Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 69

Thread: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

  1. #41

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

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

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

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

  2. #42
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Namaste David,

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidC View Post
    I still disagree, and earlier you said everything happems because of the Divine, which means there is a reason for everything.
    Disagreement is normally a good sign if logically used. So, no problem.

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

    or maybe also (from my idea) if nonexistence was more real than existence. Then maybe that would not be good.
    How can non-existence be real ? Actually, existence, as we perceive & non-existence as we perceive are only mental concepts ... it is no so in absolute sense. I am trying to understand what you are saying but I am still not sure whether we are on the same wavelength.

    However for non-existence it would not be true, because it happens in pralaya, but I meant if absolute non-existence always was, is, will be.
    Pralaya is not an end of existence ... it is simply an end of manifested existence in the waking state ( & may/may not be for the dreaming state ... Prajna & Turiya states anyway are never affected).

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

    Even though nothing may happen in universal pralaya--even if nothing exists to be under Divine control--there is still a reason for that, so it is good.
    Everything must be under divine control, otherwise how can it be called the Lord of all ? Yes, it is always called auspicious & good ... ( as you rightly said, it all for a good reason) but that is again a relative term.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  3. #43

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees


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

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


    Nothing happens in this world without his permission.
    Cause it is explained in the next verse:

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

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

    Not a blade of Grass moves without his approval.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidC View Post
    It does not matter if people have to suffer 'evil' in their evolution--there is a reason for it and overall it is good.
    Namaste DavidC,

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

    I do not fully recall the 'ontological Abrahamic definition of omnibenevolent' and I do not really care. In Abrahamic religions, Satan is also merely a servant of the Divine (see the book of Job) and is even known as Sataniel, 'Satani-god,' in angel dictionaries, though most sects say he is not Satani 'El' any more.. Genesis has two parallel creation myths: from the viewpoint of Elohim(s) and YHVH, and I think both have Sammael and Sataniel, though Sammael is esoteric and only in Zohar. Sataniel is the being that makes humanity become intelligent/spiritual, and I do not think he is described as doing evil anywhere. You could say he is wrathul to Job, but he helps Job's spiritual development. I have gotten pretty off-topic: it was to give another viewpoint about if Mazdayasna (Zoroastrianism) has 'Satanic' dualism. In fact because Satan is God's servant--controlled by God and incapable as anyone else of going against Divine will which is for what is best--the Ophite (serpent) Gnostics likely have the best (non-dualist) Jewish viewpoint on good. They said, as did the Theosophists: Sataniel is God (evidence is in Kabbala and Semitic mythology.) It does not really conflict with the idea of good & evil because Sammael represents the evil in humanity. Of course that is probably another biased viewpoint against Sammael, whose name ends with 'El.' This all leads to different ideas and I am uninterested in the more accepted unfounded ones but how omnibenevolence may apply in various religions.
    ----but we all are limited by language and should not spend too much time on this. I am still interested in learning more in-depth about sargun Brahman and nirgun Brahman so I can discuss them if anyone ever asks me about spiritual topics in person, which is likely.
    OTOH, the Mandukya Upanishad, the shruti (devoid of rationalisation), which within its short 12 verses deals with three divisions of time and what is beyond, describes the AUSPICIOUS. You may like to refer that, if you have not yet or even if you have earlier.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  5. #45

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

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

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

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

  6. #46

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    "Evil and good by definition require intent."
    I do not think they require intent: they can be more objective.
    A philosophy of moral evil contrasted with moral good requires deliberation of conscious intent else it is an act of incapacity and thereby disqualified as evil. The definition of evil is "morally objectionable behavior," "morally wrong," "wickedness," depravity." One has to have capacity and intent to oppose the moral good. The difference between a predator who is a lion, and a predator who is a serial killer is this: One has capacity to form "evil intent" and thereby commits heinous crimes. The other has neither human intellect or opposition to conscience and is simply acting on natural inclination for survival. A serial killer is "morally evil," but a lion cannot be.
    Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe what are seen as subjectively harmful deeds that are labeled as such to steer moral support. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes acts that are subjectively beneficial to the observer. In some religions, evil is an active force, often personified as an entity such as Satan or Ahriman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil
    From a legal standpoint, if a medically incompetent person commits a crime out of incapacity he isn't considered "guilty." A tsunami isn't capable of forming intent therefore, the results of human suffering although evil to the sufferers, cannot be the result of an "evil" tsunami which has no moral capacity.
    "Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist... By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
    Does that not also refute omniscience-omnipotence-omnipresence? I do not yet fully understand the definition and usage of 'sargun' and 'nirgun,' but what you are saying is what I was saying. Your last sentence sums it up because spiritual evolution (to liberation, as I said) is 'positive and desirable.' It does not matter if people have to suffer 'evil' in their evolution--there is a reason for it and overall it is good.
    It does matter if we will be honest with the definition of Omnibenevolence. Omniscience-omnipotence-omnipresence pertain to the sarguna as Atanu Ji said. For one thing, these are finite concepts trying to define the infinite which we call nirguna. Japji Sahib says there are no words which can describe Him. Gurbani says the God is agochar "imperceivable through the material senses," He is alakh/"unknowable through the human mind." He is agam/"unapproachable." Nirguna is not the aspect which is a personal God, but the aspect of God who humans think is indifferent or even ambivalent because they can't perceive Him and don't understand His motivations in relation to the suffering of their lives. Omnibenevolence is essentially a Christian concept with derivative application to other Abrahamic religions.

    Omniscience-omnipotence-omnipresence describe qualities of God in relation to how people perceive. The nirguna has no relationship to us because it is unapproachable and imperceivable. It can only be apprehended through the agency of a true Guru. Guru is the sargun perceivable manifestation of the unknowable infinite.
    When texts are describing Shivam, they are describing qualities of God, therefore sargun swaroop, since nirgun is beyond qualities. Shivam is also from Shiva who is the representation of Guru-God. As Guru preceptor it is Shiva's role to unite us with the nirgun
    Vidyasamutthane svahbhavike khecari sivavastha
    5. At the rise of natural (pure) Supreme Knowledge, the State of Shiva, residing in the Eather of God-Consciousness, is attained.

    Gururupayah
    6. For such attainment, the means is the Master, the Guru.
    ~Aphorisms of Lord Shiva by Swami Lakshmanjoo, English rendering of the Shiva Sutras by Sage Vasugupta http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...Z2e1_uKTglwxwQ
    Last edited by Harjas Kaur; 15 November 2009 at 09:20 AM.

  7. #47

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    As I said is 'positive and desirable.' It does not matter if people have to suffer 'evil' in their evolution--there is a reason for it and overall it is good.
    What you have here is a contradiction with the definition of benevolence. Benevolence is that which benefits people through charity, good deeds, reflecting qualities of benefaction, munificence which in turn are aspects of materiality. Benevolence is the desire (Can God be said to have desires?) to promote the welfare and happiness of human beings.
    Abhilasat bahirgatih samvahyasya
    40. By the slight appearance of individual desire, one is carried far away from the state of God-Consciousness. ~Aphorisms of Lord Shiva by Swami Lakshmanjoo, English rendering of the Shiva Sutras by Sage Vasugupta http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...Z2e1_uKTglwxwQ
    Your definition isn't "omnibenevolence" because it adds the qualification of an evolutionary benefit by including Divine indifference to the material suffering of others. Yet the definition of benevolence is a condition of all goodness, charity, benefaction to support the welfare and happiness of human beings. The Hindu concept of spiritual evolution is a man discovers his true nature is God and is therefore freed from the bondages of being human. Such a philosophy was never envisioned by the theologians who coined the term "omnibenevolence" as it implicitly relates to a perpetual separation between God and ourselves.
    Mohapratisamhatas tu karmatma
    35. On the contrary, the one who feels the absence of God-Consciusness in the states of pain and pleasure, is an individual soul and a victim of recurring births and deaths.~Aphorisms of Lord Shiva by Swami Lakshmanjoo, English rendering of the Shiva Sutras by Sage Vasugupta http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...Z2e1_uKTglwxwQ
    The problem of evil is subsumed into shades of grey like the yin and yang symbol in the Hindu cosmology, rather than projected onto a symbolic disassociation from pure malevolence, the antonym of benevolence as in Abrahamic cosmologies. This entire definition of benevolence is based Christian concepts of material benefit, continued material existence, material happiness as a pleasure principle of receiving blessings. Benevolence is related to the terms benefaction and munificence.
    Munificence: Generosity. Liberality in bestowing gifts, bounteousness, largesse, magnanimity, openhandedness.
    The Hindu concept of spiritual evolution is sacrifice and surrender, withdrawal from materiality. Abrahamic conceptions envision a heaven realm filled with material goodies and extravagance, alternately described as "streets of gold," and "gates of pearl." How does this word-view accommodate a Hindu spirituality of interior withdrawal from sense objects to promote a consciousness free from bondage to the duality of pleasure and pain, good and evil? It doesn't fit. The concepts are not related.
    Sukha-dukhayor bahirmananam
    33. Because such a yogi perceives the states of pain and pleasure only superficially, they, in no case, affect his state of Supreme Being Consciousness.

    34. Hence he is liberated from the states of pain and pleasure and is uniquely established in his own nature. ~Aphorisms of Lord Shiva by Swami Lakshmanjoo, English rendering of the Shiva Sutras by Sage Vasugupta http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...Z2e1_uKTglwxwQ
    Last edited by Harjas Kaur; 15 November 2009 at 09:25 AM.

  8. #48

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

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

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

    I do not fully recall the 'ontological Abrahamic definition of omnibenevolent' and I do not really care. In Abrahamic religions, Satan is also merely a servant of the Divine (see the book of Job) and is even known as Sataniel, 'Satani-god,'
    Satan has become the personification of all that is NOT God. In the Hindu conception EVERYTHING is God. Therefore God cannot be omnibenevolent since it requires a projected personification of evil to explain what God is not, namely counter qualities of benevolence.
    Once Uma asked Siva why he had foru visible faces. Siva explained that the eastern face conveyed the supernatural and the perennial practice of asceticism, the western face expressed the sustenance of the universe, and the northern face showed meditation of the Veda, the sum total of all knowledge. The northern and western faces were auspicious, whereas the southern face meant destruction of progeny. ~(MBh. 13, app. 1, no. 15, lines 278-81, 301-305http://books.google.com/books?id=O5B...age&q=&f=false
    Last edited by Harjas Kaur; 15 November 2009 at 08:08 AM.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Angry Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Quote Originally Posted by chandu_69 View Post
    Then,the following deduction appears to be incorrect.
    (5.15) The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody.
    That directly contradicts the assertion that
    Not a blade of Grass moves without his approval.
    Namaste chandu,

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

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

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

    On the other hand, Lord also says;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  10. #50

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Namaste

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Namaste chandu,

    ...

    On the other hand, Lord also says;

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

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

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

    5.15. The Lord accepts neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded.
    Accepts: is the word used by Gambhirananda(or sanakaracharya?)

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


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


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

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •