
3. Desirelessness of the fruit of actions.
4. Desiring for liberation

So people who talk about the path of negation must atleast fulfil these conditions, and then commence the study and practice of vedanta.




Dear Sudarshan,

Do you discriminate yourself? The first on the list is discrimination between what is eternal and what is perishable. Does this discrimination come without neti neti/vichara/enquiry/meditation on scripture?



The discrimination is the beginning for wisdom. In all other paths one will be forced to discriminate painfully.


I rest my case.

atanu
05 October 2006, 12:35 AM
-------

The best way to follow in my opinion is to develop the tendency to yearn and cry for God by whatsoever means. "Waiting upon the Lord" is also a valid path recognized in the nine ways of attaining Lord Vishnu.

shravanam - constantly hearing about stories and glories of God, which keeps the mind focussed
kirtanam - constantly singing the glories of God.
smaranam - constant remembrance of God throughout the day.
pada-sevanam - serving the cause of God.
arcanam - worshipping God with flowers and other means
vandanam - prayers to God
dasyam - surrender the being to God
sakhyam - feeling close association with God
atma-nivedanam - self surrender, or the practice of meditation on the indwelling Lord.




And in Bhakti also, Surrender can only come near the end (dasyam and atma-nivedam). Whereas our dear freind Nirotu says surrender sweetly right in the beginning. As if he could do it. he he (I have picked up a bad habit from a girl). And may I ask why one should constantly hear of Lord, think of Lord and etc., if one is not forced down on the knees or if one is not wise?

Discrimination of the eternal from the transient can only bring in wisdom. Lord Krishna has said: Among the devotees the wise are dear to me. Lord Krishna has also said: self has to lift the self.


Om

Sudarshan
05 October 2006, 03:03 AM
Dear Sudarshan,

Do you discriminate yourself? The first on the list is discrimination between what is eternal and what is perishable. Does this discrimination come without neti neti/vichara/enquiry/meditation on scripture?



The discrimination is the beginning for wisdom. In all other paths one will be forced to discriminate painfully.


I rest my case.

Yes, I discriminate between the self luminous soul ( eternal) and the perishable components of Prakriti. You are under the wrong impression that non Advaitins dont discriminate between Prakriti and Atman? But you have been "misled" by a theory that states that Brahman is in ignorance.;)

The Purusha is imperishable, and is the individual soul. The paramAtman is another eternal entity greater than all Purushas, and called the Purushottama.(15.18) Are you Purusha or the Purushottama? If you are the Purushottama, then how have you landed in this samsAra, regardless of the cause?

You need to discriminate between eternal and the perishable, and also between practical reality and mere theoretical reality. A beleif in God is a sufficient condition to hold that people discriminate between eternal and perishable things.

Sudarshan
05 October 2006, 03:27 AM
And in Bhakti also, Surrender can only come near the end (dasyam and atma-nivedam). Whereas our dear freind Nirotu says surrender sweetly right in the beginning. As if he could do it. he he (I have picked up a bad habit from a girl). And may I ask why one should constantly hear of Lord, think of Lord and etc., if one is not forced down on the knees or if one is not wise?

Discrimination of the eternal from the transient can only bring in wisdom. Lord Krishna has said: Among the devotees the wise are dear to me. Lord Krishna has also said: self has to lift the self.


Om

You might learn a lot. Some people here frequently refer to "inner" meanings in scriptures. Some others always talk from the plane of the Shivodvatam, without regards to context and practical reality. What is this knowledge based on? Just reading of books, and how have you called that as wisdom? Is it due to factual realization that you beleive in what you write?

On the other hand, true wisdom is intutive and inborn, and perhaps a result of many incarnations of leading pure lives( and must have lived in accordance with scripture), and the grace of God. This intutive wisdom does not require any knowledge from books. To people like you, a person hearing of the glories of God and mythological stories might appear to be of lesser intelligence( or forced to hear as you have indicated). But those people who shed tears of ecstacy on hearing such stories, are infact infinitely more wise than the bookish people. No amount of learning is going to assist in inheriting this wisdom. It is truly a gift of God.

Both dAsyam and Atma-nivedanam imply that you differentiate yourself from a higher principle, and submit to it to unveil the mAyA that has covered you. The idea should be to try to do it from the beginning.( Note the word "try") This is what nirotu is saying, though I dont agree with him in many points. From your views, it appears that these two appear only at the end, and do not exist( even in part) in the beginning? Dont you consider yourself a dAsa( or atleast pretend to be one!) to your guru, even while you are still trying to find that high plane? No one is a dAsa in mukti, because it is beyond bondage. It exists only in samsAra, and at every level before the final wisdom and liberation dawns.

Sudarshan
05 October 2006, 04:35 AM
A question to Atanu: Do you beleive that the following people are in the mode of ignorance? From what you have mentioned here those who dont follow your way of "self enquiry" are in the mode of ignorance.

shravanam - constantly hearing about stories and glories of God, which keeps the mind focussed
kirtanam - constantly singing the glories of God.
smaranam - constant remembrance of God throughout the day.
pada-sevanam - serving the cause of God.
arcanam - worshipping God with flowers and other means
vandanam - prayers to God
dasyam - surrender the being to God
sakhyam - feeling close association with God
atma-nivedanam - self surrender, or the practice of meditation on the indwelling Lord.

Most of people who do these will perhaps not beleive in your version of "truth". Doing any of these activities could be associated with your truth. So are these people ignorant and are heading nowhere?

satay
05 October 2006, 10:55 AM
namaste,
I haven't read all the posts but I feel the gears here are shifting again to the wrong focal point.

Let's keep it focused on answering those who are not in the dharmic fold. The internal advaita/dvaita discussion can go on to other forums.

atanu
05 October 2006, 01:11 PM
--- to Atanu: Do you beleive that the following people are in the mode of ignorance? From what you have mentioned here those who dont follow your way of "self enquiry" are in the mode of ignorance.




You might learn a lot. Some people here frequently refer to "inner" meanings in scriptures. Some others always talk from the plane of the Shivodvatam, without regards to context and practical reality.




Are you Purusha or the Purushottama? If you are the Purushottama, then how have you landed in this samsAra, regardless of the cause?


Oh My Lord. Where the bile rises from and why?

First, I do not have any interest to argue with you as to whether enquiry is my way or whether enquiry is prescribed by Vedanta.

WRT to Jnana path, I only showed (from your citation) that Vichara/enquiry is the beginning in this path. Possibly, my showing you wrong from your own citation made you angry.




I did not find any problems even with Shankara's teachings in this regard. For the "neti neti" path of Jnana Yoga, Sri Shankara's Brahmasutra Bhaashya puts forward the following prerequisites.

1. Discrimination between the eternal and the perishable.
2. Mind control and sense control.
3. Desirelessness of the fruit of actions.
4. Desiring for liberation

So people who talk about the path of negation must atleast fulfil these conditions, and then commence the study and practice of vedanta.




With respect to the Bhakti path (quoted below) I said: Why should one do constant kirtan/smaranam etc.., if either one is not wise or if one is not forced on one's knees? The implication is that those who are true bhaktas have already done the enquiry part or some of them have been forced by the circumstances. I also said that Atma-Nivedan comes near the end. At least in your list it appears at the end.




And secondly, wrt to the following: shravanam - constantly hearing about stories and glories of God, which keeps the mind focussed
kirtanam - constantly singing the glories of God.
smaranam - constant remembrance of God throughout the day.
pada-sevanam - serving the cause of God.
arcanam - worshipping God with flowers and other means
vandanam - prayers to God
dasyam - surrender the being to God
sakhyam - feeling close association with God
atma-nivedanam - self surrender, or the practice of meditation on the indwelling Lord.



I have not said that people who follow Bhakti path are not wise. Neither was there any argument with You on Dvaita-Advaita. And neither do I wish to have any debate with you since a debate with you inevitably degrades to arguments and one sided hostile behaviour.

And I will fully avoid you hereafter.



You need to discriminate between eternal and the perishable, and also between practical reality and mere theoretical reality.
[\quote]

Yes. For that purpose only enquiry into the nature of the Self is prescribed in Vedanta and Brahma Sutras (Brahma Jigyasa is auspicious).

[quote=Sudarshan]
On the other hand, true wisdom is intutive and inborn, and perhaps a result of many incarnations of leading pure lives


Well, Well. Perhaps such only are equipped to become Dharma Guardians? hehe, as if Dharma needed a guardian. Ha Ha.




Yes, I discriminate between the self luminous soul ( eternal) and the perishable components of Prakriti. You are under the wrong impression that non Advaitins dont discriminate between Prakriti and Atman? But you have been "misled" by a theory that states that Brahman is in ignorance.;)



Oh Yes. Only non-advaitins distinguish between Prakriti and Atman. You are correct, without knowing.

Brahman in ignorance? Sudarshan, we have discussed this before. Brahman appears to be in ignorance from your view point only, an ignorant's view point. That is why it is asked who is saying that Brahman is ignorant? Is Brahman saying so?


Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
05 October 2006, 03:38 PM
Brahman in ignorance? Sudarshan, we have discussed this before. Brahman appears to be in ignorance from your view point only, an ignorant's view point. That is why it is asked who is saying that Brahman is ignorant? Is Brahman saying so?


Yeah, we have discussed before. Brahman appears to be in ignorance from an ignorant's view point. Good - so you accept that Brahman and the ignorant(me) are different, tf they were the same, then they would have identical perspectives.. :Cool: Rest of your post is the usual repetition and nothing new for me to address again, as you are not informed in what I beleive, and nor clear about your own position. So it ends here.

Getting back to the topic. Finally nirotu has conceded that Christianity is only the beginning of the spiritual journey, as he said:



Atanu, I am beginning to wonder about you. Nobody denies the fact that in your current position you never denied the presence of grace. As for your response so far, I have maintained what you say is “truth” in the ultimate sense. The unreality of ego is true only in that ultimate realm. But, are we there yet? Unfortunately, you seem to be always talking from that realm by-passing all steps in between including the starting point.


Thus, Christianity being a subset of Hindu Dharma is conclusively proved from nirotu's own words, as its scope lies within one specified area of the fictitious elephant that was discussed, and not the entire elephant..:Cool:

atanu
05 October 2006, 11:51 PM
Yeah, we have discussed before. Brahman appears to be in ignorance from an ignorant's view point. Good - so you accept that Brahman and the ignorant(me) are different, tf they were the same, then they would have identical perspectives.. :Cool: Rest of your post is the usual repetition and nothing new for me to address again, as you are not informed in what I beleive, and nor clear about your own position. So it ends here.



If you consider the ignorance as another true being apart from Brahman, then who is to be blamed?

That is why the initial step is to discriminate -- read, contemplate, meditate, enquire, re-meditate.


Have you heard: No one is ignorant and no one is seeking liberation? The noosed consciousness that has the name Sudarshan believes the sight of discrete particulate waking state and the particles in it as the reality. This is not even one foot of elephant perceived by the blind.

You simply have no chance of realising that the whole universe is subtle, non-physical spirit and not a conglomerate of hard objects as you are not inclined yet to meditate on your dream state, on your deep sleep state and on shivoadvaitam.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
06 October 2006, 12:20 AM
You might learn a lot. Some people here frequently refer to "inner" meanings in scriptures. Some others always talk from the plane of the Shivodvatam, without regards to context and practical reality.


Yes. I do wish to learn to unlearn.

Regarding Shivoadvaitam: Upanishads guide us that the Self has to be seen/known. In 13 th Chapter of Gita, Lord exhorts us that the 'neither being and nor non-being' Akshara Param Brahman should be known. The list can expand indefinitely.

So, if one strives to meditate on Self (constantly), then how he attracts your displeasure? Why are you bothered?

Regarding the inner meaning of scriptures: Those who have known and/or beleive the universe to be divine spirit are not bound by fleshy discrete interpretations. Those who see literal meanings cause hatred and wars. Just as physicist who does not know the wave nature of particles cannot be a physicist similarly one who does not know of spirit cannot be a spiritualist.






Are you Purusha or the Purushottama? If you are the Purushottama, then how have you landed in this samsAra, regardless of the cause?


I am just a small wave on a big limitless ocean. I know that the wave will break anytime and thus I do not want to forget that I am the water of ocean in reality. I do not want to forget even for a moment. That is why shivoadvaitam-shivoadvaitam.

I know that I exist as a plane of noosed limited consciousness (among millions and millions of such other noosed planes). In this limited consciousness, the Universe (the modification of consciousness) is unique and different from Sudarshan's plane.

However, all these planes are in the infinite untainted consciousness called shivoadvaitam -- in which the world disappears. My universe also disappears in THAT everyday: unconsciously in deep sleep and consciously during meditation. And when the I is not there how can one become Purusha or Purushottama?


On the other hand, You are also landed here. And you have assumed a title of Dharma Defender. Vishnu is Dharma. I do not believe that Dharma needs any defence. I also do not believe that without knowing the Self, one can be of any help to so-called other selves.

One cannot help oneself what of others?

YMMV.


Om Namah Shivayya.

Pray let this be the last in the haughty series.
Pray let this be the last in the haughty series.
Pray let this be the last in the haughty series.

Sudarshan
06 October 2006, 03:51 AM
If you consider the ignorance as another true being apart from Brahman, then who is to be blamed?


Brahman is to be blamed, because Brahman alone exists!

So you now require ignorance to be tied to the Brahman. That is fine with me. Is ignorance the svarUpa or dharma of Brahman?



That is why the initial step is to discriminate -- read, contemplate, meditate, enquire, re-meditate.


This is to people who dont already discriminate.

There are two ways described by the shAstras - one is the way of meditation and enquiry for one set of people. The other is seeking guidance from God directly. I beleive you have missed the second point, and have undermined God's omnipotence. You have ignored the second possibility in many respects - Firstly, you have not considered God's role is guiding you to a true guru , for those who worship him, which need not involve meditation, and secondly, God's own nature to remove one's ignorance. The meditation you are talking about will not no use without getting the necessary qualifications I listed above. For others it can be useful as an auxiliary discipline. See the problems arising out the belief that God is not personal in nature? Our concepts of God are not the same - according to me God is buzzing and lively and ever watching over his children, and willing to guide them. You think all the above proposition is a mithya and Brahman is beyond reach and must be attained through meditation alone.

AstAnga Yoga requires that you need to have the ability for pratyAhAra, in order to do useful meditation that can lead to God realization. How do you attain pratyAhAra? First seek that - Shankara's original teachings were aimed at people with such evolved faculties. That is why meditation as a serious way to realization cannot be a starting point. There are many steps leading to it, and if you reach there easily it means a good deal of work has been done in former births. The ability to discriminate is a God given gift. If it takes meditation to know that, most people in the world would be pure atheists.




Have you heard: No one is ignorant and no one is seeking liberation? The noosed consciousness that has the name Sudarshan believes the sight of discrete particulate waking state and the particles in it as the reality. This is not even one foot of elephant perceived by the blind.


Yes, I know these verses of Gaudapada, with no practical use. If no one is ignorant and no one is seeking liberation, why are preaching and teaching? Or even discussing about it? If you are just another ignorant particle, why should anyone listen to you? To hold that "no one is seeking liberation" is a self contradicting statement.



You simply have no chance of realising that the whole universe is subtle, non-physical spirit and not a conglomerate of hard objects as you are not inclined yet to meditate on your dream state, on your deep sleep state and on shivoadvaitam.

Om Namah Shivayya

Would have a better deal had you accepted the concept of Chitradvaita. Visistadvaiins dont preach that universe or God is to be realized in anyway related to the senses. It just shows your incorrect understanding. Read my earlier postings related to Bhakti Yoga.

Sudarshan
06 October 2006, 04:24 AM
Regarding Shivoadvaitam: Upanishads guide us that the Self has to be seen/known. In 13 th Chapter of Gita, Lord exhorts us that the 'neither being and nor non-being' Akshara Param Brahman should be known. The list can expand indefinitely.


Someone walked upto me and said that he cant speak. How would you interpret that? If the Lord comes and says I am "'neither being and nor non-being", then it means you need to understand accordingly.



So, if one strives to meditate on Self (constantly), then how he attracts your displeasure? Why are you bothered?


I am not bothered. To meditate on the Self, shouldn't you know the Self? Else it is just wishful thinking. It is as good as "void meditation" in the absence of such true knowledge. You can meditate only on gross objects like a mantrAkshara or an image, not any deeper.




Regarding the inner meaning of scriptures: Those who have known and/or beleive the universe to be divine spirit are not bound by fleshy discrete interpretations. Those who see literal meanings cause hatred and wars. Just as physicist who does not know the wave nature of particles cannot be a physicist similarly one who does not know of spirit cannot be a spiritualist.


What is the point of teaching inner meaning to people, who in your opinion are not even capable of understanding literal meanings and cause wars? Everyone is not a physicist. Not a villager, and nor a student enrolled in a physics class. They have different needs.





I am just a small wave on a big limitless ocean. I know that the wave will break anytime and thus I do not want to forget that I am the water of ocean in reality. I do not want to forget even for a moment. That is why shivoadvaitam-shivoadvaitam.

I know that I exist as a plane of noosed limited consciousness (among millions and millions of such other noosed planes). In this limited consciousness, the Universe (the modification of consciousness) is unique and different from Sudarshan's plane.

However, all these planes are in the infinite untainted consciousness called shivoadvaitam -- in which the world disappears. My universe also disappears in THAT everyday: unconsciously in deep sleep and consciously during meditation. And when the I is not there how can one become Purusha or Purushottama?


So you now saying that the universe disappears in deep sleep, it must disappear for God too? We beleive that God is omniscient and knows everything here and beyond. Something that is consciously created, maintained and destroyed by him should be known to him, how can it disappear? The existance of the world is independent of whether you cognize it or not. It always exists from the point of God.



On the other hand, You are also landed here. And you have assumed a title of Dharma Defender. Vishnu is Dharma. I do not believe that Dharma needs any defence. I also do not believe that without knowing the Self, one can be of any help to so-called other selves.


Yes, but I dont deny it. I dont say that there is nothing to be defended, because this is also REAL. If you dont think Dharma does not need any defence, then what is the need to argue with nirotu or skill? And you referred to him as a "cipher". Why did Shankaracharya and other people in the past do that, and the view is held as the "triumph" of Dharma. I dont think you wont mind the take over of Hinduism by Adharmic religions.

Other Hindus will not easily misled by such idealogies such as "Dharma needs no defence" and can be taken over by Adharmic forces. If that is what Hinduism has taught you, I feel sorry for you.



One cannot help oneself what of others?


Have you heard the saying? "God helps those who help others?". I doubt if your version of Shivodvaitam can do that.




Pray let this be the last in the haughty series.
Pray let this be the last in the haughty series.
Pray let this be the last in the haughty series.


Why do you worry friend, this is only mithya.;)

Not long ago you mentioned that everything is different only in vAk- you have forgotten so soon. I suppose that being haughty and humble are just differences of vAk and you should not be bothered by the illusory 'silly' Sudarshan.;)

atanu
06 October 2006, 06:44 AM
Someone walked upto me and said that he cant speak. How would you interpret that? If the Lord comes and says I am "'neither being and nor non-being", then it means you need to understand accordingly.



Then how did you know about "'neither being and nor non-being"? He is the Self. How do you know anything? By Him the mind is thought. You are just being disrespectful since Lord Krishna exhorts us to know That.



So you now saying that the universe disappears in deep sleep, it must disappear for God too? We beleive that God is omniscient and knows everything here and beyond. Something that is consciously created, maintained and destroyed by him should be known to him, how can it disappear? The existance of the world is independent of whether you cognize it or not. It always exists from the point of God.


Why do you bring in God? God does not come and say that I see the universe. He through you only views it. For me the universe truly disappears every night in deep sleep. If it exists for you yhen you are not sleeping. And that the Universe existed even during your sleep is asserted by the waking sudarshan. let Sudarshan assert in his deep sleep that this Universe exists.

The Universe that one sees is entirely associated with one's own Pragnya and has no way of another independent verification.

Else let the Universe come and say: I exist.



-----
---- That is why meditation as a serious way to realization cannot be a starting point. There are many steps leading to it, and if you reach there easily it means a good deal of work has been done in former births. -----.
.


This is what I had said.



That is why the initial step is to discriminate -- read, contemplate, meditate, enquire, re-meditate.


Did I say that one starts with meditation? Even this is prescription for the seekers on Jnana path not for all. Further, all these discussions were meant for debating a christian view which was belittling Jnana path with finnesse.

Since you are not truthful and distort statements wilfully, you are better avoided, not since all differences are not on account of Vak, but to keep my vak civil.

Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
06 October 2006, 08:41 AM
Then how did you know about "'neither being and nor non-being"? He is the Self. How do you know anything? By Him the mind is thought. You are just being disrespectful since Lord Krishna exhorts us to know That.


You did not understand what I said. The Lord who takes avatar and descends and talk to you cannot be a non being, unless you choose to ignore what he says.




Why do you bring in God? God does not come and say that I see the universe. He through you only views it. For me the universe truly disappears every night in deep sleep. If it exists for you yhen you are not sleeping. And that the Universe existed even during your sleep is asserted by the waking sudarshan. let Sudarshan assert in his deep sleep that this Universe exists.


If I setup a stopwatch before entering deep sleep, does it keep still while I am in deep sleep? That existance and ticking of the watch has nothing to do with your sleeping at all. If you enter deep sleep at 5:30, and in deep sleep for one hour, it will show 6:30 after you wake up. Dont you see the pitfalls in your reasoning?

Deep sleep is the most solid proof for the existance of the universe whether you observe it or not. The stop watch does not depend on your existance at all, nor time or anything else. It is just like a blind man or a man closing his eyes and denying the existance of vision.

God does say that he sees the universe unless you want to make the illogical claim that Krishna did not see the universe, while he was teaching Arjuna. Do you want to agree with this fact? Anyway, your POV has no meaning at all. Claiming that Jnanins dont seen Ajnanins but they teach Ajnanins would be self refutation of the doctrine.




The Universe that one sees is entirely associated with one's own Pragnya and has no way of another independent verification.

Else let the Universe come and say: I exist.


Your dogma. God does not say that he exists, so God does not exist too - good logic. Do you think you can use such logic anywhere? The thief did not tell me that he stole my car, therefore the thief does not exist, the thief did not do it etc. What about my friend who says "I exist"? Unlike the insentient universe, he does say that he (his "I") exists.




Did I say that one starts with meditation? Even this is prescription for the seekers on Jnana path not for all. Further, all these discussions were meant for debating a christian view which was belittling Jnana path with finnesse.


The Christian has ben refuted long ago. But you have not been fair in the assesment of many religions. He belitted with finnesse? You got that feeling? Naw, I did not see any such finesse anywhere. However, I had to agree with his views because they form a basis for a practical religion for the world we live in. The prerequsites for even learning advaita vedanta given by Adi Shankara was mentioned by me here, and will hardly be suitable for the masses. You did not comment on the conditions, except the first one. What about mind control, and the "desirelessness of fruits"? Jnana Yoga assumes a former practice of both Bhakti and Karma Yoga, according to Shankara, and the person has his passions subdued and has attained the state of vairAgya. Without meeting these conditions, they lead nowehere.

Those who are not steadfast in vairAgya cannot enter the portals of Jnana Yoga. That will be Jnana Yoga only in name. That is why they go to the extreme extent of denying everything, so that they may not get attached anywhere. If you still have attachment for any worldly thing, you could hardly suceed in this Yoga. Such vairAgya comes through some spiritual heights attained through Bhakti and Karma Yoga, and not by chance. Since Christianity does not admit the differences in the nature of different Yogas, such views are rejected by them.




Since you are not truthful and distort statements wilfully, you are better avoided, not since all differences are not on account of Vak, but to keep my vak civil.


Thanks for admitting this. So vAk is still meaningful.

nirotu
06 October 2006, 01:39 PM
Thus, Christianity being a subset of Hindu Dharma is conclusively proved from nirotu's own words, as its scope lies within one specified area of the fictitious elephant that was discussed, and not the entire elephant.

First, to paraphrase my earlier post, the practical aspect of the journey is the whole elephant. Second, it is human spiritual journey that is common denominator in all religions in that sense Christianity does not become a subset by any means.

I would like to restate that since my perspective and interest lies in the “practical aspects of journey”, that comprises the whole elephant. I am not interested in “what is” and “what is not” (neti-neti). As I explained to Atanu, I am only interested in making sure I have practically stepped into the car (turn to grace), turned the ignition (avail the power of grace) and making sure I can be on my way! With the hand of grace upon me I know the goal will be reached.

Of course the car can malfunction, can get stalled or get into an accident! I know I am able to handle the rigors of journey (trials in life) with the helping hand of grace.

This starting point or the initial event in our lives is the hardest and can get easily bypassed. Even to get to the point of discrimination (as Atanu describes – wisdom), we need to get into that starting plane first. As humans, we all have thoughts resulting into desires, which could be “good” or “evil”. Just when these thoughts arise, and if I am able to make that subtle initial turn to “good” then I have actually turned to God of grace. In my view, this is not steered by God but only by your free-will choice. God loves us all and wants all to make that choice, that which is “good”, without being coerced.

On the battle field, before Arjuna could see the grand vision of the Lord, it required him to turn to grace that opened his eyes to have that “Atma Gyan”. That subtle turn is what I call starting point. Arjuna could do that because he made the choice of surrendering to the higher-self first. In his suffering and despair that surrender to grace what made his inner eyes open. He bowed to Krishna saying “help me Lord, I am in despair”. Although Krishna was right next to Arjuana, it was necessary for Arjuna to bow down and turn to him. After all, why did Krishna not do the same to Duryodhana?

As for Atanu’s comments, with all due respects to his wisdom, I will once again emphasize that merely “knowing” or having “knowledge” of any level cannot dissolve “knot” of the ego matter based I-senses. It cannot just be wished away. It has to be cut asunder from the power of grace. Therefore, initial step is definitely needed.

Therefore, one is either enlightened or not enlightened as in a woman who is either pregnant or not. And therefore, when one is not enlightened, there is always that trace ego-I, which all of us are trying to get rid off. Regardless of the path one takes the starting point remains the same and that has been my point all along.


Why you are again and again coming snooping to the same issue is, however, not beyond me.

Well. This little trick of Nirotu was known to me and I had mentioned it earlier.

Dear Atanu, it never ceases to amaze me.

I have stressed this before and will restate it. I am not here to propagate any religion, Christian or Hindu. I have repeatedly said that in several posts earlier. I have been only interested in spiritual journey but from a “practical” perspective. Every religion has its own way of addressing the truth but knowing that is not my goal here. However, I do believe the practicality of the nature of journey remains the same regardless of truth.


Did I say that one starts with meditation? Even this is prescription for the seekers on Jnana path not for all. Further, all these discussions were meant for debating a christian view which was belittling Jnana path with finnesse.

The language of Unitive Mysticism of Shankara may appeal to some but it is not without its passionate longing and yearning to be one with Shankara’s version of truth. Practically it is difficult for man to grasp because of Shankara’s emphasis of intense meditation and knowledge of Shiva as an integral part of his teaching. As I had said in previous posts, there is no way a person can acquire full knowledge unless he is free of all defects. That begs the same question, if and when we ever will become perfect? One can only imagine the ordeal of the journey to perfection!

Again, I would like to state as to why I appear to be overemphasizing or even stuck at that initial level. The reason for that kind of focus has been because, given the harshness of the ego-I sense at the starting point on one hand and yet the simplicity of simple act on the other hand (turning to grace) makes for a potent combination. It’s the simplicity that is very elusive!

It is like having a strong combination lock and suddenly you know the combination that opens it. Wouldn’t that make the whole thing simpler then on?


This is the way of missionary. Be sweet. Look for poverty. And strike. It is not love of god. It is love of power and influence.I wish you did not make comments like these. It takes away the spirit of debate and injects an attitude of personal confrontation wherein ego completely dominates. To tell you the truth, I never knew about this forum until Satay requested me through a PM to join only to give Christian perspective. It is unfortunate that when I present views from Christ’s perspective (the way I understand) somehow its intent and person’s motives are viewed with a great suspicion.

BTW, I would also like to emphasize that it has been a coincidence that I have quoted Christ often. But, I have equally and strongly quoted Lord Rama, Krishna and Sages (Ramana, Ramanuja) as well. Many here are trying to provoke me and steer me into saying that can easily be construed as proselytizing. I have tried to avoid those posts and folks altogether.

I hope, by now, we all have grasped how difficult the “practical” nature of journey truly is. It is my desire that we can use this exchange more as a spiritual support group to help along the way. This is the only reason why I am investing my time and energy in this discussion.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
06 October 2006, 02:36 PM
Nirotu,

I posted earlier that every religion is required by man for obtaining his final quest because perfection involves Jnana, Bhakti, Prapatti,Karma etc. Since none of the religions address all of these together, we have to accept that the whole of the elephant is represented only by the collection of many beleifs. Hindu Dharma, being composed of so many varied beleifs could stake its claim to represent the full elephant. Christianity's domain is limited in that sense, and there is no use arguing that it leads to the full elephant etc on its own. No amount of convincing on your part is going to help, however it is recognized that you can't discount any - but to take one of them seriously in a particular birth. Didn't you see that even Hindus cant reconcile on this?

You said that:



Therefore, one is either enlightened or not enlightened as in a woman who is either pregnant or not. And therefore, when one is not enlightened, there is always that trace ego-I, which all of us are trying to get rid off. Regardless of the path one takes the starting point remains the same and that has been my point all along.


This is not quite true. Jnana is not an on/off switch from the perspective of many traditions. Bhakti Yoga, for eg, grades this into many levels. God is not an entity to be conceived in a moment - it is gradual, which starts from finite perception and finally becomes infinite. Please dont talk about the ego-I repeatedly. It is confusing the approach to religion in a natural way. Every one approaches religion with "I must realize God", "I must serve God", "I must realize my Self". "I must be humble before God" etc. There is no need to talk of the ego-I and introduce artificial constructs.


I think this thread is straying away and probably nirotu should open new threads for addressing specific issues. From what I see in this thread, the cause of disagreement is due to the very difference in the nature of the journey itself brought on by different Karmic seeds. It is the philosophical doctrine that dictates the nature of the journey far from the same way being suitable to all. My overall view is that nirotu's suggestions are true for many people, but not for all. The submissive ego that is being talked about might not appeal to all either, and such people might need a different direction to bring about the submissive ego. How could one start the journey as a child when one does not have child like qualities yet?

So there is a cyclic loop. It is better for everyone to choose a way that they like rather than follow specific established routes forced on you. If the mind does not cooperate in what you are doing, the religion begins to become a burden instead of being a guide.

If Christianity had been suitable to all, no one would be leaving it. Same is the case with every other way. Not one size fits all.

TruthSeeker
06 October 2006, 06:19 PM
Namaste nirotu,



First, to paraphrase my earlier post, the practical aspect of the journey is the whole elephant. Second, it is human spiritual journey that is common denominator in all religions in that sense Christianity does not become a subset by any means.


In the absence of Christianity placing any emphasis on jnAna mArga even for some people, it has to be dismissed as a subset only. I would expect some people to be Yogins for a religion to be called complete. I am afraid no political appeasement is possible in this regards. Does christianity ever talk about realizing God in a life time? I am afraid it is a big no.



I would like to restate that since my perspective and interest lies in the “practical aspects of journey”, that comprises the whole elephant. I am not interested in “what is” and “what is not” (neti-neti). As I explained to Atanu, I am only interested in making sure I have practically stepped into the car (turn to grace), turned the ignition (avail the power of grace) and making sure I can be on my way! With the hand of grace upon me I know the goal will be reached.


But you have stepped into one of the cars destined to carry you to a specific destination. All Hindus have stepped into similar or different cars and all of them hold the hand of grace. Your car will take you to Yama Loka or Brahma Loka depending on the driver's(you) performance. You are always missing the point. You cannot pretend to follow different religions, and claim that all of them take to the goal of other religions. The goals are reconciled only in Advaita, where these different cars transport you to different destinations within the phenomenal world. It is quite true that there are many heavens and even many states of moksha, and the goal of every religion is not the final one. Christianity is talking of just one of them. If a religion offers "easy tickets" it is more than likely to lead to a detination of non eternity. If you do not beleive in the law of Karma, then we have very little to argue from the point of practical religion, because we are already in different cars, with different operating mechanisms. Moksha is impossible without the meditations at some point you have widely criticized so far. You can optionally stay out of it for now -- until such times come.



Of course the car can malfunction, can get stalled or get into an accident! I know I am able to handle the rigors of journey (trials in life) with the helping hand of grace.
This starting point or the initial event in our lives is the hardest and can get easily bypassed. Even to get to the point of discrimination (as Atanu describes – wisdom), we need to get into that starting plane first. As humans, we all have thoughts resulting into desires, which could be “good” or “evil”. Just when these thoughts arise, and if I am able to make that subtle initial turn to “good” then I have actually turned to God of grace. In my view, this is not steered by God but only by your free-will choice. God loves us all and wants all to make that choice, that which is “good”, without being coerced.


The starting point is beleif a.k.a faith, and second is seeking humility. The third is called sAdhana, or practice. The sAdhana itself cannot be the same for everyone because we have different vAsanAs acquired from former births, and we are at different stages. Christianity's starting point is the same as Hinduism - faith and humility to the guru, and serving him.

However, our continued existance in samsAra requies us to free ourselves from the debt of sancita karma, without which rebirth is inevitable. God has no role in this process, but only as a witness and as a medium of removing obstacles. The way you remove this burden of Karma can be quite varied and might span many births once you have started some sAdhana. One can attain only a certain level of spiritual growth only to the extent allowed by the prArabdha karma and not any more. The only people who can go beyond this are people who can perform intense tapasya under the guidance of the guru, and access the seeds of Karma in the Pranjna layer.

Some traditions like Srivaishnavism recgonize that God can remove the Karma, and people like Sudarshan agreed with you because of that.( or perhaps to flatter you!) However, this is not a classical Hindu view, and most Hindu traditions reject the direct role of God in this process of removing Karma. The Karma has been acquired by you out of your own freewill and it is quite inappropriate for God to step in for you - that would be injustice done to another soul. Let us say you have stolen lots of money from another in a past birth. Could God forgive this offence just because you beleived
in the grace of God? No, that is illogical and is an act of injustice. True justice requires that God be impartial to everybody. A person called Jesus dying for man's sins would be a laughable concept in Hindu Dharma unless this is a metaphor. As you can see, Bhakti or devotion has the unique ability to keep your mind forcussed on God and prevent you from acquiring new tendencies. It will lead to salvation when the Karmic seeds have burnt out. Karma Yoga also does a similar thing. Both these lead to reduction of such sancita Karma which is called purified chitta. When such state has been attained, it is assumed that either a (realized) guru or God direct will instruct you into the secrets of Jnana Yoga which will enable you to obtain Jnana, which alone has the power of burning the seeds of Karma, and win you liberation. You cannot choose to follow Jnana Yoga unless your prArabdha dictates that, and such people will instinctively know their ways.



On the battle field, before Arjuna could see the grand vision of the Lord, it required him to turn to grace that opened his eyes to have that “Atma Gyan”. That subtle turn is what I call starting point. Arjuna could do that because he made the choice of surrendering to the higher-self first. In his suffering and despair that surrender to grace what made his inner eyes open. He bowed to Krishna saying “help me Lord, I am in despair”. Although Krishna was right next to Arjuana, it was necessary for Arjuna to bow down and turn to him. After all, why did Krishna not do the same to Duryodhana?


I am afraid the Arjuna episode is always misinterpreted to show how easy it is to obtain a grand vision of the Lord? Do you think this was the first time in Mahabaratha that Arjuna had such a vision? Read the vana parva and you will find Arjuna performing intense tapasya to obtain the vision of Lord Shiva. Arjuna then enjoys a long stay in heaven and all that. You think such experiences are all possible for a warrior?

Arjuna is a classical Karma Yogi and not an ordinary man to start with. His experiences can be had only by a Yogi, not by any other person. Without sAdhana, no such experiences are possible. Anyone who gets them without effort has evolved to such a stage in a former birth. Arjuna obtained Shiva and Krishna only though intensive meditation which you have overlooked completely. Meditation + Humility with love towards the Lord yielded him such a vision.



As for Atanu’s comments, with all due respects to his wisdom, I will once again emphasize that merely “knowing” or having “knowledge” of any level cannot dissolve “knot” of the ego matter based I-senses. It cannot just be wished away. It has to be cut asunder from the power of grace. Therefore, initial step is definitely needed.
Therefore, one is either enlightened or not enlightened as in a woman who is either pregnant or not. And therefore, when one is not enlightened, there is always that trace ego-I, which all of us are trying to get rid off. Regardless of the path one takes the starting point remains the same and that has been my point all along.


Please dont use the "you are with me, or you are against me" logic of Christianity. The scope of Christianity is Maya. You are very much right about the initial part and all Hindus have done that 1) they beleive in God 2) they have submited themselves to
guidance from God or guru. They do not however beleive that that is the end of the journey, but just the beginning. Grace cannot cut the ego, as long as the ego is bound by Karma in the form of thoughts and actions. That is not Hindu teaching, and if that is what you beleive then I reject your beleifs.




I have stressed this before and will restate it. I am not here to propagate any religion, Christian or Hindu. I have repeatedly said that in several posts earlier. I have been only interested in spiritual journey but from a “practical” perspective. Every religion has its own way of addressing the truth but knowing that is not my goal here. However, I do believe the practicality of the nature of journey remains the same regardless of truth.

The language of Unitive Mysticism of Shankara may appeal to some but it is not without its passionate longing and yearning to be one with Shankara’s version of truth. Practically it is difficult for man to grasp because of Shankara’s emphasis of intense meditation and knowledge of Shiva as an integral part of his teaching. As I had said in previous posts, there is no way a person can acquire full knowledge unless he is free of all defects. That begs the same question, if and when we ever will become perfect? One can only imagine the ordeal of the journey to perfection!
Again, I would like to state as to why I appear to be overemphasizing or even stuck at that initial level. The reason for that kind of focus has been because, given the harshness of the ego-I sense at the starting point on one hand and yet the simplicity of simple act on the other hand (turning to grace) makes for a potent combination. It’s the simplicity that is very elusive!
It is like having a strong combination lock and suddenly you know the combination that opens it. Wouldn’t that make the whole thing simpler then on?

wish you did not make comments like these. It takes away the spirit of debate and injects an attitude of personal confrontation wherein ego completely dominates. To tell you the truth, I never knew about this forum until Satay requested me through a PM to join only to give Christian perspective. It is unfortunate that when I present views from Christ’s perspective (the way I understand) somehow its intent and person’s motives are viewed with a great suspicion.
BTW, I would also like to emphasize that it has been a coincidence that I have quoted Christ often. But, I have equally and strongly quoted Lord Rama, Krishna and Sages (Ramana, Ramanuja) as well. Many here are trying to provoke me and steer me into saying that can easily be construed as proselytizing. I have tried to avoid those posts and folks altogether.
I hope, by now, we all have grasped how difficult the “practical” nature of journey truly is. It is my desire that we can use this exchange more as a spiritual support group to help along the way. This is the only reason why I am investing my time and energy in this discussion.


You are quite right. But to be of use in a practical journey, should'nt you let go off your preconcieved dogmas? Whatever you have said regarding the initial part have been accepted by Hindus, however you refuse to move one step ahead.

Znanna
06 October 2006, 07:51 PM
FWIW, I still vote for keeping this discussion on one thread, as it really all is related, I think. Splitting off into subdiscussions of particulate manner, well, I could put it precisely into crude terms, but let me just say that I think it would be seed unto sterile ground.

:)

Now, as y'all know, I'm a girl and not authoritative on anything; I know nothing.

In that context, I suggest that the first step in Godz realization is to allow a space ... a darkness which contrasts the Light .. for entrance. This could be called prayer, meditation .. the Name is not so important as the experience, I think.

You ask for a first step .. well, that would be considering that step perhaps, ideally without prejudice.

YMMV


Namaste,
ZN

atanu
06 October 2006, 10:01 PM
If I setup a stopwatch before entering deep sleep, does it keep still while I am in deep sleep? That existance and ticking of the watch has nothing to do with your sleeping at all. If you enter deep sleep at 5:30, and in deep sleep for one hour, it will show 6:30 after you wake up. Dont you see the pitfalls in your reasoning?

Deep sleep is the most solid proof for the existance of the universe whether you observe it or not. The stop watch does not depend on your existance at all, nor time or anything else. It is just like a blind man or a man closing his eyes and denying the existance of vision.




A boy of 4 ft will not see what is on a table of 6 ft. and He starts denying the view of a six ft. person and often becomes abusive also.


Rest of your post requires no answering. Only this requires a rejoinder. The example itself indicates the narrow span of the view. You have taken as example an object of a very short span, which was created, apparently by man, but truly with the power of consciousness, to synchronise with a power of God called time --- the relative movement of Sun.

Thelarger perspective is that a man on waking finds that the sun and all other elemets of nature have taken their own course and he is set in a pattern to think that these things happen apart from the consciousness. The problem is that a noosed consciousness is not able to appreciate the infinite ONE CONSCIOUSNESS, who is the creator and keeper of time and all of the nature.

This infinite consciousness has a Tamiswaram -- the controller of Gunas -- apparently a passive seer but Param Paraasrad. All these are created by the Tapas of Narayaana. Apparently, the seer Rudra does nothing. But Yajur Veda has a verse: The Sun did not shine. Gods prayed to Rudra and Soma. Thereby He restored the shine.

There are many other verses indicating the infinite power of chintamani consciousness, which is true god everywhere and within. It is ONE. And Vedas speak of Tamiiswaram Lord and other yogis who harness this infinite consciousness. The whole of so-called creation exists in this consciousness. Gautama muni (from Rig Veda), parts a mountain and brings down a river, employing Maruts. Visvamitra creates an army from his mind. And Vashista destroys that army by another army created from a durva grass. Vama Deva exclaimed "I created the Sun, I created the Moon". The Rig Veda is an eulogy to this infinite consciousness, which is the seer/the seeing/the seen as one entity.

The yogi who merges in this infiniteness, without any desire becomes That.

Coming back to the clock. A yogi can stop it. He can also make it vanish. Advaitin yogis will not do it for you. But lesser siddhas do it. Being of limited view jivas hold that an appearance existing in consciousness (which really is the infinite consciousness alone), as an independent object. Can any object exist outside the consciousness? How then one knows about that object?


Where is that clock which you might have created in one of your dreams? Where is the watch, which you were wearing in your last incarnation? And why do not you check the time using the clock (of your day time consciouness) during your dream and your shushupti? Where was this time keeper clock before its invention? However all through, the TIME was there. But the time is there constantly in the time-keeper -- the infinite consciousness called Turiya, which itself is time less.

So, one who is capable of joining one's mind (through absolute thoughtlessness) with Turiya goes beyond TIME -- what to talk of your clock? Such a Yogi, without volition and without being a yogi (being Turiya itself since there is no second), can manifest a clock that has day as night and night as day. he he.

Lord has said: What is day for the yogis is night for the ignorant.


Om Namah Shivayya



To avoid unnecessary confusion, I stress right here that I understand that this is not intended for mass consumption or as a prescription. It will be useful however, if even one person begins recognising the subtle and eternal truths enshrined in Vedas.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
06 October 2006, 11:24 PM
I would like to restate that since my perspective and interest lies in the “practical aspects of journey”, that comprises the whole elephant. I am not interested in “what is” and “what is not” (neti-neti). As I explained to Atanu, I am only interested in making sure I have practically stepped into the car (turn to grace), ------


Namaskar,

Dear Nirotu,

Here lies the unbridgable gap. What you are interested is not important, since gunas will control you, whether inclined or not. Lord Krishna said: Arjuna whether you want or not, you will fight impelled by your Gunas.:Cool:


This aspect you are not appreciating at all: That till you have a sense of existence, as if separate from the infinite consciousness, you have no free will. You think that you have but it is your desire that will always impel you. We are in this discussion on that count alone. And you are not appreciating this point since you do not want to.



On the battle field, before Arjuna could see the grand vision of the Lord, it required him to turn to grace that opened his eyes to have that “Atma Gyan”.


He he. So you, who says that Jnana path is not practical, wants everyone to be like Arjuna? he he. Arjuna was Lord's sakha. If everyone has such destiny then your advice will also be practical.


And then Arjuna enquired a thousand things from the Lord. He just did not go in and said: I surrender. And then you seem to think that Arjuna turned of his own volition? This is the unbridgable gap. We believe that only the Supreme Lord does anything (and does nothing also). Lord said the same to Arjuna: "Know that I am the doer". Nirotu you are actually stupendous but you do not seem to know it. Go back and check up all your contradictory statements.





As for Atanu’s comments, with all due respects to his wisdom, I will once again emphasize that merely “knowing” or having “knowledge” of any level cannot dissolve “knot” of the ego matter based I-senses.


See, the all knowing attitude and presumptions and judgements thereafter? Atanu has never talked of thinking. Vichara/enquiry is not thinking at all. Please study the subject and come back if you wish to. Mental thinking is external. Involution is non-thinking. Allowing the Self to speak in meditation. Meditation wherein one thinks is not meditation. Silence of mind is meditation. And attention to the Self (through its manifested "I"), brings one to silence in minutes. One looses the I and is in the infinite expanse of light. One also goes to this infinite expanse in sleep but in darkness. This is the knowledge of "I", that it is not local in the body. It arises in the infinite expanse. This body/mind/prana are different from the I.


Nirotu, I am truly sick of your presumtions. I cannot hide it.




Dear Atanu, it never ceases to amaze me.

I have stressed this before and will restate it. I am not here to propagate any religion, Christian or Hindu. I have repeatedly said that in several posts earlier. I have been only interested in spiritual journey but from a “practical” perspective. Every religion has its own way of addressing the truth but knowing that is not my goal here. However, I do believe the practicality of the nature of journey remains the same regardless of truth.



Nirotu, I am genuinely sorry. But check on your own assumptions and presumptions also. Without discretion on what is real and what is transient one can never be practical. Why do you think that only you are practical? Is that thinking a surrender?

As shown from a citation, Jnana path requires discrimination as the first step. It is OK to say that Jnana path may not suit me (Nirotu) since my inclinations are different. But do not act as if you have better jnana than Shankara. See your own sin calmly. Shankara is God. You are an ego.

I have criticised you since Shankara is considered Shiva by me and many others. You have demeaned Shankara again and again, as if your realisations are greater. You have again and again said that the path shown by Shankara is impractical, knowing very well that you will get support.


Nirotu see your folly. Have I questioned Christ? No. Your subtle demeaning of sanatana knowledge is unacceptable.


I leave it to this. Since, I know that you will not see the point and will come back again on the same point, since you have a reformer inclination.


Bye.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
06 October 2006, 11:47 PM
--

In that context, I suggest that the first step in Godz realization is to allow a space ... a darkness which contrasts the Light .. for entrance. This could be called prayer, meditation .. the Name is not so important as the experience, I think.

ZN


Yes, ZNN.

I did not wish to but I am inclined, this time positively, to add a bit.

Taking the mind there requires utmost skill and will not happen with most. Mind (ego) is a monkey. It will not go and stay there for even a second, since it knows that it will be slain there.

Requires infinite patience, perseverance and grace of God.

Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
07 October 2006, 04:42 AM
A boy of 4 ft will not see what is on a table of 6 ft. and He starts denying the view of a six ft. person and often becomes abusive also.


Rest of your post requires no answering. Only this requires a rejoinder. The example itself indicates the narrow span of the view. You have taken as example an object of a very short span, which was created, apparently by man, but truly with the power of consciousness, to synchronise with a power of God called time --- the relative movement of Sun.

Thelarger perspective is that a man on waking finds that the sun and all other elemets of nature have taken their own course and he is set in a pattern to think that these things happen apart from the consciousness. The problem is that a noosed consciousness is not able to appreciate the infinite ONE CONSCIOUSNESS, who is the creator and keeper of time and all of the nature.

This infinite consciousness has a Tamiswaram -- the controller of Gunas -- apparently a passive seer but Param Paraasrad. All these are created by the Tapas of Narayaana. Apparently, the seer Rudra does nothing. But Yajur Veda has a verse: The Sun did not shine. Gods prayed to Rudra and Soma. Thereby He restored the shine.

There are many other verses indicating the infinite power of chintamani consciousness, which is true god everywhere and within. It is ONE. And Vedas speak of Tamiiswaram Lord and other yogis who harness this infinite consciousness. The whole of so-called creation exists in this consciousness. Gautama muni (from Rig Veda), parts a mountain and brings down a river, employing Maruts. Visvamitra creates an army from his mind. And Vashista destroys that army by another army created from a durva grass. Vama Deva exclaimed "I created the Sun, I created the Moon". The Rig Veda is an eulogy to this infinite consciousness, which is the seer/the seeing/the seen as one entity.

The yogi who merges in this infiniteness, without any desire becomes That.

Coming back to the clock. A yogi can stop it. He can also make it vanish. Advaitin yogis will not do it for you. But lesser siddhas do it. Being of limited view jivas hold that an appearance existing in consciousness (which really is the infinite consciousness alone), as an independent object. Can any object exist outside the consciousness? How then one knows about that object?


Where is that clock which you might have created in one of your dreams? Where is the watch, which you were wearing in your last incarnation? And why do not you check the time using the clock (of your day time consciouness) during your dream and your shushupti? Where was this time keeper clock before its invention? However all through, the TIME was there. But the time is there constantly in the time-keeper -- the infinite consciousness called Turiya, which itself is time less.

So, one who is capable of joining one's mind (through absolute thoughtlessness) with Turiya goes beyond TIME -- what to talk of your clock? Such a Yogi, without volition and without being a yogi (being Turiya itself since there is no second), can manifest a clock that has day as night and night as day. he he.

Lord has said: What is day for the yogis is night for the ignorant.


Om Namah Shivayya



To avoid unnecessary confusion, I stress right here that I understand that this is not intended for mass consumption or as a prescription. It will be useful however, if even one person begins recognising the subtle and eternal truths enshrined in Vedas.

Om Namah Shivayya

Let us leave your irrelevant answers aside - as you have simply escaped direct questions.

Is ignorance svarUpa or dharma of Brahman? Or apart from Brahman? And who is in ignorance? If you can answer them, then we can examine your views more deeply.

Sudarshan
07 October 2006, 09:58 AM
All right, we have many religions, many philosophies, many confusing terminologies, many Gods, many teachers, many scriptures, many obstacles, many false traps,....how does a person get out of this and be practical? Dhyana, Bhakti, Saranagati, Karma, Punya, Papa so forth....which one?

upanashidAmAvartham oorUkalE~niBhaddham ! - Madhusudhana Saraswathy

Behold ! the will-o-the-wisp that wise Upanishad even fails to grasp,
I lie trapped and helpless,
All bound head to foot
To a plain mortar in Yasoda's kitchen,
With sheer, simple and stark Love !
Kanna, my Lord, where are you?

atanu
07 October 2006, 10:37 AM
Let us leave your irrelevant answers aside - as you have simply escaped direct questions.

Is ignorance svarUpa or dharma of Brahman? Or apart from Brahman? And who is in ignorance? If you can answer them, then we can examine your views more deeply.


Good that you found the answers to the clock paradox irrelevant. That takes away a load since i do not need to continue. Thanks.


Regarding,Brahma Jigyasa: Suppose you dream that you are taking me to Moon. You wake up and ask me, "I dreamt so and so. Atanu, did you also have some such dream or know in some other way that I was taking you to Moon?" What significance will you attach to such an inquiry?

Try to understand the analogy. How do I know, what is happenning in your plane of consciousness? Whatever is concieved by the consciousness to be true is immediately true as the phenomena. That is the power. That is why Dvaita, VA, and Advaita all are true. But none of these are true as well. The true is the one who has the concept and not the concept itself.

I say that Brahman is consciousness. If one believes that ignorance exists that is Brahman only, since it is consciousness that knows it and it is consciousness that makes it known. If you believe that ignorance does not exist then again it is awareness and Brahman.

Why don't you find out your Svarupa first? Or ask Brahman directly whether He is ignorant? Whether ignorance is separate from Brahman? Can anything be separate from Brahman? How that can exist then? How that will be perceived then?


But Atma-Brahman is Paramparaastad -- transcendental. It remains unchanged. And it is advaita.


Dear Sudarshan, I have promised not to spend time online but to spend more time on meditation and professional duties. So, please excuse me. Consider me defeated, if that would give you some happiness.


Best wishes.

nirotu
07 October 2006, 11:12 AM
Does Christianity ever talk about realizing God in a lifetime? I am afraid it is a big no.

Dear Truthseeker:
While you may not agree, this is how a Christian views. Christianity does not place any emphasis on Reincarnation and therefore, the lifetime you have in this planet earth is considered an only opportunity to realize God.


Let me play Pascalian argument with you. Pascal once said, “ I would rather die believing God and then realize there was no God instead of living without believing the existence of God and then realize there is God”. The consequences for the latter are immense and there was nothing to loose from first supposition.


Now, if a Christian and a Hindu die today and it turns out that Christian was wrong and Hindu was right all along, at least Christian will have another chance to correct it by reincarnating. On the other hand, if Christian belief was correct and Hindu was wrong all the time, there is no recourse for the Hindu as there is no reincarnation. What is a safer bet for you? (Please, don’t be too analytical and badger me on this, just my humor!)


But you have stepped into one of the cars destined to carry you to a specific destination. All Hindus have stepped into similar or different cars and all of them hold the hand of grace. Your car will take you to Yama Loka or Brahma Loka depending on the driver's(you) performance. You are always missing the point. You cannot pretend to follow different religions, and claim that all of them take to the goal of other religions. The goals are reconciled only in Advaita, where these different cars transport you to different destinations within the phenomenal world. It is quite true that there are many heavens and even many states of moksha, and the goal of every religion is not the final one. Christianity is talking of just one of them. If a religion offers "easy tickets" it is more than likely to lead to a detination of non eternity. I cannot make any clearer than what has already been said earlier. Yes, the car can take me anywhere of my choosing. If my performance is good, I am pretty sure I will reach desired destination. The good outcome of my performance required me to turn to good in the first place. That initial turn you seem to not understand at all. Forget where you are going, it is getting into the car in itself tells me if I ever will travel. You seem to give me sermon after sermon about following road signs without even realizing if you are in the car or not.


If you do not beleive in the law of Karma, then we have very little to argue from the point of practical religion, because we are already in different cars, with different operating mechanisms. I guess, you are right! There is nothing common to talk about as I am not subscribing to your view. I hope we will have something common in future!


Moksha is impossible without the meditations at some point you have widely criticized so far. You can optionally stay out of it for now -- until such times come.BTW, I never criticized paths that you allude to. I am only stating the precondition for this to take place in one’s life. Please, do not misunderstand me.


Some traditions like Srivaishnavism recgonize that God can remove the Karma, and people like Sudarshan agreed with you because of that.( or perhaps to flatter you!) You are wrong! Do not insult Sudarshan’s intelligence. Sudarshan and I have disagreed on almost all occasions but when he sees truth, he does not hesitate to admit it. This happened once in our previous forum exchange where he agreed with my point on “Namarupa Siddhanta” of Ramanuja. He may appear abrasive at times, but he is brutally honest in what he believes in and at the same time does not hesitate to agree with others if he sees truth in the statement regardless of who says.

The problem with you or Atanu is that you both are very intelligent but have formed an intellectual crust around you that does not allow any other truth, other than your “advaitan” belief, to enter in.


However, this is not a classical Hindu view, and most Hindu traditions reject the direct role of God in this process of removing Karma. The Karma has been acquired by you out of your own freewill and it is quite inappropriate for God to step in for you - that would be injustice done to another soul. I am sorry I have difficulty with such a justice from God. If God cannot step in then what is the meaning of compassion? If I see a suffering soul, am I to ignore him and leave it to him and his fate to workout his own karma? What kind of compassion is that when I help someone who is suffering and I am considered to be interfering with his karma. By the way, would I be accruing more bad karma if I interfered to help others in their loss, suffering and pain?

I am sorry that the very meaning of compassion is misunderstood because of karma theory. Compassion is not merely feeling sorry and be going on your way but actually doing something about it. Compassion does not stand idle and watch a blind man walk by the edge of a hill and feel sorry but actually lends a hand to help him.


Let us say you have stolen lots of money from another in a past birth. Could God forgive this offence just because you believed in the grace of God? No, that is illogical and is an act of injustice. True justice requires that God be impartial to everybody. A person called Jesus dying for man's sins would be a laughable concept in Hindu Dharma unless this is a metaphor.A week ago there was a shooting that took place in an elementary classroom in a small “Amish” town. These Amish people who live there are one of the most faithful people I have ever known. When a deranged man shot 6 kids at point-blank range, a reporter asked a parent of a victim, “what goes through your mind ?”. His answer was, “God has strengthened our faith even more by bringing us more closer to God through this event. Please, pray for us and the family of gunman too”. That is the true meaning of forgiveness! It is not illogical but difficult for a feeble mind to comprehend.

It was the same way with Jesus Christ when he forgave sinners. Not many could comprehend the compassion Jesus displayed on the cross.

This understanding is what takes us beyond “bookish” understanding of grace and compassion etc, People are so bogged down with bookish concept of Dharma, while I see daily in my life such forgiveness displayed that no bookish knowledge can explain. These Amish people, although, live in a most westernized society, they shun from material world as much as possible. Transportation is strictly by horse buggy, no TV, no computers, no hospitals, no modern stores, no library, no books. The education is merely to be able to read the Bible. Yet, how come they know the meaning of forgiveness better than all of us?


As you can see, Bhakti or devotion has the unique ability to keep your mind forcussed on God and prevent you from acquiring new tendencies. It will lead to salvation when the Karmic seeds have burnt out. Karma Yoga also does a similar thing. Both these lead to reduction of such sancita Karma which is called purified chitta. When such state has been attained, it is assumed that either a (realized) guru or God direct will instruct you into the secrets of Jnana Yoga which will enable you to obtain Jnana, which alone has the power of burning the seeds of Karma, and win you liberation. You cannot choose to follow Jnana Yoga unless your prArabdha dictates that, and such people will instinctively know their ways.
That’s great! I see! How practical is it to someone who’s daily grind includes chores just to survive in this world.


I am afraid the Arjuna episode is always misinterpreted to show how easy it is to obtain a grand vision of the Lord? Do you think this was the first time in Mahabaratha that Arjuna had such a vision? Read the vana parva and you will find Arjuna performing intense tapasya to obtain the vision of Lord Shiva. Arjuna then enjoys a long stay in heaven and all that. You think such experiences are all possible for a warrior?
Again, it is my view that I am presenting here. You see, in describing Arjuna’s qualification you seem to have by passed what I have been saying all along. Let me turn it around this way: You are right about Arjuna being champion in his Tapasya and Bhakti etc,. Look at it from God’s point of view now. In spite of Arjuna’s enormous resume, Krishna still required him to bow before Him in humility. It does not matter how high up in spiritual chain one is, as Christ says, “God exalts those who are humble and resists those who are proud”. There is no distinction between you or me when it comes to accruing grace from God. That initial humbling is required for everyone.

Likewise, Ravana also epitomizes Bhakti but devoid of Grace. As I said earlier to you, for Arjuna the goal was accessible because of grace and for Ravana the destiny was destruction eventhough both had impressive resume! Answer me now why Duryodhana could not have that grace that Arjuna had?

Again, it is that turn to surrender in Arjuna what made him attract grace. It is that ego in Ravana what pushed him away from the grace of Rama. I have great difficulty in accepting idea predestination. I cannot accept your idea that Arjuna was destined for that. It was Arjuna’s choice that granted him that status. That subtle turn to grace is what my thesis has been. Not all can do that, not so easily.



Arjuna is a classical Karma Yogi and not an ordinary man to start with. His experiences can be had only by a Yogi, not by any other person. Without sAdhana, no such experiences are possible. Anyone who gets them without effort has evolved to such a stage in a former birth. Arjuna obtained Shiva and Krishna only though intensive meditation which you have overlooked completely. Meditation + Humility with love towards the Lord yielded him such a vision.
"As God talked with Arjuna, so will He talk with you. As He lifted up the spirit and consciousness of Arjuna, so will He uplift you. As he granted Arjuna supreme spiritual vision, so will He confer enlightenment on you." —Paramahansa Yogananda


Whatever you have said regarding the initial part have been accepted by Hindus, however you refuse to move one step ahead.
My point is you have not recognized it but simply taken for granted. It is easy for someone in spiritual journey to say , “grace has always been there for me” and accept that as a fact. That completely contradicts with lives of those who were evil (Hitler, Stalin, mass murderer etc). Because, that initial turn what determines the future course of action for me. It has not been given proper recognition at all in your idea. This is a simple idea that I present, yet you make a mountain out of molehill by giving me thesis after theses about evolving. While they all are essential, which I have not denied, but they all come later. The catalyst for all Bhakti, Jnana, devotion is the initial turn to grace. It’s that simple!! Sudarshan recognized this and you didn’t!


Blessings,

Znanna
07 October 2006, 11:54 AM
Belief and God are complete opposites.

One cannot "believe in God"

Belief is the "mind".

The "mind " can not "know" the Context within which it exists,

which is God.

One knows they are "One with God" or they know not.

Those who know they are "One with God " define what it is to be a Christ.




a correction.......it is incorrect for me to say to say "one cannot believe in God"

I should have said there is no purpose served by believing in God.

God is I AM

I AM is the Context of Existence.

Belief, like hope and all other affectations of separation, serve only to re-enforce the illusion that the Mind is something more than a Creative mechanism.

Being Human presents two choices........choose to be one with the mind and its Creation and live the life of a machine........

or choose to know you are one One with I AM and live Life as the Source of your experience.

Victim or Source.......that is the choice



These are quotes from the one I Name my Twin, which seem germane to this discussion.

YMMV :)




Namaste,
ZN

TruthSeeker
07 October 2006, 03:27 PM
Dear nirotu,



While you may not agree, this is how a Christian views. Christianity does not place any emphasis on Reincarnation and therefore, the lifetime you have in this planet earth is considered an only opportunity to realize God.


I could show you dozens of Jesus in India even today - how many are there in
Christianity? Christianity is about attaining heaven after death. But Hindu Dharma is about it while alive.



Let me play Pascalian argument with you. Pascal once said, I would rather die believing God and then realize there was no God instead of living without believing the existence of God and then realize there is God. The consequences for the latter are immense and there was nothing to loose from first supposition.


What is the probability of Christianity being true? Less than 0%. Why would I be bothered. Secondly a God of this kind would be no different from a Satan. Why beleive and worship him at all? If the consequences for not beleiving are dire, when God is playing hide and seek, he must be a monster.:)



Now, if a Christian and a Hindu die today and it turns out that Christian was wrong and Hindu was right all along, at least Christian will have another chance to correct it by reincarnating. On the other hand, if Christian belief was correct and Hindu was wrong all the time, there is no recourse for the Hindu as there is no reincarnation. What is a safer bet for you? (Please, dont be too analytical and badger me on this, just my humor!)


As above! Why should anyone pay heed to such a God? How is it different from say Hitler ordering people to bow before him? Regarding reincarnation, I as a Hindu have definite proofs of it, than mere theory, which should mean your "threats" dont matter to Hindus at all.



I cannot make any clearer than what has already been said earlier. Yes, the car can take me anywhere of my choosing. If my performance is good, I am pretty sure I will reach desired destination. The good outcome of my performance required me to turn to good in the first place. That initial turn you seem to not understand at all. Forget where you are going, it is getting into the car in itself tells me if I ever will travel. You seem to give me sermon after sermon about following road signs without even realizing if you are in the car or not.


Yes, I am on another car, which is not meant to be in phenomenal existance of any kind. Whether one reaches the destination is another issue. I have my guru and I follow his instructions, and I am in very 'safe' hands, if that is the "initial turn" you have been talking about.




I am sorry I have difficulty with such a justice from God. If God cannot step in then what is the meaning of compassion? If I see a suffering soul, am I to ignore him and leave it to him and his fate to workout his own karma? What kind of compassion is that when I help someone who is suffering and I am considered to be interfering with his karma. By the way, would I be accruing more bad karma if I interfered to help others in their loss, suffering and pain?
I am sorry that the very meaning of compassion is misunderstood because of karma theory. Compassion is not merely feeling sorry and be going on your way but actually doing something about it. Compassion does not stand idle and watch a blind man walk by the edge of a hill and feel sorry but actually lends a hand to help him.


You have a completely different theory. Please tell me why God created you at all if he were compassionate. He could have chosen to create you in heaven and made you happy and himself happy with your love. Is the sin committed by your ancestor Adam a valid reason for punishing others? That original sin is called as the sancita karma by Hindus. Christianity's concept of freewill is totally flawed and will not be taken seriously by Dharma followers.

Since God's motive for creation are not for making people worship or love him( in that case he could have directly created in heaven and secondly it makes God dependent on you, and he has no wants or desires to fulfil), but is more like "you find me amidst the bushes". That is the Hindu view, and hence compassion per se does not have a proper meaning. Surrendering the freewill to the divine will is the only way, and that must ideally include surrender of all levels of ego. In the state of awakening we are not aware of our inner egos( like the intellect), and these are available only in the states of deep meditation, and surrendering them is out of question. The false ego has resulted in you acquiring a lot of Karma that has to be worked out either through undergoing the fruits of the Karma, or through unqiue devotion that taps at the root of Karma. This exceptional devotion I am talking about is not the plain devotion or beleif in God, but some kind of devotion deep enough that God becomes your friend like he did for Arjuna and showed him the universal form. Such visions will close the Karmic cycle for good.

Why is the God you describe as compassionate not preventing natural diasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, floods and all such that affect beleivers and non beleivers alike? How can you ever accept that God is compassionate in the terms you have understood? An all loving God would not have allowed a single soul to be born in the world and suffer here. That is why Advaita says that this creation cannot be real - that is a logical impossibility. It does not tally with a compassionate God at all.

Giving freewill to a soul is a potential recipe for disaster and an all wise God should have known this in advance. Thus he should have remained content with his own infinite bliss. Dualism of any kind ends with God sounding a villain, does not matter how you defend it. It is within the potency of God to stop all evils we see around us, with a mere wish. But nothing of that sort happens - the only logical reason is Karma and God does not interfere at all. So the freewill should also be divine will at play - one cannot deny that at all. If this were not true, then God would be the worse than a Hitler for remaining silent about all the disasters that strike us. Every one keeps hoping that some God would come and establish peace here - just wishful thinking. God's compassion, grace, mercy etc are therefore confined to a select few, and those who deserve it. Infact, everyone is a divine being who has been robbed of that knowledge, and hence God is closer than the closest, but manifestation of God does not happen unless you have become a pure soul ready to accomodate God - devoid of all false egos, pride, jealosy, anger etc.

In short Christianity is very limited in its depth of philosophical knowledge base, and dont shove it over here. Please learn proper christianity from some learned Hindus.




It was the same way with Jesus Christ when he forgave sinners. Not many could comprehend the compassion Jesus displayed on the cross.


No God ever died on a cross and experienced pain - that must be a meek mortal. Please dont expect Hindus to believe in this fable. Jesus crucifixtion is the metaphor that shows "blood sacrifice" is the way to moksha. Blood sacrifice is technically used within Yogic jargon to represent Dharma.( I nelieved I mentioned this earlier and you have missed all this in your enthusiasm and hoped to get away with a myth again)



This understanding is what takes us beyond bookish understanding of grace and compassion etc, People are so bogged down with bookish concept of Dharma, while I see daily in my life such forgiveness displayed that no bookish knowledge can explain. These Amish people, although, live in a most westernized society, they shun from material world as much as possible. Transportation is strictly by horse buggy, no TV, no computers, no hospitals, no modern stores, no library, no books. The education is merely to be able to read the Bible. Yet, how come they know the meaning of forgiveness better than all of us?


They were possibly sAdhus in the himalayas in their previous lives - that is why. Books cannot teach you more that your vAsanAs allow you to absorb. No book can teach you Hinduism because your Karma is headed in another direction and as a Hindu it is none of another Hindu's business to interfere with it.



Again, it is my view that I am presenting here. You see, in describing Arjunas qualification you seem to have by passed what I have been saying all along. Let me turn it around this way: You are right about Arjuna being champion in his Tapasya and Bhakti etc,. Look at it from Gods point of view now. In spite of Arjunas enormous resume, Krishna still required him to bow before Him in humility. It does not matter how high up in spiritual chain one is, as Christ says, God exalts those who are humble and resists those who are proud. There is no distinction between you or me when it comes to accruing grace from God. That initial humbling is required for everyone.


The moment I see the hand of grace, I will do exactly as you say. But Lord Krishna is not there to hold to - he remains a fiction isn't it? He is to be known through a combination of many factors, Bhakti being the main means. Humbleness comes on own accord with increasing bhakti and jnana. Bhakti is Jnana and Jnana is Bhakti. Mere humbling is not sufficient, but there should be that true unflinching devotion Arjuna had.

Are you aware that even after all that, Arjuna did not get moksha? That was because Arjuna's Yoga was still incomplete. That should possibly put to rest your claims. For all such accomplishment, Arjuna just attained high heaven, and was later reborn and then was liberated. Yoga Vasista says that Arjuna was able to become a "Brahmavid Vara"( Asamsakti) through the practice of Yoga and the vision of the Krishna , which is the first stage of jIvanmukti. There are two more stages beyond these and called as "Brahmavid VarIyan" ( padArta bAvana) and Brahmavid Varishta (Turiya). That should give you an idea of how there is a considerable way to go even beyond just turning humble. Such humility should be combined with Jnana and Bhakti until absolute ideniity with Krishna is attained. Just being an Arjuna who gets afraid of seeing the form of Krishna(due to dualty) represents only a certain level of attainment.

If people like Arjuna, who after obtaining a vision of the Lord are still reborn, what does it speak for others? It shows that liberation is not possible in dualty. Arjuna must transcend the state where he "sees" Krishna externally. He must identify himself with Krishna at some point. That explains why Arjuna was not liberated even after such wonderful achievements most people can only dream of.



Likewise, Ravana also epitomizes Bhakti but devoid of Grace. As I said earlier to you, for Arjuna the goal was accessible because of grace and for Ravana the destiny was destruction eventhough both had impressive resume! Answer me now why Duryodhana could not have that grace that Arjuna had?


I have explained to you who Ravana is. And you refuse to listen? Ravana is much much bigger than many saints in the land. He is the most purified form of individual existance one could attain to, separate from the Lord. He gets killed by Turiya represented by Lord Rama.

Duryodhana, as I understand is not the wicked person as you imagine. My understanding of Mahabaratha as handed over through my tradition does not interpret these texts literally and as a political tool to establish the supremacy of various Gods. Duryodana represents an aspect of time called Kali. It is the vAsanas that stand in the way of Yoga, which need to be defeated at Kurukhsetra to obtain heaven. The army of Duryodhana and Pandavas collectively represent all the vAsasas(good and bad) and elements that need to be destroyed before once could practice Jnana Yoga.

Again, you missed out so much even in your literal interpretation. Duryodana went to the same heaven that Arjuna went to, as evident from the last chapter in Mahabaratha, so your claim of Duryodhana not seeking the grace is pointless. Everyone who died at Kuruksetra went to heaven, and it reflects only your incorrect understanding of Duryodhana. Dont take him to be an ordinary mortal on earth. Duryodhana represents one aspect of kAla or Time, which is a manifestation of Saguna Brahman, and is worthy of worship. No wonder he went to heaven and shared a seat along with Arjuna.



Again, it is that turn to surrender in Arjuna what made him attract grace. It is that ego in Ravana what pushed him away from the grace of Rama. I have great difficulty in accepting idea predestination. I cannot accept your idea that Arjuna was destined for that. It was Arjunas choice that granted him that status. That subtle turn to grace is what my thesis has been. Not all can do that, not so easily.


Please take your time to understand more of Dharma before criticizing branches of Dharma for which Christianity has no parallels.



Sudarshan recognized this and you didnt!


So Sudarshan is a mahAtma and I am a durAtma. I cant help laughing at such
comparisons. And please dont create disunity amongst Hindus. Please pray for me to get saved from the Satan your God has set up for me. Anyway, I know Lord Krishna's grace is there to protect me.

TruthSeeker
07 October 2006, 09:46 PM
The problem with you or Atanu is that you both are very intelligent but have formed an intellectual crust around you that does not allow any other truth, other than your advaitan belief, to enter in.


And you have formed an emotional crust around you that does not allow any intellectual
activity. No, Advaitins do not impose their beleifs on anyone else. Have you seen any Advaitin on this forum insisting anyone should follow his ways? Such childish behaviour is common with Christianity, Islam and some other sectarian divisions of other religions. Advaitins do not warn of dire consequences if you do not hear their words either. Advaita emphasises Jnana over Karma, in contrast to some other religions that promote Karma over Jnana. Since Karma is a prerequisite for Jnana Yoga, Advaitins start off by practising Karma Yoga only. Strictly there is no difference in the approaches. The approaches seem to contradict each other when suddenly some people start promoting Karma Yoga in a diluted form as a "ticket to moksha" and start abusing Advaitins. Karma Yoga will lead to Jnana Yoga in due course, so Advaitins do not push their idealogies on anyone.



Thats great! I see! How practical is it to someone whos daily grind includes chores just to survive in this world.


For a person whose prArabdha karma allows only grinding daily chores, then he must discharge the chores without complaint - that is his Yoga.



"As God talked with Arjuna, so will He talk with you. As He lifted up the spirit and consciousness of Arjuna, so will He uplift you. As he granted Arjuna supreme spiritual vision, so will He confer enlightenment on you." Paramahansa Yogananda


Weren't you the one who called Paramahamsa Yogananda as fanatasizing the resserruction of his guru? Now you want his testimony? He was a Kriya Yogi himself and this was the advice he gave to his followers. If you are an Arjuna and thwe Lord moves along with you, from that point Christianity is head on - just submit! Prior to that do both submit and also work towards getting the Lord in that position...

Sudarshan
07 October 2006, 10:02 PM
You are wrong! Do not insult Sudarshan’s intelligence. Sudarshan and I have disagreed on almost all occasions but when he sees truth, he does not hesitate to admit it. This happened once in our previous forum exchange where he agreed with my point on “Namarupa Siddhanta” of Ramanuja. He may appear abrasive at times, but he is brutally honest in what he believes in and at the same time does not hesitate to agree with others if he sees truth in the statement regardless of who says.


That is fine. Would you mind clarifying why Judas was deserted by Jesus? Why was he not forgiven? If Judas is forgiven, then that begs another question. Why does your God not forgive all, after all if a traitor can be forgiven, then why not all? We have to note that Judas enabled the murder of Jesus and has saved many Christians from sin of forefathers and their own sins - so why was he labelled as wicked?

Sri Ramanuja would never have allowed his disciples to go astray like that. He would have used his divine powers to clear the defects of the mind that lead ones disciples away towards doom. This is one incident where Jesus has disappointed.

atanu
08 October 2006, 12:04 AM
The problem with you or Atanu is that you both are very intelligent but have formed an intellectual crust around you that does not allow any other truth, other than your advaitan belief, to enter in.



The main problem, however, is that you see problem everywhere, in others ---- but never inside.


Have a nice time, problem hunting.


But realise that Atanu is nowhere but in your own consciousness. If you think that Atanu or TS have problems then the problem lies within. Within You.


Bye Bye. Have a real nice time someday Nirotu.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
08 October 2006, 12:11 AM
Dear nirotu,

------
Duryodhana, as I understand is not the wicked person as you imagine. My understanding of Mahabaratha as handed over through my tradition does not interpret these texts literally and as a political tool to establish the supremacy of various Gods. Duryodana represents an aspect of time called Kali. It is the vAsanas that stand in the way of Yoga, which need to be defeated at Kurukhsetra to obtain heaven. The army of Duryodhana and Pandavas collectively represent all the vAsasas(good and bad) and elements that need to be destroyed before once could practice Jnana Yoga.

Again, you missed out so much even in your literal interpretation. Duryodana went to the same heaven that Arjuna went to,



Moreover, Duryodhana went straight. Arjuna went via Hell. Don't understand why? Don't remember the explanation given in the script also.

Om Namah Shivayya



Note: Isn't it clear that Nirotu had not much interest in discussing "Does science have all answers?" Did this occur to anyone? Does Nirotu know about this?

sarabhanga
08 October 2006, 04:37 AM
Namaste TS,

I have avoided this long and generally pointless argument, but I must make one comment.




In the absence of Christianity placing any emphasis on jnAna mArga even for some people, it has to be dismissed as a subset only. I would expect some people to be Yogins for a religion to be called complete.

It is ridiculous to insist that Christianity is entirely without Jnana or Yoga. You (and Sudarshan) are ignoring the Gnostics and all of the orthodox Christian Saints, and reducing the whole of Christianity to the bare bones of Protestantism!

Sudarshan
08 October 2006, 07:30 AM
It is ridiculous to insist that Christianity is entirely without Jnana or Yoga. You (and Sudarshan) are ignoring the Gnostics and all of the orthodox Christian Saints, and reducing the whole of Christianity to the bare bones of Protestantism!

I am very well aware of Gnostics and also orthodox saints and references were made to Gnostic Christianity in this thread, and also orthodox saints elsewhere on this forum.( see my post on the The Mystical Theology for instance) Nirotu simply ignored all such references and apparently consider them another set of heretics or pagans.

Christianity, as generally held and beleived by most Christians, is that a belief in Jesus and that he bore all their sins are saved. Nirotu perhaps extended that beleif to God in general instead of sticking with Jesus. Is Gnostic Christianity even called as part of Christianity? By Whom?

Sudarshan
08 October 2006, 08:24 AM
Note: Isn't it clear that Nirotu had not much interest in discussing "Does science have all answers?" Did this occur to anyone? Does Nirotu know about this?

I think Nirotu started with the genuine question of the universe, and the thread lost its scope long ago. It was repeatedly suggested that the thread be split, but there were people who still wanted the thread intact. It changed into Hinduism vs Christianity midway - with the same noise coming from all sides. As Sarabhanga said, it was too long and pointless at times- just repetition. The problem is both Hinduism and Christianity are loosely defined, and a generic argument on these lines can't end anywhere. Hindus tend to take the mainstream versions of Christianity as a general definition, while Christians tend to take Hinduism as synonymous to Advaita or something similar and base their arguments. See for eg, Dr.Zakir Naik's comments on Hinduism, where he is simply unaware of the variety in Hinduism. I beleive we can agree with nirotu's assesment that the starting point should ideally be the same for all religions, but the lack of Karma theory and such in Christianity dont allow for any flexibility for a person's will and choices.

Atanu, dont expect Christians to turn around and agree with what you beleive and practice. The only compromise could come from the Hindu side. Say that you beleive him to be in the right track, wish him good luck and move on.

TruthSeeker
08 October 2006, 10:22 AM
Moreover, Duryodhana went straight. Arjuna went via Hell. Don't understand why? Don't remember the explanation given in the script also.

Om Namah Shivayya



Note: Isn't it clear that Nirotu had not much interest in discussing "Does science have all answers?" Did this occur to anyone? Does Nirotu know about this?

The only reason given for Arjuna's falling down during the ascent to heaven is being "proud" that he was the main destroyer of enemies. The five Pandavas along with Karna went to hell, for a short while. I dont remember for sure if Duryodhana went to hell, but I think he did not. That must be something to wonder for the literal defenders of Mahabaratha. Unless one understands the significance of Kurukshetra, Mahabaratha will remain a Dharmic puzzle. Literally it states that one who dies on the battlefield, however wicked he is goes to heaven, and those who fought righteous wars attained the same state after undergoing more earthly miseires, loss of kith and kin, and also had to go to hell.:)

Nevertheless, I would like to reinstate that Arjuna should not be dismissed this way, and one should first strive to become an Arjuna before moving ahead. Arjuna's way is the role model for all, including his humilty that he shows towards the Lord. Nirotu is correct when he says that it is not easy to be humble, it is much easier to display one's ego than hide it, as evident from the kind of discussions that go on these forums.

TruthSeeker
08 October 2006, 10:29 AM
Namaste TS,

I have avoided this long and generally pointless argument, but I must make one comment.


I think you are right - it is almost pointless to argue endlessly.

atanu
08 October 2006, 11:30 AM
----
Atanu, dont expect Christians to turn around and agree with what you beleive and practice. The only compromise could come from the Hindu side. Say that you beleive him to be in the right track, wish him good luck and move on.


A prayer to the Lord from Yajur Veda says: Prostrations to you, Lord of all paths. Who is Nirotu and who am I? to reform each other?

Both sides (including this Atanu) have continued doggedly with preconceptions. The Jnana margis failed to ask Nirotu as to why Nirotu thought that jnana margi devotees are averse to submitting child like fashion at the feet of the Lord? I think that Shri Nirotu still keeps up this concept. It is a failure of jnana marga fellows.

The second point, I think is that if Jnana margis use the term God instead of Self, a lot of problem would vanish. Atma word, however, is always preferred since, Atma is closest --- the very self, the very life of one (and also of all that one sees).


The Third. Lord Krishna has indeed directed : Submit whole heartedly to me. Jnana margis failed to convince Nirotu that we know this (I still have a nagging doubt that Nirotu meant Christ only and not Krishna. And I would have liked it had it been Shiva he he).

The Fourth. Nirotu failed to accept that Arjuna was facing a dilemma which one rarely faces, and the situation ripenened such that Arjuna submitted. The initial situation is not Arjuna's making. It is karma and Niyati (distributing the fruits of karma) that will decide when the turning point will come. Arjuna, as a jiva, had no role in the life events that led to the war wherein he was to kill loved seniors who were not less than his own father.

A boy named Bala fell between two cliffs in Tirupati in 2003. He hung there (no one knows in what postion) and shouted for food, water and rescue, which never came and he became silent on the seventh day. This acute situation is so ingrained in my mind as if it happened to me, since I was in a condition that was no better --- though less acute but more chronic. I know why I started to love God. In another case, a lady lost her 6 children one after another. Then she adopted another girl, who also died. She came and permanently stayed near Ramana.

What do you say Nirotu? have you faced the fire? You might have faced it in earlier times but I have some doubt. Since, it is for sure that human ego is broken by Rudra and till that time Jiva is supremely egoistic. It thinks of reforming others but not of reforming self.

One Rig Verse says: Rudra the destroyer of the heroes and benefactor of men.


So, even now, I doggedly stick to my view that Nirotu's prescription to others to submit in child like fashion is egoistic. This prescription assumes that others do not know. This prescription presumes that Nirotu has submitted child like. And this prescription is only suitable from the lips of God or Guru.

For us, the initial steps are always the prayers. On waking up, before eating, before retiring--we are taught to remember Lord. And so it is with all religions. But earnestness comes after the ego goes through the fire.

An admission: My guru teaches (almost like Nirotu): The only free will a jiva has is that of abidance in God. A similar advice from Nirotu I vehemently opposed. Why? Only the priestess of Goddess Durga may be able to tell.


Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
08 October 2006, 01:05 PM
Since I know the psychology of Nirotu, I will answer you.



Both sides (including this Atanu) have continued doggedly with preconceptions. The Jnana margis failed to ask Nirotu as to why Nirotu thought that jnana margi devotees are averse to submitting child like fashion at the feet of the Lord? I think that Shri Nirotu still keeps up this concept. It is a failure of jnana marga fellows.


Yes, Prapannas who choose the way of surrender, ask the question why do people engage in Jnana Yoga when easier ways such a Bhakti and Prapatti exist? It is widely held that without surrender, no liberation is possible. This applies to both jnAna mArgi and those who do not follow jnAna mArga. So why not simply surrender? The fundamental question here is how could God give some people the easy way and some people the harsh ways of jnAna yoga? The answer is prapatti is not very easy, we do not beleive in God as much we ought to. That is why jnAna mArga is necessary to some extent. Only the impression of jnAna left over in the sub conscious in a former birth will create such unshakeable beleif in God and such faith in God is not common. It is very rare.

God will take care of every bit if you trust that much. Would God save you if you are bitten by a snake and trust him? Yes, he would if you place that trust. This is called mahAviSvAsam in Srivaishnavism. Prapatti is as hard as jnAna yoga because trust is not the outcome of random freewill, but several former events leading to God's grace bringing on such trust. We trust in God because of his own grace and not due to any
special merit that we have. This is what Christianity misses out.


A person who has placed his trust in God this way forgoes all the impressions automatically - fear, aversion, attraction, and thus kArmic bonds snap away on their own.




The second point, I think is that if Jnana margis use the term God instead of Self, a lot of problem would vanish. Atma word, however, is always preferred since, Atma is closest --- the very self, the very life of one (and also of all that one sees).


Very correct. Never use the term Self, and always God only.




The Third. Lord Krishna has indeed directed : Submit whole heartedly to me. Jnana margis failed to convince Nirotu that we know this (I still have a nagging doubt that Nirotu meant Christ only and not Krishna. And I would have liked it had it been Shiva he he).


The problem here is, prapannas believe in what is called kripa or daya of God which is showered on the devotee making "all efforts directed at God realization" redundant. The prapannas question is, are you doing meditation or Yoga because you think God is incapable of granting moksha without that? Is it the meditation or the trust in God that is more important?



TAn admission: My guru teaches (almost like Nirotu): The only free will a jiva has is that of abidance in God. A similar advice from Nirotu I vehemently opposed. Why? Only the priestess of Goddess Durga may be able to tell.


You are right. We did miss Nirotu's simple advices due to ego. Nevertheless, I was never discussing with nirotu from a practical perspective because I am quite allright with his views. I was looking only for philosophical one. Reconciling the bible properly with vedas would mean that Christians would not be intolerant of Hindus and that will make the relationship between these two religions very smooth. That will also end all the missionary atrocities that are going on in India. This cant happen because Christian aristocracy has put a veil over the followers and blinded them - they can rarely appreciate anything outside their own religion.

nirotu
08 October 2006, 01:30 PM
The problem with you or Atanu is that you both are very intelligent but have formed an intellectual crust around you that does not allow any other truth, other than your advaitan belief, to enter in.

Dear Atanu and Truthseeker:

I am deeply sorry. Obviously, it has offended you both for which I am deeply sorry. Perhaps, it’s more indicative of my inability express a point across, which at times results in frustration.

When we rely on language as a tool to exchange ideas, many times it fails to convey the intended meaning of feelings and that sometimes can easily get mistaken for something different. Unfortunately, this thread that started with a different goal moved in a different direction with unintended consequences for which I am sorry.

While I want to assure you there is no intention of causing any disharmony, regrettably it has been implied that way.

Again, I am sorry for causing ill feeling amongst us.

Blessings,

sarabhanga
08 October 2006, 10:31 PM
Is Gnostic Christianity even called as part of Christianity? By Whom?

All Christians would agree that Adam and Noah and Abrahm and Moses and John (the Baptist) and Jesus and John (the Apostle), all attained first-hand knowledge of God by direct experience. Indeed, all of the Prophets and Saints (by definition) must possess such divine Knowledge.

Judaism follows the same lineage up to Moses, and the Mandaeans up to John the Baptist (but excluding Moses).

The Mandaeans (and John the Baptist) are Gnostics, and Judaism is surely not without Gnosis (e.g. the inner teaching of the Kab-allah).

Moses was surely Gnostic ~ eyeh asher eyeh ~ and so too was John ~ ego eimi ho on.

His Guru arose from the fold of Gnosis, and his immediate Shishyas (Apostles or Disciples) were surely Gnostics (especially Judas and Thomas and John), and NO Christian can deny that Jesus himself was a Gnostic!

I am that ‘I am’.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

The Logos and its Gnosis are the neglected twin of Protestant “Christianity”.

Only those who reject the possibility of Sainthood (after the passing of Christ and perhaps a select few of his original disciples) can deny Gnosis or Jnana in Christianity. And the majority of such ashanti, ajnani, agnostic protestant Christians happen to be citizens of the USA ~ where each individual finds their own salvation, sanctified by hope, and pretending Sanskrit knowledge by speaking gibberish in “tongues”.

atanu
09 October 2006, 12:35 AM
Dear Atanu and Truthseeker:

I am deeply sorry. Obviously, it has offended you both for which I am deeply sorry. Perhaps, it’s more indicative of my inability express a point across, which at times results in frustration.

When we rely on language as a tool to exchange ideas, many times it fails to convey the intended meaning of feelings and that sometimes can easily get mistaken for something different. Unfortunately, this thread that started with a different goal moved in a different direction with unintended consequences for which I am sorry.

While I want to assure you there is no intention of causing any disharmony, regrettably it has been implied that way.

Again, I am sorry for causing ill feeling amongst us.

Blessings,

Dear Nirotu,

You have atleast not offended me. You, unknowingly, ruffled the faith that I have on Shankaracharya.

And in the process, I have stronger conviction that without appreciating the nature of ego -- by way of meditation and vichara--- one has no hope of surrendering in child like fashion.


In verse after verse of Vedas and in Gayatri mantra, Rudra, the indweller in the sun, in beings, and in Consciousness is prayed to for granting the passionless intellect. Without true wisdom the grace within is not seen.


For Sudarshan:

My Guru teaches that there are only two ways. That of enquiring into the nature of I, that is self. And in absence of capability for that (since most will not be able to keep the mind silent for even a second and allow the Self to reveal itself), a surrender like a child.

And then he smilingly says: Surrender fully and see if you can do it. And Lord Krishna says: Surrender to me and I will give you Jnana.

Jnana and surrender are not two different things. Both go together or neither happens.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
09 October 2006, 02:17 AM
Since I know the psychology of Nirotu, I will answer you.


Very correct. Never use the term Self, and always God only.






The second point, I think is that if Jnana margis use the term God instead of Self, a lot of problem would vanish. Atma word, however, is always preferred since, Atma is closest --- the very self, the very life of one (and also of all that one sees).



Yes, this is a source of trouble when communicating with those who know self as a body and/or a localised soul. Vedanta, however, uses Atma only for the purpose of revealing the truth.


Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
09 October 2006, 03:11 AM
Yes, this is a source of trouble when communicating with those who know self as a body and/or a localised soul. Vedanta, however, uses Atma only for the purpose of revealing the truth.


Om Namah Shivayya

Atma is OK.

But you should keep in mind, there are two kinds of Atma - paramAtman and jIvAtman. Such distinctions have not been denied even by Shankara, though Shankara himself called jIvAtman as pratyagAtman, but equated it to Buddhi or the intellect, which is rooted in Prakriti. However, we do not equate jIvAtman to Buddhi, but to the Purusha, which is eternal and has nothing to do with the perishable Prakriti. You have not gone through Vishistadvaitin literature and hence confusing the "localized soul" with a component of Prakriti. That is why I asked you for the locus of ignorance earlier. Vishistadvatins assert that the locus of ignorance is the jIvAtman, but Advaitins have nowhere to hide in this respect, except pointing to the paramAtman.


If you understand in this terms, Self which is Purusha is a much inferior realization than God, the paramAtma, and hence Vishsitadvaitins view "Self Realizaton" with a bit of contempt, and as a kind of self indulgence, and as an inferior pursuit. Such Yogis are said to attain the outskirts of Vaikunta and gradually find their way.

The only way I ever find a way to reconcile the teachings in Advaita and Vishistadvaita is, if one can assume that Purusha itself can merge into the paramAtman after attaining the parama padam. We have no scriptural authority hinting at this possibility. But scriptures talk of several kinds of states in moksha ranging from sAlokya to sAyujya and if we accept the gradual evolution of the Purusha into ParamAtma, then it is quite possible. However, even sAlokya is beyond the three fold time because these muktas are omniscient. The progress is regarding their bliss. Vishistadvaita holds that this Purusha attains the same bliss as ParamAtman, but "merging" never takes place in sAyuya. If however, a "merging" does take place, then both philosophies are valid.

Sudarshan
09 October 2006, 10:06 AM
His Guru arose from the fold of Gnosis, and his immediate Shishyas (Apostles or Disciples) were surely Gnostics (especially Judas and Thomas and John), and NO Christian can deny that Jesus himself was a Gnostic!


He he, You must go to some christian sites and start preaching these, and see if anybody would listen..:D

Sudarshan
09 October 2006, 10:16 AM
In verse after verse of Vedas and in Gayatri mantra, Rudra, the indweller in the sun, in beings, and in Consciousness is prayed to for granting the passionless intellect. Without true wisdom the grace within is not seen.


Isnt this a logical fallacy?

If true wisdom is needed to see the grace within, then what is the purpose of grace after obtaining the "true wisdom"? Grace makes sense only prior to the dawn of "true wisdom". The role of grace is to push you from ignorance to wisdom, and consequently one cannot have wisdom as a prerequisite for grace.

nirotu
09 October 2006, 01:01 PM
That is fine. Would you mind clarifying why Judas was deserted by Jesus? Why was he not forgiven? If Judas is forgiven, then that begs another question. Why does your God not forgive all, after all if a traitor can be forgiven, then why not all? We have to note that Judas enabled the murder of Jesus and has saved many Christians from sin of forefathers and their own sins - so why was he labelled as wicked?

Sri Ramanuja would never have allowed his disciples to go astray like that. He would have used his divine powers to clear the defects of the mind that lead ones disciples away towards doom. This is one incident where Jesus has disappointed.

Dear Sudarshan:

Let me confess at the outset that I have not read Gnostic text to give you detailed understanding. However, this is what I know so far:

This so called “Gospel of Judas” was written in the second century and historians have no doubt that it was not by Judas. It is not considered a Gospel in the strict sense of the word; for it does not deal with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.


When a narrative is written that is so far off from the actual event, there are great possibilities of corruption in text itself because of loss of eye-witness accounts. Scholars agree that it is Gnostic text. And Gnosticism is a movement which really only began to take shape in the second century. The so called text points to Jesus as revealing secrets to his disciples and particularly to Judas.

Coming back to you questions:

Would you mind clarifying why Judas was deserted by Jesus? Why was he not forgiven?
In my view, Judas could have been forgiven by Jesus and there is no doubt in that. However, forgiveness is offered to those for the asking! That did not happen in Judas’s life, at least as I read from the Bible.

Judas only felt guilty of his actions. He felt guilty enough to kill himself. If there was genuine remorse shown in Judas, and if his change of heart was genuine, then he would have gone to Pontius Pilate to whom he had Jesus arrested, and beg Jesus for forgiveness, and beg that he be released, or else to trade places with him. Instead, it was his conscience that pricked him to feel guilty enough to kill himself.

I believe, many have misinterpreted the Bible, which may appear to present Judas repenting himself, Mathew 27:3-5. It was that Judas truly saw his sin in a new light, however, he could never free himself from his guilty conscience. But him returning the silver coins didn't undo the wrong, it was restored in a wrong spirit, a desire for relief rather than hatred of sin. He confessed to the wrong person, who could not grant forgiveness. I don't think Jesus forgave him because Judas never asked.


If Judas is forgiven, then that begs another question. Why does your God not forgive all, after all if a traitor can be forgiven, then why not all?

While forgiveness is offered to any one who begs for it, the cleansing of conscience can only take place if there is genuine repentance that goes along with it. In the case of Judas, he was sorry but he didn't repent.

Genuine repentance makes the forgiveness truly triumph! Person who thinks he has forgiveness by going to church and having Holy Communion, and yet fails to repent, he will always live with his conscience that is full of guilt. Our confession becomes useless if it is not followed by repentance. On the other hand, the genuine forgiveness with true repentance wipes the slate clean of any guilty conscience. That act is hard to follow.


We have to note that Judas enabled the murder of Jesus and has saved many Christians from sin of forefathers and their own sins –

Gnostic writers present Judas as a victim and a scapegoat. Is that really true?

The writers claim that Judas was "just fulfilling his part in God's plan" and not really in control of his actions. That is where I beg to differ. The so called, "It's-all-part-of-God's-Divine-Play" and we are merely players in that theatre is difficult to fathom. If that is true, then there really is no such thing as freedom of choice or moral evil. Everything one does is good because God's really doing it; everything that happens to one is good because God wants it to happen. Hitler and the Holocaust were willed by God as part of this Big Plan of His.These scholars ignore that part of the ancient tradition about Judas that he was damned not because he betrayed Christ, but because he was despaired of Christ's mercy. He thought he would not be forgiven, as he would have been, and so didn't seek forgiveness.

Why was Judas chosen to do this work?

In the Sovereignty of God, Judas was designated as a foil and maybe, under the same sovereignty of God, he was also allowed to repent. No, I do not know if that happened, also you do not know that it did not. And if we think that it could not have, then I have profound theological problems where the doctrine of original sin and complete depravity are concerned. Did the sovereignty of God prevent him from it? No, the sovereignty of God does not prevent any man from repenting in time and history. God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Was his sin too great to be forgiven? No, it was not. There is no such thing in the Bible as an unpardonable sin.


so why was he labeled as wicked?

While I can certainly judge the evil actions of Judas and call it wicked, I am in no position to evaluate the moral condition of Judas. For that matter, no one knows the moral condition of any living soul, which only God knows. Only God knows our heart and truly knows “why we do” and, not just “what we do”. Since God is righteous in His judgment, Judas will find exactly what he deserved.



Sri Ramanuja would never have allowed his disciples to go astray like that. He would have used his divine powers to clear the defects of the mind that lead ones disciples away towards doom. This is one incident where Jesus has disappointed.

Jesus Christ clearly states that “ I have come for the lost sheep” and that could be anyone and not just His disciples! It is also said that Jesus came that we may have life and that life, abundantly! None of his messages was directed to any specific group or followers but to all.

It is not a question of divine power clearing the defects of mind but it all points to man’s choice and not God’s will. When a man is determined to do his own way, possibly making all wrong choices, the divine will simply steps aside and let it take its course. The divine will “wills” its support for those who are genuinely repentant and come to God. That is what separates you and me from the likes of Hitler! There is a saying,“ we are all accountable for our actions”, which is very true . If we are accountable, then there is no question it is man’s own doing according to his own will for which he is accountable. It shows inherently flawed nature of man.

Jesus knew that the men He called were flawed in many ways but hoped that His leadership with them and teaching to them would help them to overcome those flaws. Jesus hoped nothing less for Judas Iscariot.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
09 October 2006, 03:16 PM
Dear nirotu,



This so called “Gospel of Judas” was written in the second century and historians have no doubt that it was not by Judas. It is not considered a Gospel in the strict sense of the word; for it does not deal with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.


When a narrative is written that is so far off from the actual event, there are great possibilities of corruption in text itself because of loss of eye-witness accounts. Scholars agree that it is Gnostic text. And Gnosticism is a movement which really only began to take shape in the second century. The so called text points to Jesus as revealing secrets to his disciples and particularly to Judas.



But nirotu, Shri Sarabhanga is of the opinion that Christianity itself has no real value without being "Gnostic Christianity", and Jesus himself was a gnostic. Gnostics are simply Christians who just dont merely follow Jesus but rather try to become Jesus themselves. Is there a rule that there cannot be another Jesus?

Gospel of Judas is like a smriti text in Hinduism, and I agree it may have a secondary value. There is corruption in the bible itself because the four accounts of crufixtion given in the bible do not tally. Whom should we assume as an eye witness if the accounts contradict each other? Remember, according to you, it was a unique event, and there is no scope for various narrations unless it is based on hearsay.



In my view, Judas could have been forgiven by Jesus and there is no doubt in that. However, forgiveness is offered to those for the asking! That did not happen in Judas’s life, at least as I read from the Bible.

Judas only felt guilty of his actions. He felt guilty enough to kill himself. If there was genuine remorse shown in Judas, and if his change of heart was genuine, then he would have gone to Pontius Pilate to whom he had Jesus arrested, and beg Jesus for forgiveness, and beg that he be released, or else to trade places with him. Instead, it was his conscience that pricked him to feel guilty enough to kill himself.

I believe, many have misinterpreted the Bible, which may appear to present Judas repenting himself, Mathew 27:3-5. It was that Judas truly saw his sin in a new light, however, he could never free himself from his guilty conscience. But him returning the silver coins didn't undo the wrong, it was restored in a wrong spirit, a desire for relief rather than hatred of sin. He confessed to the wrong person, who could not grant forgiveness. I don't think Jesus forgave him because Judas never asked.


That is unfair. Feeling guilty is itself a good sign of repentance. Moroever, he did not have sufficient time, it all happened within a matter of days's isnt it, from his betrayal to the death of Jesus?



While forgiveness is offered to any one who begs for it, the cleansing of conscience can only take place if there is genuine repentance that goes along with it. In the case of Judas, he was sorry but he didn't repent.

Genuine repentance makes the forgiveness truly triumph! Person who thinks he has forgiveness by going to church and having Holy Communion, and yet fails to repent, he will always live with his conscience that is full of guilt. Our confession becomes useless if it is not followed by repentance. On the other hand, the genuine forgiveness with true repentance wipes the slate clean of any guilty conscience. That act is hard to follow.


Lord Krishna was beyond the plane of human logic. Did you see how he treated Sisupala, his arch enemy who insulted him repeatedly? Krishna killed him and also terminated his wheel of life and death, and also granted him salvation. What do you make out of Krishna from this? All the warriors who died on the battle field of Kurukshetra were saved solely because Lord Krishna was present in the battle field. That is why I am unable to understand why Jesus was not able to forgive even those very close to him. No evil can happen when the Lord is around in a human form.




The writers claim that Judas was "just fulfilling his part in God's plan" and not really in control of his actions. That is where I beg to differ. The so called, "It's-all-part-of-God's-Divine-Play" and we are merely players in that theatre is difficult to fathom. If that is true, then there really is no such thing as freedom of choice or moral evil. Everything one does is good because God's really doing it; everything that happens to one is good because God wants it to happen. Hitler and the Holocaust were willed by God as part of this Big Plan of His.These scholars ignore that part of the ancient tradition about Judas that he was damned not because he betrayed Christ, but because he was despaired of Christ's mercy. He thought he would not be forgiven, as he would have been, and so didn't seek forgiveness.


There is nothing in the world that happens without divine will. Even if you claim that Hitler and such people are responsible for some evil, who is responsible for the flood that hits every now and then and takes thousands of lives and renders millions homeless? Is any human responsible for this? What will you say if an asteroid hits the earth and wipes out half the global population and renders the other half depressed? All these could easily happen, and who will be responsible? Human evil is just like the evil due to natural forces, a product of ignorance inherent in nature.

sarabhanga
09 October 2006, 07:06 PM
But you should keep in mind, there are two kinds of Atma - paramAtman and jIvAtman. Such distinctions have not been denied even by Shankara.

In truth there is NO distinction!

Indeed, Advaita recognizes this supposed distinction as the source of all Maya and Avidya, and Shankara knew it very well.

Jivatman or Pratyagatman is always related with Maya or Prakriti, but when the wrong understanding of this personal spirit is corrected, the previous illusion of spiritual separation disappears forever.

And Advaita certainly does not suggest that Paramatman is the locus of any ignorant dualistic illusion!

Vidya: Self = Purusha = ParamAtma = Nara (or Narayana)
Maya: Self = Purusha = Jivatman = Narayana (or Nara)

Avidyavidya: Self = Purusha = Atman = Naranarayana

sarabhanga
09 October 2006, 09:45 PM
If true wisdom is needed to see the grace within, then what is the purpose of grace after obtaining the "true wisdom"? Grace makes sense only prior to the dawn of "true wisdom".

Only by Grace may true Knowledge arise; and when that Knowledge dawns only Grace remains. And such gracious knowledge is true Wisdom indeed!

sarabhanga
09 October 2006, 10:46 PM
Namaste,

The Mandaeans (also Sabaeans or Nasoraeans) are Gnostics who lived long before Jesus Christ and still exist today (mainly in Iraq and Iran). The Mandae consider both Moses and Jesus as heretics, whose innovations led to the establishment of Judaism and Christianity as distinct religions. The Mandae (Sabae, Nasorae) are followers of John the (Gnostic) Baptist, as was Jesus himself before his own Samadhi (when his Gnosis was finally confirmed).