Why do we get bored with things we initially enjoy ?

[suresh]

Pranam suresh
Very good question but then the subject matter is beyond the realm of logic,

Namaste GP,

One trying to prove the existence of a round square may also say the same thing. Since the subject matter is beyond the realms of logic, we must accept the round sqaure as true, even if there isn't any proof whatsoever.

If this were standard Vedic practice, then why does our tradition stress on pramaana again and again? If this subject matter is beyond logic and reasoning, it's tantamount to saying our tradition contains a vast literature all aimed at proving a single point: that there is no proof or logic for anything written in the literature!

[suresh]

Namaste Bob G,

Thanks for a very good post !

Namaste Suresh,

[Either a thing exists or it doesn't, period.]

Can you clearly define what is existence & what is Non-existence ?

Regards

Namaste Devotee,

Existence is that which is an object of knowledge. E.g. World. That which isn't is non-existence, such as round square etc. To say that there's something which is neither or both is an assertion without factual basis.

[sarabhanga]

that there's a state beyond sat and asat

Namaste Suresh,

dvaitam = nAra = sAti
dvaitAdvaitam = nArAyaNamAye = satAsatI
advaitam = nara = sat

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

Sorry, but I do not see how this analogy helps in establishing that there's a state beyond sat and asat. Either the chair exists or it doesn't, that's all this analogy proves.

Namaskar Suresh,

I have a feel that your original queston might be hinting of a deeper thing than is apparent. But I am not sure. Let the time take its own course.

However coming to the present question. I did not say that there is a third state that is beyond. But there is definitely a state of mind which is mere perception of a thing and not the thing-in-itself. Funny really. You are saying what I am saying. Yes, there is either a chair or there is no chair. But, depending on mere perception, in darkness, one says there is no chair in the room.

Similarly with our limited perception, we do not hear certain wavelengths which dogs and cats hear. So, can we really say that those sounds do not exist? We are saying the same thing that only the Sat is existence and true. And what is existence and true cannot be true one day and false another day. The so-called observation, obtained based on some limited perception, is declared true. But under certain other conditions the same truth may become false. These perceptions are neither truth nor untruth, but perceptions only.

Veda says many things, and if we take them literally, we'll be in trouble.

Then take it as you wish. Take anandamaya kosha as dukkhamaya kosha.

How do you enjoy or abhor some of your dream objects? There is no external light, yet you can see bright bodies of bright colours.

Om

[suresh]

Namaste Suresh,

dvaitam = nAra = sAti
dvaitAdvaitam = nArAyaNamAye = satAsatI
advaitam = nara = sat

Namaste Sarabhanga,

I am afraid I don't understand this equation. Could you explain a bit more?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Suresh

Namaste GP,

One trying to prove the existence of a round square may also say the same thing. Since the subject matter is beyond the realms of logic, we must accept the round sqaure as true, even if there isn't any proof whatsoever.

If this were standard Vedic practice, then why does our tradition stress on pramaana again and again? If this subject matter is beyond logic and reasoning, it's tantamount to saying our tradition contains a vast literature all aimed at proving a single point: that there is no proof or logic for anything written in the literature!

Rishis through their extreme tapsya realised the truth which is revealed in Vedas .
I can describe to you the taste of mangoe but no amount of description will give you the satisfaction until you taste it your self. In other words the taste is beyond words, what to speak of the supreme who is beyond this trigunatic world.
The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sarbhanga ji

Namaste,

advaitam is not the cause of creation, but its full realization is the cause of true enlightenment and ultimate bliss.

With due respect, I find this very difficult to understand. By defination advaita means there is no second, so I ask whose need is there to be realised?
There is no one else but eko and the eko is never deluded so whose seeking the sat?
I ask this without any chalange, i have no axe to grind with the different concepts that does exist in Hindu Dharma.

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Devotee,

Existence is that which is an object of knowledge. E.g. World. That which isn't is non-existence, such as round square etc.

Namaste Suresh,

If that definition is correct then the following should be true.

"Dinosaurus is an object of knowledge, right ? So it should be existent."

Which is not correct. So the definition is not really correct. Therefore the question remains, what is existence ?

Let's ask the question in a different way : If I see something, does it exist ? Or if I feel the touch of something, does it exist ? Or, if I smell something, does it exist ?

Again, if there is something which I am not able to see, smell, touch, taste or hear, can I say that it doesn't exist ?

Regards

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji

A thing is born or created and later dies or is destroyed. It was “non-existent”, then it is “existent”, then it will be “non-existent”. And it “exists” only in a relative sense, for a certain period of time.

This apply to the material creation and the deha of jivas, that takes birth but the eternal soul that occupies the body is eternal as Krishna describes in Bhagvat Gita chapter two,

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

Just as the Atma acquires a childhood body, a youth body, and an old age body during this life, similarly Atma acquires another body after death. The wise are not deluded by this. (See also 15.08) (2.13)

The contacts of the senses with the sense objects give rise to the feelings of heat and cold, and pain and pleasure. They are transitory and impermanent. Therefore, (learn to) endure them, O Arjuna. (2.14)

Because the calm person, who is not afflicted by these feelings and is steady in pain and pleasure, becomes fit for immortality, O Arjuna. (2.15)

There is no nonexistence of the Sat (or Atma) and no existence of the Asat. The reality of these two is indeed certainly seen by the seers of truth. (2.16)

Know That, by which all this is pervaded, to be indestructible. No one can destroy the indestructible (Atma) . (2.17)

Bodies of the eternal, imperishable, and incomprehensible soul are said to be perishable. Therefore, fight, O Arjuna. (2.18)

The one who thinks that Atma is a slayer, and the one who thinks that Atma is slain, both are ignorant, because Atma neither slays nor is slain. (2.19)

The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. (2.20)

O Arjuna, how can a person who knows that the Atma is indestructible, eternal, unborn, and imperishable, kill anyone or cause anyone to be killed? (2.21)

Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old bodies. (2.22)


If individual soul has a beginning and end then there is no question of carrying on. Krishna here is describing the state of Atma that resides in this body, and says in no uncertain terms, that it is eternal, imperishable.


Jai Shree Krishna

[sarabhanga]

I am afraid I don't understand this equation. Could you explain a bit more?

Namaste Suresh,

In this thread (and very many others) I have done nothing but repeatedly explain this one equation ~ expanding from the one, through diverse visions of the many, and back again to the one, and revealing the auspicious steps of shrI kailAsa from numerous perspectives.

Please re-consider the explanation already presented in this thread.


Desire is compelled by karma, and when the karma is complete the desire disappears. But for so long as there is karma pending the next compulsion will surely arise in its place.

Extinguish all personal desire, and all personal karma is dissolved.

And all karma arises from the perception of dvaitam without knowing advaitam, so that by the realization of advaitam all previous karma is likewise dissolved.


In dvaitam there is satisfaction and dissatisfaction, while in advaitam there is only sat.

And the experience of that timeless equanimity is infinite pleasure in itself, without any object, without any personal desire, without reason and without end.

advaitam is not the cause of creation, but its full realization is the cause of true enlightenment and ultimate bliss.

A thing is born or created and later dies or is destroyed. It was “non-existent”, then it is “existent”, then it will be “non-existent”. And it “exists” only in a relative sense, for a certain period of time.

However, the one unborn immortal and infinite Being itself has an eternal reality, beyond any conception of time.

brahmA is ultimately responsible for all apparent action, but since the first birth of an individual jIva the responsibility for any subsequent actions within the frame of creation lies entirely with that jIva.

In advaitam there is no mAyA, and any question of causation becomes irrelevant.


In dvaitam (the perspective of nAra), the chain of causation is endless, with past karma instigating new desires, which compel further selfish actions, which can only accumulate more karma, and the cycle repeats.

But in dvaitAdvaitam (the perspective of nArAyaNa) the first cause of karma is realized as the kAma of brahmA for brAhmI.

And in advaitam (the perspective of nara) the first cause is realized as mAyA, and all karma is dissolved, with only akAma (unintentional) shiva remaining.


puruSa = nAra = brAhmaNa = dvaita = vaishva = nandana = shiSya = karma = mAyA
Through the delusion of duality, born of desire and hatred, all creatures in this world are fallen prey to infatuation. ~ [BG 7.27]

puruSa = nArAyaNa = brahmA = dvaitAdvaita = viSNu = nantavya = Isha = kAma = mAyA
But those virtuous men, whose sins are forgiven, being freed from delusion of duality, worship me with a firm resolve in every way. ~ [BG 7.28]

puruSa = nara = brahma = advaita = shiva = ananta = sheSa = kam = satyam
Those who have taken refuge in me, striving for deliverance from old age and death, they know brahma, the whole adhyAtma, and the entire field of karma. ~ [BG 7.29]

When advaitam is known there is no mystery at all!


sat is “being, existing, occurring, happening, being present, living, lasting, enduring, real, actual, as any one or anything ought to be, true, good, right, beautiful, wise, venerable, honest, well, or right”.

And sat refers to “that which really is, entity or existence, essence, the true being or really existent, the self-existent universal spirit, brahma, that which is good or real or true, good, advantage, reality, or truth”.

asat is “not being, not existing, not occurring, not happening, not being present, not living, not lasting, not enduring, unreal, not actual, not as any one or anything ought to be, untrue, bad, wrong, not beautiful, not wise, not venerable, not honest, not well, or unreal”.

And asat refers to “nonexistence, nonentity, unreality, absence, illusion, distortion, error, untruth, falsehood, dishonesty, ignorance, unworthiness, evil, illness, and death”.


In the dvaitam of nAra, mAyA is sat and advaitam is asat.

In the dvaitAdvaitam of nArAyaNa, sat and asat are ultimately indistinguishable and equally omnipresent and eternal.

In the advaitam of nara, mAyA and dvaitam and dvaitAdvaitam and nArAyaNa are all equally asat.


dvaitam = nAra = sAti

dvaitAdvaitam = nArAyaNamAye = satAsatI

advaitam = nara = sat