Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 Indeed, creation is not a thing of the past; it is an ongoing process just as we are each in a constant state of becoming; as above, so below. There is no first cause on a cosmic scale, only in the rational, whose weaknesses I need not point out. I will, however, relay a teaching of Alan Watts. Imagine you are sitting on the ground gazing between two bushes and a snake pops its head out from the bush on the left, on the ground, and begins to make its way in effort to get behind the other bush. The western mind, highly rational and intellectual, likes to divide the world into categories and time into intervals. Hence, there is a mental 'blink' period in which our intellects are actually doing the dividing. It's kind of like motion pictures, wherein we are actually seeing a series of images. Imagine that you blink while watching the snake make its way across your field of vision. You open your eyes and you see the tail only, now, as it disappears. Western views of creation and of time, would speak that the head caused the tail but, in reality, they are interdependent. Time is a circle, not a vector. Love and light, Eric. ----Original Message Follows---- Alex Siegel <aphis >Lilia Stepanova <ls691035 >"If the Lord created the world, is He inside the world or outside of it? >If you say that the Lord is inside the world, that means someone else must >have created the world! The Lord cannot be outside the creation because >there is nothing outside the creation. Then where is the Lord? The >creation is the Lord! The Lord is thus, the Creator as well as the >creation, just as I am creator of my dream and I also am the dream - my >creation." > >Many religions are based on exactly assumption that the Lord is outside His >creation. What would be the simple logical proofs of "...there is nothing >outside the creation"? To say that the Lord created the world (the Universe, visible and invisible) imply that there is un-created state and created state and the Lord was the causative agent that caused the transition of these two states. Thus the Lord must be present at the un-created state. Since the nature of the Lord is creation itself, this also implies that un-created state did not exist unless there was another creator that created the Lord out of un-created state. The only deduction is that *creation* did not occur. If the Universe exists at all it must exist eternally, however imponderable some of its states may be. Alex ------ Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit /advert.html for more information. ------ Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 So by your definition, everything that is not all-powerful and all-knowing is not God, correct? This brings me to my reason for asking this question that you have kindly answered. Remember that I stated that God operates by certain rules? It may have been better to say that he/she has set certain guidelines for his/her own conduct. In other words, if God is omniscient, then it is surely not God's place to be ignorant. As such, even God has his/her place. Comments? ----Original Message Follows---- "Aikya_Param" <aikya God -- Existent consciousness not limited by time, space or anything else. The intelligence behind and the stuff of all "universes." All-knowing and all-powerful. This one is understood from many points of view, may be given many names and stories may be assigned. God is seen as immanent or transcendant, incarnating or not, made up of disparate unlikely forms, or without form. Behind all the ideas is one about whom we can say very little. God is not entirely a subject or object, cannot be said to exclusively inhabit only one form or one place or one time as do the other things we are more skilled in describing. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Eric Stewart <ganesh_82 advaitin <advaitin > Friday, November 06, 1998 10:34 AM Re: Where is the God? >"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > >I tend to think even God abides by certain rules, maybe set by >himself/herself or possibly just a matter of physics or nature. It >could be that I refer to something different when I say God than you do. >I am finding that many people use the word God and mean something quite >varied by it. > >At risk of being stoned to death, could you give me your definition of >God? > > > > > > Love and light, > Eric. > > >----Original Message Follows---- > >"T. Temple" <joklumji > >Lilia, > >You ask a difficult question. Images work for me when trying to >understand. >Maybe this one will help. > >Picture a circle -- empty inside. Nothing. This is Godoutside of >creation. >Now picture an M in the center -- movement. This is creation. Both can >be >true. God can be nothing, outside of creation, manifest within >creation. >All that is manifest and all that is unmanifest can be god without >contradiction. Maybe we are God's breath as exhale/movement and >reabsorbed >again. To see this way requires a non-liner view of time. This part, I >see >as a figure eight -- an infinity sign. What we know of time is prehaps a >fragment of what is encompassed along that cyclical pattern. We draw >lines >showing beginning and end, yet that may be purely out of our need to >form a >concept of time so that we can order our experience. Some might say that >all of eternity is contained in a perpetual now (as a point at the >center >of the figure) and the past and future are part of creation arising from >that still point in the center. > >Anyway, that's just how I can imagine something so sacred and beyond >comprehension. > >Hope it helps >Let me know! >Tamra > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality >between mind and matter > > > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter ------ Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit /advert.html for more information. ------ Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 I believe God is what is happening, to quote Osho. Wisdom has its place and so does ignorance. They are not synonomous, however. The state of being wise is a space occupied by spirit as is the state of ignorance, albeit a sleeping state. If we are to determine whether a view or some words come from God, well, all do. If we are to determine whether such comes from wisdom, then we must look out for perspectives inspired by iGNOrance, in order to GNOw. God, as is demonstrated by the world around us, is capable of anything. However, I don't believe that omniscience is capable of ignorance. Does that clarify my understanding? ----Original Message Follows---- "T. Temple" <joklumji Eric, I might not understand your question right, but if God is immanent as well as transcendent and if we are the ones who define cause and effect, time, good and evil, etc, then is not God ignorance as well as wisdom? Could it be that it manifests as it will in a perfection far beyond our rational knowing? If I am ignorant and you are wise, don't we still dance an interaction that has beauty and perfection even if one or both of us cannot see that? Can the tail and the head both be true even without seeing/knowing? In the immanent sense, maybe God can be ignorant if it wants to be. In God's transcendence, who knows? If I have misunderstood what you mean by rules and ignorance, let me know. I rarely use the word God because it confuses me. It makes more sense for me to say manifest/unmanifest. Then a more encompassing view is possible for me. I can't define God even a little. It seems like the One or Spirit is called by many, many names and shaped by each person's vision. I am new to the list and have much to learn, so if my understanding of what you and anyone else says is way off, let me know. Tamre ------ To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. ------ Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 The holy trinity can be expressed in the following, non-traditional terms: Creator Creation the Creating, or the process of creation, which IS the moment. The ever eternal present is a bellows from which all things pour. Through it we and God shape each other. In our ideas of our creator, we manifest his/her actions by acting on beliefs. As such, our ideal of an almighty or an omniscient God rules us. We rule each other, the material and the spiritual and its source is now; it's you! Who is it that you refer to when you say 'I think?' Are you your thoughts or are you the thinker? Someone wrote: The past, the future, the present, are all one country, living one immortal day. To know this is wisdom. To use it is the art. love and light ----Original Message Follows---- "Aikya_Param" <aikya If God is both the intelligent and material cause of the universe, then God is not separate from any aspect of it including that which is not all-powerful and that which is ignorant. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Eric Stewart <ganesh_82 advaitin <advaitin > Friday, November 06, 1998 11:24 AM Re: Where is the God? >"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > >So by your definition, everything that is not all-powerful and >all-knowing is not God, correct? This brings me to my reason for asking >this question that you have kindly answered. Remember that I stated >that God operates by certain rules? It may have been better to say that >he/she has set certain guidelines for his/her own conduct. > >In other words, if God is omniscient, then it is surely not God's place >to be ignorant. As such, even God has his/her place. > >Comments? > >----Original Message Follows---- > >"Aikya_Param" <aikya > >God -- > >Existent consciousness not limited by time, space or anything else. The >intelligence behind and the stuff of all "universes." All-knowing and >all-powerful. > >This one is understood from many points of view, may be given many names >and >stories may be assigned. God is seen as immanent or transcendant, >incarnating or not, made up of disparate unlikely forms, or without >form. >Behind all the ideas is one about whom we can say very little. God is >not >entirely a subject or object, cannot be said to exclusively inhabit only >one >form or one place or one time as do the other things we are more skilled >in >describing. > >Aikya Param >P.O. Box 4193 >Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 >Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) >http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ >Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) >http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ > > >Eric Stewart <ganesh_82 >advaitin <advaitin > >Friday, November 06, 1998 10:34 AM > Re: Where is the God? > > >>"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 >> >>I tend to think even God abides by certain rules, maybe set by >>himself/herself or possibly just a matter of physics or nature. It >>could be that I refer to something different when I say God than you >do. >>I am finding that many people use the word God and mean something quite >>varied by it. >> >>At risk of being stoned to death, could you give me your definition of >>God? >> >> >> >> >> >> Love and light, >> Eric. >> >> >>----Original Message Follows---- >> >>"T. Temple" <joklumji >> >>Lilia, >> >>You ask a difficult question. Images work for me when trying to >>understand. >>Maybe this one will help. >> >>Picture a circle -- empty inside. Nothing. This is Godoutside of >>creation. >>Now picture an M in the center -- movement. This is creation. Both can >>be >>true. God can be nothing, outside of creation, manifest within >>creation. >>All that is manifest and all that is unmanifest can be god without >>contradiction. Maybe we are God's breath as exhale/movement and >>reabsorbed >>again. To see this way requires a non-liner view of time. This part, I >>see >>as a figure eight -- an infinity sign. What we know of time is prehaps >a >>fragment of what is encompassed along that cyclical pattern. We draw >>lines >>showing beginning and end, yet that may be purely out of our need to >>form a >>concept of time so that we can order our experience. Some might say >that >>all of eternity is contained in a perpetual now (as a point at the >>center >>of the figure) and the past and future are part of creation arising >from >>that still point in the center. >> >>Anyway, that's just how I can imagine something so sacred and beyond >>comprehension. >> >>Hope it helps >>Let me know! >>Tamra >> >>------ >>To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >>------ >>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >>profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality >>between mind and matter >> >> >> >> >>------ >>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >>/advert.html for more information. >>------ >>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality >between >mind and matter > > > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality >between mind and matter > > > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter ------ To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. ------ Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 >"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > >I tend to think even God abides by certain rules, maybe set by >himself/herself or possibly just a matter of physics or nature. It >could be that I refer to something different when I say God than you do. >I am finding that many people use the word God and mean something quite >varied by it. > >At risk of being stoned to death, could you give me your definition of >God? God or Iswara in Vedanta is crystal clear - The whole of Vibhuuti yoga describes the essence. The thousand names of the Lord is expression of who He is. I have a feeling God in all religions is the same. sarvaJNatwam, sarva shaktitvam, sarva vyaapakatvam - because of which He has the sarva sR^ishhTitvam, sarva aadhaaratvam, prabhava praLaya sthaanam etc. etc.. All religions describe him as omnipotent etc. Same words! Meaning - all knowledge, all skills, all pervading, creator of everything, supporter of everything, from whom everything raises, subsists and dissolves. - ultimately created by one to explain the locus for the creation other than oneself since one has concluded that creation is not his doing! Of course God has also evolved with the evolution of the human thought. In Hindu religions all phenomenoal forces that are beyond man's control are personified as gods! Hence we have gods and king of gods too! and some have big families if the forces are interrelated! They all have relative meaning if one pays attention to them. For a devotee that is enough. Problem comes only for half baked people like us. But whatever helps to bring down the ego of man is O.K. if one understands it correctly - otherwise ego raises in a fanatic way! Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 Eric, I might not understand your question right, but if God is immanent as well as transcendent and if we are the ones who define cause and effect, time, good and evil, etc, then is not God ignorance as well as wisdom? Could it be that it manifests as it will in a perfection far beyond our rational knowing? If I am ignorant and you are wise, don't we still dance an interaction that has beauty and perfection even if one or both of us cannot see that? Can the tail and the head both be true even without seeing/knowing? In the immanent sense, maybe God can be ignorant if it wants to be. In God's transcendence, who knows? If I have misunderstood what you mean by rules and ignorance, let me know. I rarely use the word God because it confuses me. It makes more sense for me to say manifest/unmanifest. Then a more encompassing view is possible for me. I can't define God even a little. It seems like the One or Spirit is called by many, many names and shaped by each person's vision. I am new to the list and have much to learn, so if my understanding of what you and anyone else says is way off, let me know. Tamre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 Eric, As I sent my last e-mail, yours arrived. I agree with you. The gnosis is there and it is ours to find. Great game of hide and seek that the Spirit plays with itself. Comprehending this is obviously impossible without seeing it, so in once sense wisdom and ignorance are different, but in another (from perspective of knowing) they are the same. I believe we're saying the same thing. ?? T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 If God is both the intelligent and material cause of the universe, then God is not separate from any aspect of it including that which is not all-powerful and that which is ignorant. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Eric Stewart <ganesh_82 advaitin <advaitin > Friday, November 06, 1998 11:24 AM Re: Where is the God? >"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > >So by your definition, everything that is not all-powerful and >all-knowing is not God, correct? This brings me to my reason for asking >this question that you have kindly answered. Remember that I stated >that God operates by certain rules? It may have been better to say that >he/she has set certain guidelines for his/her own conduct. > >In other words, if God is omniscient, then it is surely not God's place >to be ignorant. As such, even God has his/her place. > >Comments? > >----Original Message Follows---- > >"Aikya_Param" <aikya > >God -- > >Existent consciousness not limited by time, space or anything else. The >intelligence behind and the stuff of all "universes." All-knowing and >all-powerful. > >This one is understood from many points of view, may be given many names >and >stories may be assigned. God is seen as immanent or transcendant, >incarnating or not, made up of disparate unlikely forms, or without >form. >Behind all the ideas is one about whom we can say very little. God is >not >entirely a subject or object, cannot be said to exclusively inhabit only >one >form or one place or one time as do the other things we are more skilled >in >describing. > >Aikya Param >P.O. Box 4193 >Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 >Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) >http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ >Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) >http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ > > >Eric Stewart <ganesh_82 >advaitin <advaitin > >Friday, November 06, 1998 10:34 AM > Re: Where is the God? > > >>"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 >> >>I tend to think even God abides by certain rules, maybe set by >>himself/herself or possibly just a matter of physics or nature. It >>could be that I refer to something different when I say God than you >do. >>I am finding that many people use the word God and mean something quite >>varied by it. >> >>At risk of being stoned to death, could you give me your definition of >>God? >> >> >> >> >> >> Love and light, >> Eric. >> >> >>----Original Message Follows---- >> >>"T. Temple" <joklumji >> >>Lilia, >> >>You ask a difficult question. Images work for me when trying to >>understand. >>Maybe this one will help. >> >>Picture a circle -- empty inside. Nothing. This is Godoutside of >>creation. >>Now picture an M in the center -- movement. This is creation. Both can >>be >>true. God can be nothing, outside of creation, manifest within >>creation. >>All that is manifest and all that is unmanifest can be god without >>contradiction. Maybe we are God's breath as exhale/movement and >>reabsorbed >>again. To see this way requires a non-liner view of time. This part, I >>see >>as a figure eight -- an infinity sign. What we know of time is prehaps >a >>fragment of what is encompassed along that cyclical pattern. We draw >>lines >>showing beginning and end, yet that may be purely out of our need to >>form a >>concept of time so that we can order our experience. Some might say >that >>all of eternity is contained in a perpetual now (as a point at the >>center >>of the figure) and the past and future are part of creation arising >from >>that still point in the center. >> >>Anyway, that's just how I can imagine something so sacred and beyond >>comprehension. >> >>Hope it helps >>Let me know! >>Tamra >> >>------ >>To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >>------ >>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >>profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality >>between mind and matter >> >> >> >> >>------ >>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >>/advert.html for more information. >>------ >>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality >between >mind and matter > > > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality >between mind and matter > > > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 1998 Report Share Posted November 6, 1998 Greetings: The concept of God in Hinduism is too complex and any description of God is likely to shallow and fall short. Every physical expression amenable to sense perception is nothing ut an expression of the divine. In other words, everything that we see, hear, touch, smell or tase is Divine - that is, comes from God. Since everything is God, we can't ascribe an individual name and form to it. God by definition, has neither name and form. Worldly expressions and coceptual abstractions can't describe God! Nothing that exists is without name and form. But all that exists has a common factor that subsists as a substratum in all. All gold ornaments though different in name and form, have gold as their commonility of content. Advaita recognizes that God is nameless and formless and the name "Brahman" is just a reference point. Hinduism declares: "ekam sad viprA bahudA vadanti - There is only one Truth and the wise speak of it in several ways." Brahman the pointer to God assumes different functional roles in the material universe with the name Ishwara. When we refer to Ishwara in His creative aspect, we call him BrahmA; when we refer to His sustaining aspect, we identify Him as Vishnu and when we visualize Him as Siva while witnessing His destructive and dissolutive role. In each of the above roles, the power or energy aspect is described through respective goddesses Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvathi. Sakti (power) of Ishwara in separable from Ishwara and Hindus naturally worships this power as Sakti, the mother of the Universe. Every homepage in the Internet has a name and a form and they are distinguishable with unique URL address. For them, Internet is the common factor and Internet is invisible and has no name or form. Homepages, mailing lists, E_mails and electronic communications will not happen without the Internet. Internet is neither visible nor comprehensible but we can experience the presence of Internet through the homepages and E_mails. The question "Where is the Internet" is similar to "Where is the God?" Internet can be seen through the homepages and Emails and God can be seen through anything and everthing that is present in the Nature. Any attempt to describe the Brahman is like attempting to describe sweetness to someone who has never tasted sweetness! Ram Chandran Burke, VA Eric Stewart wrote: > "Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > > I tend to think even God abides by certain rules, maybe set by > himself/herself or possibly just a matter of physics or nature. It > could be that I refer to something different when I say God than you do. > I am finding that many people use the word God and mean something quite > varied by it. > > At risk of being stoned to death, could you give me your definition of > God? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 1998 Report Share Posted November 7, 1998 ----Original Message Follows---- Madhava Kumar Turumella <madhava As I understood from my teachers: G = Generator - Brahma O = Operator - Vishnu D = Distructor - Eashwara "mattaH parataraM nAnyat kiMcidasti dhanaMjaya" is the saying in Geeta. If nothing other than him exists, then he is every where You are him, I am him, eveything is nothing but him. Knowing this is "pragnAnaM brahMa"... Then the question comes "If brahma is everywhere, i.e. where ever my conscious reaches, then who am I????" - "tat tvaM asi"... "ayamAtmA braHma". Remember, advaita vEdAMta DiMDima: "brahma satyaM jaganmidhya jeevO braHmaiva nA2paraH" jeeva himself is brahma and he alone is the truth. Hari Om Madhava > > Ram Chandran [sMTP:chandran] > Saturday, November 07, 1998 3:54 AM > advaitin > Re: Where is the God? > > > > At risk of being stoned to death, could you give me your definition > of > > God? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Madhava K. Turumella, MCSE || Phones: +966-2-6650561 (OFFICE) > IT Manager, Saudi Arabia || > +966-2-6622421 (RESI) > MEMRB International || Fax: +966-2-6659772 > P.O.Box: 5978 || E-Mail: > madhava > Jeddah 21432 || http://www.memrb.com > KSA || > http://members.tripod.com/~Madhava Then God, as sHE is called, is much more than omnipotent; sHE is also impotent. Perhaps we should distinguish, when we say God, between the all, the summation of everything that is, and the omniscient intelligence. If God is aware or intelligent, in the way we think of awareness and intelligence, then HEr awareness cannot be known, even to HEr, unless contrasted with a darkness or ignorance of some sort. If God's consciousness is the only consciousness that dichotomies do not apply to, then I, for one, will stop speaking about God and return to my Tao Te Ching...lol. One thing I DO know is that if I am to experience wholeness or the divine unity of cosmos, then I had better stop using my intellect and words. love and light Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 1998 Report Share Posted November 7, 1998 As I understood from my teachers: G = Generator - Brahma O = Operator - Vishnu D = Distructor - Eashwara "mattaH parataraM nAnyat kiMcidasti dhanaMjaya" is the saying in Geeta. If nothing other than him exists, then he is every where You are him, I am him, eveything is nothing but him. Knowing this is "pragnAnaM brahMa"... Then the question comes "If brahma is everywhere, i.e. where ever my conscious reaches, then who am I????" - "tat tvaM asi"... "ayamAtmA braHma". Remember, advaita vEdAMta DiMDima: "brahma satyaM jaganmidhya jeevO braHmaiva nA2paraH" jeeva himself is brahma and he alone is the truth. Hari Om Madhava > > Ram Chandran [sMTP:chandran] > Saturday, November 07, 1998 3:54 AM > advaitin > Re: Where is the God? > > > > At risk of being stoned to death, could you give me your definition > of > > God? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Madhava K. Turumella, MCSE || Phones: +966-2-6650561 (OFFICE) > IT Manager, Saudi Arabia || > +966-2-6622421 (RESI) > MEMRB International || Fax: +966-2-6659772 > P.O.Box: 5978 || E-Mail: > madhava > Jeddah 21432 || http://www.memrb.com > KSA || > http://members.tripod.com/~Madhava > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 1998 Report Share Posted November 7, 1998 The theory of God being the creator and nurturer of universe fails to sink in. As many other members have simply put a but obvious reason that if so than who created the creator? All the inside-outside stuff and creation an on going process is nothing but verbal jugglery. There is no beginning, there will be no end. For example take a tennis ball and try searching it's beginning and it's end. The Universe too is like the ball. There ain't a start or an end. Nothing is evolving. Just like ball the universe is also cyclical. Just like day and night. As everything is cyclical though not necessarily photo-copyist repetitive, they are not evovling but going through a process. So where does God fit into the scheme of things? God is primarily an example for the rest of us. He led such a life that he is out of the cyclical universe and is thus experiencing absolute bliss. He did not create the universe. He was just another guy like us once upon a time. But than we all are similar in our original state that is atman (soul). Than how can we benefit from God? Just as daughter of Bill Clinton draws benefits by just mentioning her association with him. As of now Bill Clinton's name has the power to make things happen for her. God's name has similar but infinitely greater power to makes things better for us. God is our idol. He is the source of inspiration. Our goal is to be like him one day. Thus I cannot think of god as the creator of universe nor are we his puppets. If god was controlling the universe as a puppet master than why isn't everything right. Is he doing it for his pleasure? Veerchand Bothra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 1998 Report Share Posted November 7, 1998 In deed, this is a wonderful question. Actually, in my opinion, adviata comes into picture only when one questions like you "If god was controlling the universe as a puppet master than why isn't everything right. Is he doing it for his pleasure?" I too don't believe in a God who sits in the clouds and make some people fortunate and some other unfortunate. I don't think such God ever exists Does he? One might mistake me for an atheist But I am not :-) Regards, Madhava > > V. C. Bothra [sMTP:bhiroo] > Saturday, November 07, 1998 6:28 PM > advaitin > Re: Where is the God? > > "V. C. Bothra" <bhiroo > > Thus I cannot think of god as the creator of universe nor > are we his puppets. If god was controlling the universe as > a puppet master than why isn't everything right. Is he doing > it for his pleasure? > > Veerchand Bothra > > > ---- > -- > Are you ready to put all of your color pictures on your website or > email > them to friends? XOOM.com has high quality scanners for only $69.95 > http://orders.xoom.com/scn/lsscn1105/ > ---- > -- > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, > profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality > between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 1998 Report Share Posted November 7, 1998 Alex, Thank-you. You have made this much clearer. Tamra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 1998 Report Share Posted November 7, 1998 Dear Ram Chandran, It has been good to learn from everyone. Now i am taking an extended trip outside the country and will not be accessing my mail regularly. I would like my name scratched off the list to avoid getting my mailbox clogged with these discussions. Thank you. With Prem and Om, ia >Thu, 05 Nov 1998 13:59:48 -0500 >Ram Chandran <chandran >advaitin >Reply-to: advaitin > Re: Where is the God? > >Ram Chandran <chandran > >Gregory Goode wrote: > >> >> So the answer to "Where is God?" is -- Everywhere there is a Where, and >> Everywhere there is not a Where, There is God! >> >> --Greg > >Greetings: > >Everywhere contains the question, 'where' and also contains the answer >'here,' and 'ever'! > >-- >Ram V. Chandran >Burke, VA > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 1998 Report Share Posted November 7, 1998 >"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > >I tend to think even God abides by certain rules, maybe set by >himself/herself or possibly just a matter of physics or nature. It >could be that I refer to something different when I say God than you do. >I am finding that many people use the word God and mean something quite >varied by it. > >At risk of being stoned to death, could you give me your definition of >God? There seem to be three usage of "God". 1 The substratum of all that exist and laws that govern their manifestation. 2 The creative principle. 3 Subtle powerful Being that is concerned with the affairs of men. Problems arise when we confuse these concepts and blend some of them together. God no.1 is non-conscious since it is absolute immutable Law. This God is Parabrahman of the Advaitin, Svabhavat of the Buddhist and the ever-elusive Grand Unified Theory of the physicist. God no.2 is Brahma the creative architect of the world. This God is not eternal, Parabrahman plus Maya becomes Ishvara the creative principle which disappears and merges into non-being when Maha-Pralaya (night of Brahma) comes and reappears again at the dawn of next Manvantara. This God is also Adi-Buddhi of the northern Buddhist philosophers, the all-pervading supreme and absolute intelligence with its periodically manifesting Divinity --Avalokiteshvara. This creative principle is collective intelligence and as artificers of the worlds, they are the primary principle of the Universe, although they are at the same time the result of Cosmic Evolution. God no.3 was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them. Theologians assign to Him the attributes of all wise and omnipotent , despite the fact that everything in nature, physical and moral, proves such a being, if he does exist to be quite the reverse. If this imaginary Personal God had the power attributed to him and the universal and immutable laws were but toys to play with, then indeed He would have created conditions that would have turned this earth into an Arcadia for lofty souls. The chief aim of advaita is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery. And no true Advaitin will ever call himself an agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahman and identical in every respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself. Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 1998 Report Share Posted November 8, 1998 Regarding-- >1 The substratum of all that exist and laws that govern their manifestation. God no.1 is non-conscious since it is absolute immutable Law. This God is >Parabrahman of the Advaitin, Svabhavat of the Buddhist and the ever-elusive >Grand Unified Theory of the physicist. In my studies we always discussed law as the intelligence behind things. Where that intelligence was, consciousness also was. There must be a knower along with the intelligence. I had a question about this one: > >God no.3 was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which >man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them. Theologians >assign to Him the attributes of all wise and omnipotent , despite the fact >that everything in nature, physical and moral, proves such a being, if he does >exist to be quite the reverse. If this imaginary Personal God had the power >attributed to him and the universal and immutable laws were but toys to play >with, then indeed He would have created conditions that would have turned this >earth into an Arcadia for lofty souls. It sounds like you are saying that this idea of god was invented by people and that the "real" God has either nothing to do with people and the world or hasn't much power to do anything in the face of your #1 idea of God's rules. Is that what you menat to say? Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1998 Report Share Posted November 9, 1998 Sounds like my view of the awakened and the sleeper. The sleeper's consciousness is different from the awakened's, brainwave patterns will verify this, but the sleeper does not experience an absence of consciousness. I think there is a threshold that awareness reaches wherein it considers itself aware, when it is aware enough to turn upon itself and regard itself. Perhaps the only difference between being awake and asleep is that during sleep, we are aware and when 'awake,' we know we are aware. ----Original Message Follows---- Alex Siegel <aphis >"Aikya_Param" <aikya > >In my studies we always discussed law as the intelligence behind things. >Where >that intelligence was, consciousness also was. There must be a knower along >with the intelligence. You are right, however, this cannot apply to the Absolute. The reasons why Parabrahman is not conscious in the sense that we can think or imagine of (intelligence, thinking, love, bliss etc.): To be conscious there must be object of consciousness and that means duality of the Knower and the Known. To be intelligence is to have discrimination, to make plan and choice, an action inconsistent with immutable Law. How can the Absolute be supposed to think -i.e. to have any relation to what is limited, finite, and conditioned? Besides these, intelligence is a faculty that can appertain but to organized being, however subtle or rather invisible the materials of their organizations. Purush cannot exist without Prakriti. This requires the state of differentiation which is not consistence with the Absolute. Thus any consciousness that we can recognize of, is limited and conditioned. So we can not apply it to Parabrahman. However, its state is not unconscious in the sense of the negation of all consciousness either. It is neither Ego nor non-Ego, neither matter nor spirit and neither object nor subject. It is the original and eternal combination of Purush and Prakriti and has its own state that no words can describe, the best approximate term is from the Upanishad - "Nirupadhikam mahacaitanyam". >It sounds like you are saying that this idea of god was invented by people >and >that the "real" God has either nothing to do with people and the world or >hasn't >much power to do anything in the face of your #1 idea of God's rules. Is >that >what you menat to say? Yes, it was as you surmised, the all powerful, omniscient personal God does not exist. This anthropomorphic God is but a gigantic shadow of man, and not man at his best, either. Why is there a cycle of four Yugas? Why doesn't God create only Satya Yuga? Why was there so much suffering in the Great War and if it was only Maya and a dream, why had such a horrible dream to be created? And if suffering is necesary to recall that man has forsaken his eternal home, why did God make him left his home in the first place? To answer that "the ways of the Lord are inscrutable" is equal to saying that it is inevitable and God has to abide by certain laws especially the law of Karma. Some have taken Krishna's exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone as supporting the doctrine of a personal God. But this is an erroneous conclusion. For, though speaking of himself as Parabrahman, Krishna is still Ishvara or the Logos. He described himself as Atma, but no doubt is one with Parabrahman, as there is no essential difference between Atma and Parabrahman. Certainly Ishvara can speak of himself as Parabrahman. So all sons of God, including Christ, have spoken of themselves as one with the Father. His saying, that he exists in every entity in the Cosmos, expresses strictly an attribute of Parabrahman. But Ishvara, being a manifestation of Parabrahman, can use these words and assume these attributes. Thus Krishna only called upon Arjuna to worship his own highest spirit, through which alone he can hope to attain salvation. This implies no idea of a personal God. There are indeed intelligence and powers that interfere with men and the world, not only our world and our human kingdom but all the departments of Nature. However, these mighty beings are neither God nor omnipotent, though they are frequently mistaken to be as such. They are Siddhas, Jivanmukti, Rishis, Mahatamas, Bodhisattvas, Nirmanakayas etc. By utilizing knowledge of the subtle laws of Nature they can manipulate forces to cause the result that seems to us a miracle. Even when Moksha is reached, they may forsake the choice of resting in Nirvana and still engage in helping the process of evolution. Alex ------ Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit /advert.html for more information. ------ Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1998 Report Share Posted November 9, 1998 >"Aikya_Param" <aikya > >In my studies we always discussed law as the intelligence behind things. >Where >that intelligence was, consciousness also was. There must be a knower along >with the intelligence. You are right, however, this cannot apply to the Absolute. The reasons why Parabrahman is not conscious in the sense that we can think or imagine of (intelligence, thinking, love, bliss etc.): To be conscious there must be object of consciousness and that means duality of the Knower and the Known. To be intelligence is to have discrimination, to make plan and choice, an action inconsistent with immutable Law. How can the Absolute be supposed to think -i.e. to have any relation to what is limited, finite, and conditioned? Besides these, intelligence is a faculty that can appertain but to organized being, however subtle or rather invisible the materials of their organizations. Purush cannot exist without Prakriti. This requires the state of differentiation which is not consistence with the Absolute. Thus any consciousness that we can recognize of, is limited and conditioned. So we can not apply it to Parabrahman. However, its state is not unconscious in the sense of the negation of all consciousness either. It is neither Ego nor non-Ego, neither matter nor spirit and neither object nor subject. It is the original and eternal combination of Purush and Prakriti and has its own state that no words can describe, the best approximate term is from the Upanishad - "Nirupadhikam mahacaitanyam". >It sounds like you are saying that this idea of god was invented by people >and >that the "real" God has either nothing to do with people and the world or >hasn't >much power to do anything in the face of your #1 idea of God's rules. Is >that >what you menat to say? Yes, it was as you surmised, the all powerful, omniscient personal God does not exist. This anthropomorphic God is but a gigantic shadow of man, and not man at his best, either. Why is there a cycle of four Yugas? Why doesn't God create only Satya Yuga? Why was there so much suffering in the Great War and if it was only Maya and a dream, why had such a horrible dream to be created? And if suffering is necesary to recall that man has forsaken his eternal home, why did God make him left his home in the first place? To answer that "the ways of the Lord are inscrutable" is equal to saying that it is inevitable and God has to abide by certain laws especially the law of Karma. Some have taken Krishna's exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone as supporting the doctrine of a personal God. But this is an erroneous conclusion. For, though speaking of himself as Parabrahman, Krishna is still Ishvara or the Logos. He described himself as Atma, but no doubt is one with Parabrahman, as there is no essential difference between Atma and Parabrahman. Certainly Ishvara can speak of himself as Parabrahman. So all sons of God, including Christ, have spoken of themselves as one with the Father. His saying, that he exists in every entity in the Cosmos, expresses strictly an attribute of Parabrahman. But Ishvara, being a manifestation of Parabrahman, can use these words and assume these attributes. Thus Krishna only called upon Arjuna to worship his own highest spirit, through which alone he can hope to attain salvation. This implies no idea of a personal God. There are indeed intelligence and powers that interfere with men and the world, not only our world and our human kingdom but all the departments of Nature. However, these mighty beings are neither God nor omnipotent, though they are frequently mistaken to be as such. They are Siddhas, Jivanmukti, Rishis, Mahatamas, Bodhisattvas, Nirmanakayas etc. By utilizing knowledge of the subtle laws of Nature they can manipulate forces to cause the result that seems to us a miracle. Even when Moksha is reached, they may forsake the choice of resting in Nirvana and still engage in helping the process of evolution. Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1998 Report Share Posted November 9, 1998 > > Eric Stewart [sMTP:ganesh_82] > Tuesday, November 10, 1998 12:54 AM > advaitin > Re: Where is the God? > > "Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > > Some have taken Krishna's exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone > as > supporting the doctrine of a personal God. But this is an erroneous > conclusion. > [<MADHAVA replies:>] > Indeed, a very good explanation. My regards to you. > > There are indeed intelligence and powers that interfere with men and > the > world, not only our world and our human kingdom but all the > departments > of > Nature. However, these mighty beings are neither God nor omnipotent, > though > they are frequently mistaken to be as such. They are Siddhas, > Jivanmukti, > Rishis, Mahatamas, Bodhisattvas, Nirmanakayas etc. By utilizing > knowledge of > the subtle laws of Nature they can manipulate forces to cause the > result > that > seems to us a miracle. Even when Moksha is reached, they may forsake > the > choice of resting in Nirvana and still engage in helping the process > of > evolution. > > Alex > [<MADHAVA replies:>] > I am curious, can you explain this point further > > I understand, from your previous articles, that you express your > points quite logically. Anyway, how can you logically support the > point that Siddhas and Rishis can manipulate the forces? > > Best Regards > Madhava > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 1998 Report Share Posted November 10, 1998 My name is all over the quoted text below but there is not one word that is mine. Am I missing something? ----Original Message Follows---- Madhava Kumar Turumella <madhava > > Eric Stewart [sMTP:ganesh_82] > Tuesday, November 10, 1998 12:54 AM > advaitin > Re: Where is the God? > > "Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > > Some have taken Krishna's exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone > as > supporting the doctrine of a personal God. But this is an erroneous > conclusion. > [<MADHAVA replies:>] > Indeed, a very good explanation. My regards to you. > > There are indeed intelligence and powers that interfere with men and > the > world, not only our world and our human kingdom but all the > departments > of > Nature. However, these mighty beings are neither God nor omnipotent, > though > they are frequently mistaken to be as such. They are Siddhas, > Jivanmukti, > Rishis, Mahatamas, Bodhisattvas, Nirmanakayas etc. By utilizing > knowledge of > the subtle laws of Nature they can manipulate forces to cause the > result > that > seems to us a miracle. Even when Moksha is reached, they may forsake > the > choice of resting in Nirvana and still engage in helping the process > of > evolution. > > Alex > [<MADHAVA replies:>] > I am curious, can you explain this point further > > I understand, from your previous articles, that you express your > points quite logically. Anyway, how can you logically support the > point that Siddhas and Rishis can manipulate the forces? > > Best Regards > Madhava > > > ------ Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit /advert.html for more information. ------ Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 1998 Report Share Posted November 10, 1998 We must be sure exactly of what we speak. What is it that is conscious. 'Conscious' describes a state and that which IS conscious, is not consciousness itself. If we are to describe an attainment in anthropomorphic terms, then we are not speaking of the absolute. To describe ANYTHING as 'conscious' is to put it into human terms. If there is anything conscious, as we know consciousness, it is not the absolute. The absolute is simply a term for that which is unknowable but which we assume is unalterable/unchanging. I maintain that the only constant is change. Also, I see the utter failure of words in conveying the meaning I intend. If any grasp my meaning from the above, give yourself credit. ----Original Message Follows---- "Aikya_Param" <aikya If the absolute is not conscious, then the real I cannot be identical. That the Atma, what the individual means when they say "I", is identical with the absolute as sat, chit ananda is the man point of advaita vedanta. Aikya Alex Siegel <aphis advaitin <advaitin > Monday, November 09, 1998 11:48 AM Re: Where is the God? >Alex Siegel <aphis > >>"Aikya_Param" <aikya >> >>In my studies we always discussed law as the intelligence behind things. >>Where >>that intelligence was, consciousness also was. There must be a knower along >>with the intelligence. > >You are right, however, this cannot apply to the Absolute. > >The reasons why Parabrahman is not conscious in the sense that we can think or >imagine of (intelligence, thinking, love, bliss etc.): > >To be conscious there must be object of consciousness and that means duality >of the Knower and the Known. To be intelligence is to have discrimination, to >make plan and choice, an action inconsistent with immutable Law. How can the >Absolute be supposed to think -i.e. to have any relation to what is limited, >finite, and conditioned? Besides these, intelligence is a faculty that can >appertain but to organized being, however subtle or rather invisible the >materials of their organizations. Purush cannot exist without Prakriti. This >requires the state of differentiation which is not consistence with the >Absolute. > >Thus any consciousness that we can recognize of, is limited and conditioned. >So we can not apply it to Parabrahman. However, its state is not unconscious >in the sense of the negation of all consciousness either. It is neither Ego >nor non-Ego, neither matter nor spirit and neither object nor subject. It is >the original and eternal combination of Purush and Prakriti and has its own >state that no words can describe, the best approximate term is from the >Upanishad - "Nirupadhikam mahacaitanyam". > >>It sounds like you are saying that this idea of god was invented by people >>and >>that the "real" God has either nothing to do with people and the world or >>hasn't >>much power to do anything in the face of your #1 idea of God's rules. Is >>that >>what you menat to say? > >Yes, it was as you surmised, the all powerful, omniscient personal God does >not exist. This anthropomorphic God is but a gigantic shadow of man, and not >man at his best, either. > >Why is there a cycle of four Yugas? Why doesn't God create only Satya Yuga? >Why was there so much suffering in the Great War and if it was only Maya and a >dream, why had such a horrible dream to be created? And if suffering is >necesary to recall that man has forsaken his eternal home, why did God make >him left his home in the first place? To answer that "the ways of the Lord are >inscrutable" is equal to saying that it is inevitable and God has to abide by >certain laws especially the law of Karma. > >Some have taken Krishna's exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone as >supporting the doctrine of a personal God. But this is an erroneous >conclusion. For, though speaking of himself as Parabrahman, Krishna is still >Ishvara or the Logos. He described himself as Atma, but no doubt is one with >Parabrahman, as there is no essential difference between Atma and Parabrahman. >Certainly Ishvara can speak of himself as Parabrahman. So all sons of God, >including Christ, have spoken of themselves as one with the Father. His >saying, that he exists in every entity in the Cosmos, expresses strictly an >attribute of Parabrahman. But Ishvara, being a manifestation of Parabrahman, >can use these words and assume these attributes. Thus Krishna only called upon >Arjuna to worship his own highest spirit, through which alone he can hope to >attain salvation. This implies no idea of a personal God. > >There are indeed intelligence and powers that interfere with men and the >world, not only our world and our human kingdom but all the departments of >Nature. However, these mighty beings are neither God nor omnipotent, though >they are frequently mistaken to be as such. They are Siddhas, Jivanmukti, >Rishis, Mahatamas, Bodhisattvas, Nirmanakayas etc. By utilizing knowledge of >the subtle laws of Nature they can manipulate forces to cause the result that >seems to us a miracle. Even when Moksha is reached, they may forsake the >choice of resting in Nirvana and still engage in helping the process of >evolution. > >Alex > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter ------ Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit /advert.html for more information. ------ Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 1998 Report Share Posted November 10, 1998 If the absolute is not conscious, then the real I cannot be identical. That the Atma, what the individual means when they say "I", is identical with the absolute as sat, chit ananda is the man point of advaita vedanta. Aikya Alex Siegel <aphis advaitin <advaitin > Monday, November 09, 1998 11:48 AM Re: Where is the God? >Alex Siegel <aphis > >>"Aikya_Param" <aikya >> >>In my studies we always discussed law as the intelligence behind things. >>Where >>that intelligence was, consciousness also was. There must be a knower along >>with the intelligence. > >You are right, however, this cannot apply to the Absolute. > >The reasons why Parabrahman is not conscious in the sense that we can think or >imagine of (intelligence, thinking, love, bliss etc.): > >To be conscious there must be object of consciousness and that means duality >of the Knower and the Known. To be intelligence is to have discrimination, to >make plan and choice, an action inconsistent with immutable Law. How can the >Absolute be supposed to think -i.e. to have any relation to what is limited, >finite, and conditioned? Besides these, intelligence is a faculty that can >appertain but to organized being, however subtle or rather invisible the >materials of their organizations. Purush cannot exist without Prakriti. This >requires the state of differentiation which is not consistence with the >Absolute. > >Thus any consciousness that we can recognize of, is limited and conditioned. >So we can not apply it to Parabrahman. However, its state is not unconscious >in the sense of the negation of all consciousness either. It is neither Ego >nor non-Ego, neither matter nor spirit and neither object nor subject. It is >the original and eternal combination of Purush and Prakriti and has its own >state that no words can describe, the best approximate term is from the >Upanishad - "Nirupadhikam mahacaitanyam". > >>It sounds like you are saying that this idea of god was invented by people >>and >>that the "real" God has either nothing to do with people and the world or >>hasn't >>much power to do anything in the face of your #1 idea of God's rules. Is >>that >>what you menat to say? > >Yes, it was as you surmised, the all powerful, omniscient personal God does >not exist. This anthropomorphic God is but a gigantic shadow of man, and not >man at his best, either. > >Why is there a cycle of four Yugas? Why doesn't God create only Satya Yuga? >Why was there so much suffering in the Great War and if it was only Maya and a >dream, why had such a horrible dream to be created? And if suffering is >necesary to recall that man has forsaken his eternal home, why did God make >him left his home in the first place? To answer that "the ways of the Lord are >inscrutable" is equal to saying that it is inevitable and God has to abide by >certain laws especially the law of Karma. > >Some have taken Krishna's exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone as >supporting the doctrine of a personal God. But this is an erroneous >conclusion. For, though speaking of himself as Parabrahman, Krishna is still >Ishvara or the Logos. He described himself as Atma, but no doubt is one with >Parabrahman, as there is no essential difference between Atma and Parabrahman. >Certainly Ishvara can speak of himself as Parabrahman. So all sons of God, >including Christ, have spoken of themselves as one with the Father. His >saying, that he exists in every entity in the Cosmos, expresses strictly an >attribute of Parabrahman. But Ishvara, being a manifestation of Parabrahman, >can use these words and assume these attributes. Thus Krishna only called upon >Arjuna to worship his own highest spirit, through which alone he can hope to >attain salvation. This implies no idea of a personal God. > >There are indeed intelligence and powers that interfere with men and the >world, not only our world and our human kingdom but all the departments of >Nature. However, these mighty beings are neither God nor omnipotent, though >they are frequently mistaken to be as such. They are Siddhas, Jivanmukti, >Rishis, Mahatamas, Bodhisattvas, Nirmanakayas etc. By utilizing knowledge of >the subtle laws of Nature they can manipulate forces to cause the result that >seems to us a miracle. Even when Moksha is reached, they may forsake the >choice of resting in Nirvana and still engage in helping the process of >evolution. > >Alex > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 1998 Report Share Posted November 10, 1998 hariH OM! there seems to be a number of ways that the concept of God, or isvara, is approached in vedanta. those that chose to utilize it as a modality to surrender their ego to, via the way of bhakti, may attach all kinds of sublime characteristics to [this] supreme Being. others may merely acknowledge isvara as an inscrutable and thus ultimately *unknowable* intelligence responsible for the mysterious cycle of creation, sustenance, and dissolution--comprising thus the leela of brahman. now, if one is primarily on the path of jnana, the latter approach is more tenable because it preserves the conceptual attitude foundational to the reality of the nirguna substratum. this is because if/when a relative [and thus *knowable*] definition becomes the focus of attention re saguna brahman, one gets invariably sucked into the world of maya, due to the unavoidable tendency to regard such as a *thing in itself*...thus usurping the sadhana of the purification of mind. it's noteworthy, for example, to consider in fact the incompatibility of the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience to the godhead, simply because if god was all-powerful, (s)he could change an event in the future, which would mean (s)he wouldn't be able to know the future, invalidating omniscience. regarding basics: of course the methods differ, but the goal is the same for the jnana, bhakti, and karma yogin: how to neutralize the relentless judgment machine that is the ego-mind, and get thus permanently established in the omnipresent Substratum. as sri ramana pointed out, there are primarily two ways: via the search for the reality of this ego-mind through self-inquiry, or via the surrenderance of the ego-mind to brahman through the immediacy of isvara. and if the latter method is used (especially if used in conjunction with the former), in my opinion it is most efficacious if the idea of isvara remains fluid, insofar as being transcendental as well as immanent, simultaneously. moreover, can there anyway be any final real idea concerning the true state of isvara? namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1998 Report Share Posted November 11, 1998 My apologies for the confusion. I was trying to aviod resending such a long mail. Anyway, I attached the full length of mail again. I was my mistake. It would have been better if your reply text was fully indented. Hari Om Madhava > > Eric Stewart [sMTP:ganesh_82] > Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:52 AM > advaitin > Re: Where is the God? > > "Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > > My name is all over the quoted text below but there is not one word > that > is mine. Am I missing something? > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > Madhava Kumar Turumella <madhava > > > > > Eric Stewart [sMTP:ganesh_82] > > Tuesday, November 10, 1998 12:54 AM > > advaitin > > Re: Where is the God? > > > > "Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > > > > Some have taken Krishna's exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone > > as > > supporting the doctrine of a personal God. But this is an erroneous > > conclusion. > > [<MADHAVA replies:>] > > Indeed, a very good explanation. My regards to you. > > > > There are indeed intelligence and powers that interfere with men and > > the > > world, not only our world and our human kingdom but all the > > departments > > of > > Nature. However, these mighty beings are neither God nor omnipotent, > > > though > > they are frequently mistaken to be as such. They are Siddhas, > > Jivanmukti, > > Rishis, Mahatamas, Bodhisattvas, Nirmanakayas etc. By utilizing > > knowledge of > > the subtle laws of Nature they can manipulate forces to cause the > > result > > that > > seems to us a miracle. Even when Moksha is reached, they may forsake > > the > > choice of resting in Nirvana and still engage in helping the process > > of > > evolution. > > > > Alex > > [<MADHAVA replies:>] > > I am curious, can you explain this point further > > > > I understand, from your previous articles, that you express your > > points quite logically. Anyway, how can you logically support the > > point that Siddhas and Rishis can manipulate the forces? > > > > Best Regards > > Madhava > > > > > > > > "Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > > Sounds like my view of the awakened and the sleeper. The sleeper's > consciousness is different from the awakened's, brainwave patterns > will > verify this, but the sleeper does not experience an absence of > consciousness. I think there is a threshold that awareness reaches > wherein it considers itself aware, when it is aware enough to turn > upon > itself and regard itself. Perhaps the only difference between being > awake and asleep is that during sleep, we are aware and when 'awake,' > we > know we are aware. > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > Alex Siegel <aphis > > >"Aikya_Param" <aikya > > > >In my studies we always discussed law as the intelligence behind > things. > >Where > >that intelligence was, consciousness also was. There must be a > knower > along > >with the intelligence. > > You are right, however, this cannot apply to the Absolute. > > The reasons why Parabrahman is not conscious in the sense that we can > think or > imagine of (intelligence, thinking, love, bliss etc.): > > To be conscious there must be object of consciousness and that means > duality > of the Knower and the Known. To be intelligence is to have > discrimination, to > make plan and choice, an action inconsistent with immutable Law. How > can > the > Absolute be supposed to think -i.e. to have any relation to what is > limited, > finite, and conditioned? Besides these, intelligence is a faculty that > > can > appertain but to organized being, however subtle or rather invisible > the > materials of their organizations. Purush cannot exist without > Prakriti. > This > requires the state of differentiation which is not consistence with > the > Absolute. > > Thus any consciousness that we can recognize of, is limited and > conditioned. > So we can not apply it to Parabrahman. However, its state is not > unconscious > in the sense of the negation of all consciousness either. It is > neither > Ego > nor non-Ego, neither matter nor spirit and neither object nor subject. > > It is > the original and eternal combination of Purush and Prakriti and has > its > own > state that no words can describe, the best approximate term is from > the > Upanishad - "Nirupadhikam mahacaitanyam". > > >It sounds like you are saying that this idea of god was invented by > people > >and > >that the "real" God has either nothing to do with people and the > world > or > >hasn't > >much power to do anything in the face of your #1 idea of God's rules. > > Is > >that > >what you menat to say? > > Yes, it was as you surmised, the all powerful, omniscient personal God > > does > not exist. This anthropomorphic God is but a gigantic shadow of man, > and > not > man at his best, either. > > Why is there a cycle of four Yugas? Why doesn't God create only Satya > Yuga? > Why was there so much suffering in the Great War and if it was only > Maya > and a > dream, why had such a horrible dream to be created? And if suffering > is > necesary to recall that man has forsaken his eternal home, why did God > > make > him left his home in the first place? To answer that "the ways of the > Lord are > inscrutable" is equal to saying that it is inevitable and God has to > abide by > certain laws especially the law of Karma. > > Some have taken Krishna's exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone > as > supporting the doctrine of a personal God. But this is an erroneous > conclusion. For, though speaking of himself as Parabrahman, Krishna is > > still > Ishvara or the Logos. He described himself as Atma, but no doubt is > one > with > Parabrahman, as there is no essential difference between Atma and > Parabrahman. > Certainly Ishvara can speak of himself as Parabrahman. So all sons of > God, > including Christ, have spoken of themselves as one with the Father. > His > saying, that he exists in every entity in the Cosmos, expresses > strictly > an > attribute of Parabrahman. But Ishvara, being a manifestation of > Parabrahman, > can use these words and assume these attributes. Thus Krishna only > called upon > Arjuna to worship his own highest spirit, through which alone he can > hope to > attain salvation. This implies no idea of a personal God. > > There are indeed intelligence and powers that interfere with men and > the > world, not only our world and our human kingdom but all the > departments > of > Nature. However, these mighty beings are neither God nor omnipotent, > though > they are frequently mistaken to be as such. They are Siddhas, > Jivanmukti, > Rishis, Mahatamas, Bodhisattvas, Nirmanakayas etc. By utilizing > knowledge of > the subtle laws of Nature they can manipulate forces to cause the > result > that > seems to us a miracle. Even when Moksha is reached, they may forsake > the > choice of resting in Nirvana and still engage in helping the process > of > evolution. > > Alex > > > ---- > -- > Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or > service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit > /advert.html for more information. > ---- > -- > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, > profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality > between mind and matter > > > > ---- > -- > To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription > to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and > select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. > ---- > -- > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, > profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality > between mind and matter > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.