Doing - me or God

August 21, 2000

I'll continue on the periphery of the discussion this time, I think, having

already fallen behind since I've been away for a couple of days. Just a few

passing observations.

All these Gods that are (necessarily) only part of vyavahaara: - Why do we

need to even consider them? Are they not actually only our own invention,

and thus even more illusory than we are (if that is possible)? Isn't it all

tantamount to trying to put the content of our dreams on some sort of

scientific footing; as though I should expect that the characters in your

dream will behave the same as the ones in mine? Sadananda, Greg, et al, are

you saying that all of these gods actually exist (to the same degree that we

exist)? Is there a separate Iswara, a God of the Christians, of the Muslims,

etc. or are they all one and the same (illusory) God? Would we have to get

involved in discussions of satkaaryavaada and all the rest in order for

someone to be able to provide a 'simple' answer to this one?

Yes, Greg, Patrick - the painting metaphor I mentioned is the one given by

Ramesh (my post at the time did say this). I like Greg's summary - there are

no separate entities; therefore it is meaningless to talk about free will or

determinism - simple isn't it!

Dennis

August 21, 2000

Hi Dennis,

Let me try to give a short answer to your gods question, thought others

will be mush more helpful on the cultural side of the discussion. As I

understand it from the Chinmaya Mission teachings, the traditional advaita

vedanta teachings were not given right away, but only after years and years

while the aspirant/youth/student had been diligently practicing karma and

bhakti and other yogas. Jnana yoga and advaita textual study had not begun

yet. So, in the earlier stages of one's Hindu education, it is not taught

that God is a creation of man's mind. Explanations along these lines come

only later. So it doesn't seem like a depressing or useless world at the

time one is instructed about God. If the Jnana and advaita textual study

are effective, then it will never seem like a pointless world to the

student. The advaita texts and teachers are abundantly devotional. There

is Joy in worshipping and giving thanks to the Lord! Maybe I'm misinformed

here, but I'd always heard that in Hinduism (karma-kanda), the aspirant may

understand the gods either way, as literal characters, or as aspects of the

One. An advaitic understanding should not remove one's impulse to love the

Lord. Actually, it removes the blocks and impediments so that the Lord is

joyfully seen everywhere, as everything. And if there is a figure of the

Lord on one's altar or temple, this is also very sweet and wonderful.

Let me ask - were you in the School of Practical Philosophy? The friends I

know from the School tell me that there is no bhakti yoga there - mostly

karma. Even the scritpural studies serve to develop karma yoga more than

jnana yoga....

I've got to run here, need to get to work, but have you heard of the notion

of "sublation"? Teachings about God, about the creation of the world,

about cause and effect and other big questions are often given in stages,

each stage accounting for and sublating the prior. It is important to

remember that the teachings are not designed to accurately and

isomorphically mirror an external reality. Rather, they are to untwist the

mind/intellect/emotional complex to get rid of impediments to seeing our

true nature. It seems you are asking about the ACCURACY of teachings.

That's not the point really. It is rather that they be EFFECTIVE.

You also ask whether the different religion's gods are truly different.

Not sure if you are looking for philosophical or textual discussion here...

How about these two statements:

God is One, but called by different names.

Also, in answer to the claims of unique divinity of the Christians' Christ:

If God can incarnate once (as Jesus),

then why not more than once?

Regards,

--Greg

Here are two statements that Hid

At 01:14 PM 8/21/00 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote:

>>>>