Guest guest Posted March 11, 2001 Report Share Posted March 11, 2001 Interesting discussions on Gods – reality- Brahman etc – Here are my understanding about Gods. Since the discussion is taking place at Jiiva level – let us stick to that without jumping to the absolute level since at the absolute level the whole discussions has no relevance. Gods, at least in Hinduism, at macrocosmic level are phenomenal forces or symbolically deities behind the phenomenal forces – thus we have God of fire, agni, God of rain, varuNa, God of Wind, Vaayu, God of Death, yama etc, etc. And chief controller of all these Indra, etc. We have also symbolized the god of creative urge, Brahma and since the creation requires knowledge, his consort, Saraswati, god of sustenance or maintenance, Lord Vishnu and who needs lot of wealth to maintain and hence found his consort as Lakshmi, and Lord of destruction or change, Shiva who needs power to destroy, Shakti or paarvati. – These are phenomenal forces that in which jiiva does not have any control. He may be able to use these forces for his benefit if he is intelligent enough, but there comes to a stage where they can be so powerful all he has to do is save himself – The tornadoes and violent storms etc we get every summer – all we may be able to predicts its path or measure its intensity yet we are not yet in a position to control them – all we can do is run away from them to save ourselves. Since these are phenomena they are within the realm of the universe – jagat which itself is a phenomenon. Hence if we define jagat kaaraNam Brahma as the material and intelligent cause, since as the suutra 2 and 3 imply that He is omniscient and omnipotent. Hence He is the Lord. Lord exists as long we think jagat exists These kaaraNa-kaarya or cause-effect relations go together and therefore we bring along with these multilevel gods – phenomenal forces within the creation, we also bring the Lord of all Lord the Iswara who is the omnipotent and omniscient. – All because there is world out there and we have to deal with the world and there are forces beyond jiiva’s abilities to control or to command these forces. Science may explain how rain come etc but these are only more and more sophisticated explanations – as the science is evolving – in terms of Chaos and strange attractors all the non-linear dynamics, we are barely able to learn the phenomena but controlling them is far beyond. Yet the existence of these forces – magnetic or electrical, gravitational, nuclear etc are not because of us in the sense we are not direct cause for their manifestation. It is not individual creation since it is manifestation of samishhTi or total mind, which is Iswara. Hence from individual mind’s level they are not controllable. The reasons I brought Chaos theory is, if one is familiar, one will learn that even the fluttering of a butterfly in China can affect the storm system in the south of Florida. The phenomena is multivariable problem each providing a perturbations and collective effect of these result in large-scale phenomena such as storms etc. Since jiiva has no direct control – we attribute as Gods controlling or as the driving forces for these phenomena. All this explanation at the macro level. At the micro level – we have phenomena that is occurring – these we can take as the pancha praaNa-s – the j~naana indriya-s and karma indriya-s etc these faculties operating – hearing, seeing, smelling, etc. We take it granted that we have them but most of them time we have no control on the functioning of the nerves system. Hence in Hinduism they ascribe governing deities and these faculties are also are attributed to Gods. Indra is the God intellect and chandra or moon is the god of the mind –People become romantic on full moon day – some become lunatic too – since moon is known to disturb the mind. Bottom line is forces beyond jiiva’s control are symbolized in terms of Gods. In India a culture is developed such that it has become a way of life - it is recognition of this fact that Gods are there operating the forces beyond ones control, the very recognition of that involved through prayers, the prayers itself sets a frame of mind. A mind free from attachements. If one reads the 18th ch. Of Geeta – Krishna sys there are several factors that help in framing the result of an action. – Besides the conducive environment in terms of time and place and the ones efforts at the body, mind and intellect level, there is fifth factor – daivam – the role of god in formulating the results – Hence Krishna’s declaration from the second chapter on – you have only choice in action and not on the results – the results are formulated by the factors beyond jiiva’s control – hence daiviim. When I throw a stone, the trajectory is not dictated by me but the laws of nature – gravitational forces, frictional forces etc. these I cannot mend or amend – all I have to do is to understand and operate but they are not under my control – The same is true for a results. One can expect result but one should also expect that his expectation could go wrong. The purpose of knowing about gods or whatever you want to call these phenomenal forces that are beyond our control – is to make us aware the complexities involved in the solidification of the results – so that my mind is fully prepared for it. Hence my mind become non-reactive but only active in the sense if the stone I throw did not reach the target, I have to learn from the results the rules of the game and throw the next stone properly so that the my expected results get manifested. That is, mind becomes freed from disturbances resulting from my attachment to the result – that is the essence of Karmayoga. When I know that Lord is formulating the result – I offer my action as a prayer to the lord that is called naivedyam or kaikaryam – and the result comes from Him and as prasaadam. This is what is taught in the temples – symbolically offering fruits that we buy in store to the Lord – But once it is offered to the Lord it becomes naivedyam. Since we have reverence to the Lord, we have to make sure what is offered is worthy of offering. So it should be the best we can offer. When it comes back from the Lord it is considered as prasaadam –They are not the fruits anymore in the market. We are taught to share the prasaadam with everybody. Also when we receive the prasaadam we do not question how much I am getting and how much the other fellow is getting, does it taste good, sweet, hot or bitter etc. Since it is prasaadam we accept with reverential attitude – flower or water or fruit or whatever that is given to us as our share. But this is symbolic but every action is an offering and every result is a prasaadam. This attitude screen the mind from reacting – a non-reactive mind is the learning mind. And that alone is fit for Brahman enquiry. Thus even though we have vaasana-s, which propels us to have desire. There is no point in asking not to have desires because we already have them. Now it is only a question of neutralizing them – that can be done by offering all the actions that are prompted by desire which are in turn due to our vaasana-s at the alter of our love – the supreme God – (The alter of love or offering should be such that we know it is accepted as it is offered with any judgement, recognizing our limitations as jiiva – Hence Krishna says – one can offer a fruit, flower or even water – I accept if it offered by Bhakti or love – Since he is returning all the things back what he is taking is only that love or bhakti). Because a devotee understands he develops an attitude that the results of those actions are His prasaadam – we are essentially neutralizing these vaasana-s. The pressure of the Vaasana-s decrease and the mind is able to contemplate on the inquiry more and more. Hence Karmayoga is considered as the most effective in removing vaasana-s and for karma to become yoga – we need Iswara – without Iswara there is karma cannot become a yoga! Now you begin to see the role of God in the Saadhana. Some time back I posted a note on Devotion – in response to someone just as you, Dennis, wrote, that he has not Bhakta and is non-ritualistic etc.,- what is a true bhakti or devotion. As always – bhakti can be expressed as puuja at the body level, prayers at the mind level and contemplation or meditation at the intellect level –the later one is better in fact better than the former one. – As Bhagavaan Ramana puts it – puujanam japaa chintanam kramaat – And in the meditation also - bhedabaavana sohamityasou, bhaavanaabhidaa paavanii mata| - He says meditation that involves separateness of the Lord from oneself – bheda bhaavana, is less than meditation with identity – saH aham – I am He. But remember one cannot jump to the final without going through the first steps. Read my BSB notes related to sapta vaDa nyaaya – the logic of the seventh vaDa – One cannot have the fulfilling vaDa, the seventh vaDa, the first. Essentially the mind must or should have been prepared for contemplation – Hence the need of chittasuddhi, which can be gained most effectively by karamayoga, and Iswara is central of the karmayoga. Thus I have discussed what are gods – phenomenal forces – role of gods are karmaphala daata – or giver of results of actions and ultimately need to offer the results of action which Krishna emphasizes again and again – to purify oneself – to prepare ones mind for contemplation - Saadhana. Hence Bhakti or love is the essential ingradient between jiiva and Iswara and ultimately as Shankara puts it jiiva and his own self – moksha saadana saamaagryaam bhaktireva gariiyasi| swaswaruupaanu sandhaanam bhatirityabhidheeyate| O all the means for moksha, Bhakti is the supreme and that bhakti ultimately is swaswaruupa anusandhaanam – contemplation on ones own self. The self in me is the self in all – that is the supreme self. As long I see different from other selves – Iswara is also different and our prayers to Him. In the ultimate knowledge – sarvabhuutasta maatmaanam sarvabhuutanicha aatmani – all being are in me and I am in all beings – that is the Knowledge. At the vyavahaara level, as along as I think I am separate from the rest – the world exists, gods exist and my sadhaana is required to eliminate that plurality. For chitta suddhi karmayoga is important and for karma to be a yoga you need Iswaraarpita buddhi - –offering actions at the alter of the God or Iswara or the Lord . _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2001 Report Share Posted March 11, 2001 Harih Om! Interesting discussion on Gods! Actually I am thinking of the Ancient Egyptian belief system. I just returned from my 10 days vacation trip to Egypt. I traveled on a Cruise Ship down the river Nile from Aswan to Luxor (Thebes). It is a nice Cruise ship with all facilities http://www.sherryboat.com.eg They have very good English guides to explain things. On the way, I visited those magnificent temples which are situated on the banks of Nile River. The temple architecture is very interesting! It reminds one of those magnificent Vaishnava Ayalays you India! There is only one opening to the Sanctum Sanctorum (Holy of Holies) and it seems no one except the High priest is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies (a rule which is still widely observed in many Indian temples) They have Gods of Trinity. One of those Gods is called as "Ptah" (Brahma is called as "Pitah" in our religion). And they have God Horus, who is in Eagle form (You can find God Horus on Egyptian Airlines Logo). Lord Garuda for us is in Eagle form. They also have snake Gods. Ancient Egyptians believed in many Gods, at the same time they believed that all these Gods are nothing but symbolic representation of a single life sustaining force! Very interesting. After visiting Egypt I became curious. I would like to know if there is any comparative study carried out between Hindu belief system and Ancient Egyptian belief system. Any pointers in this regard is very much helpful. Thank you. Yours, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2001 Report Share Posted March 12, 2001 Harih Om! Interesting discussion on Gods! Actually I am thinking of the Ancient Egyptian belief system. I just returned from my 10 days vacation trip to Egypt. I traveled on a Cruise Ship down the river Nile from Aswan to Luxor (Thebes). It is a nice Cruise ship with all facilities http://www.sherryboat.com.eg They have very good English guides to explain things. On the way, I visited those magnificent temples which are situated on the banks of Nile River. The temple architecture is very interesting! It reminds one of those magnificent Vaishnava Ayalays you India! There is only one opening to the Sanctum Sanctorum (Holy of Holies) and it seems no one except the High priest is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies (a rule which is still widely observed in many Indian temples) They have Gods of Trinity. One of those Gods is called as "Ptah" (Brahma is called as "Pitah" in our religion). And they have God Horus, who is in Eagle form (You can find God Horus on Egyptian Airlines Logo). Lord Garuda for us is in Eagle form. They also have snake Gods. Ancient Egyptians believed in many Gods, at the same time they believed that all these Gods are nothing but symbolic representation of a single life sustaining force! Very interesting. After visiting Egypt I became curious. I would like to know if there is any comparative study carried out between Hindu belief system and Ancient Egyptian belief system. Any pointers in this regard is very much helpful. Thank you. Yours, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2001 Report Share Posted March 12, 2001 You might want to read Paul Brunton's book, A Search in Secret Egypt. There is a very nice episode of his spending a night all alone locked up in a pyramid. He sees many divine forms and undergoes a traditional egyptian initiation through deities belonging to another world. This might seem pure fantasy. However knowing Paul Brunton, it is worth reading. Anand --- "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava wrote: > > After visiting Egypt I became curious. I would like > to know if there is any > comparative study carried out between Hindu belief > system and Ancient > Egyptian belief system. Any pointers in this regard > is very much helpful. > Thank you. > > Yours, > Madhava > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2001 Report Share Posted March 12, 2001 Namaste, Kanchi Paramacharya : The Voice of Divinity Part 1, p. 121; transl from Tamil by R. Sankaranarayanan; 1st ed. 1981; Vanathi Pathipakkam. Ch. XXVIII : The religion that was widespread in the world. There is a reference to a "treaty between two Eguptian kings, witnessed by deities Mitra Varuna." It may be that the original Tamil book has more material in it. Regards, s. advaitin, Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo> wrote: > > You might want to read Paul Brunton's book, A Search > in Secret Egypt. There is a very nice episode of his > spending a night all alone locked up in a pyramid. He > sees many divine forms and undergoes a traditional > egyptian initiation through deities belonging to > another world. This might seem pure fantasy. However > knowing Paul Brunton, it is worth reading. > > Anand > > > --- "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava@m...> > wrote: > > > > After visiting Egypt I became curious. I would like > > to know if there is any > > comparative study carried out between Hindu belief > > system and Ancient > > Egyptian belief system. Any pointers in this regard > > is very much helpful. > > Thank you. > > > > Yours, > > Madhava > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. > http://auctions./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2001 Report Share Posted March 14, 2001 I set out with the intention of addressing specific replies on the original question but have just deleted what I had written (intentionally). It seems that there is general acknowledgement that, as I suggested, Gods are introduced as symbols or metaphors for forces whose nature we do not fully understand and that can impact significantly (even catastrophically) on our apparent lives as individuals. It is understandable that those who have no knowledge of or interest in philosophical studies might resort to concepts of gods in order to rationalise their experiences or in order to solicit good fortune or whatever. Also, it is natural that those with an awakening sense of something beyond their apparent mundane existence would turn to gods as representing those higher qualities - hence bhakti. My problem arises when people who already obviously understand the truths of advaita nevertheless still talk happily about gods as though these are experienced in the same way as one perceives other individuals. Why do such knowledgeable people, knowing intellectually that there is only Brahman, nevertheless go to temples and make offerings to what they know to be just more mistaken ideas in mind? It seems to be dangerous (in the sense of misleading i.e. encouraging avidya) to talk about events being brought about by gods. Whatever occurs does so as a result of cause and effect, though of course we can never track all of those causes, as in the 'butterfly effect'. There is no divine intervention to punish us for misdeeds or reward us for past good action. I certainly would not deny that 'sacrificing ones actions to the Absolute' can still the mind, make us disinterested in results etc. and therefore make for a 'better' action. But this does not make the god to which one prays any the more a reality, even in the non-existent reality terms of vyaavahaarika. Dennis P.S. I still haven't read the most recent BSB notes - apologies if there is a satisfactory answer to my concerns there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2001 Report Share Posted March 14, 2001 hariH OM! anandji- i quite agree with you. i can understand dennisji's view, re the absolute nature [embracing the concept One-without-a- second essence of brahman, by definition...and yet!] there is the irrefutable matter of Its projection into the 'saguna' aspect of the leela, which maya--also by definition--has a *real component*! (this is what i attempted to point out in my 'universal koan' posts).. as you alluded.. who can deny the heat of surya's light on the skin at dawn? or siva's thunderbolt-kick in the arrogant Mind thinking/believing it knows it all? :-)) ...or the miracle of brahma resolved before our eyes here/now shimmering on the screen of our computers! these can be rationalized in a corner of the Mind as merely myths;...yet joseph campbell brilliantly brought out the very tangible reality factor associated with these 'myths' in his inspired exposition of the remarkably [and, in my view, finally philosophically unchallengeable!] tangible forces [of nature] accessed and documented by our global aboriginal peoples through the ages.. not merely hindus, but....... buddhists [of all walks!], taoists, aboriginal americans from hopi to mayan, yaqui to inca, egyptians, greeks, scandinavians, celtic, maori, australians, the european and euro-american poets, artists, musicians.. blake, whitman, shelly, keats, poe, rimbaud to shakespeare, to the Beats and the Beatles! gods and demons, daydreams and visions, to the beholding of the logic-shattering revelation of quantum theory to einstein himself who said, "i want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details!" ... hegel, spinoza, teilhard, kierkegaard, goethe, nietzsche, kant! (not exactly simple-minded sources of knowledge..) yes, i quite agree.. OM shaanthi. namaste, frank _____________ anandhudli wrote: > > There are two approaches to advaita - a top-down approach and > a bottom-up approach. Most Westerners who do not have the baggage > of Indian culture and upbringing will prefer the top-down approach. > Here, one may understand advaita intellectually as saying there is > only one Reality and may set out to experience the same. Here, > advaita is understood as an isolated philosophy, having nothing to > do with religion. I am not sure if this is the best approach to > advaita, but I cannot say it is futile either, since I have not > tried it. > > Most Indians have to take the bottom-up approach where we grow up > being told numerous stories of Gods, demons, and other beings, and > the way they influence us, besides a lot of other cultural and > religious aspects. The beauty of advaita is that we can > reconcile such beliefs with the highest truth that it teaches. > For example, advaitins from India should worship five Gods in their > daily household duties - GaNesha, Shiva, Shakti, ViShNu and sUrya. > Your contention that these Gods do not exist at all seems erroneous > to us. For example, sUrya or the Sun God is clearly seen by all. > How can you deny Him? You may say, "OK, the sun is seen but show > me the others." The others are also "seen" though not in the same > way as we see the sun. For example, those who meditate on them do > see them in the temple of their minds, and quite clearly at that! > > I do agree that having known intellectually that Reality is one > and without attributes, it is inconsistent to not even attempt to > go beyond the worship of Gods or to restrict advaita to only an > intellectual level, something that is good for only discussions. > At some point, one who is following the bottom-up approach has > to move beyond mere intellectualization of advaita and bring > it into day-to-day life. > > Anand > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2001 Report Share Posted March 14, 2001 advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote: > My problem arises when people who already obviously understand the truths of > advaita nevertheless still talk happily about gods as though these are > experienced in the same way as one perceives other individuals. Why do such > knowledgeable people, knowing intellectually that there is only Brahman, > nevertheless go to temples and make offerings to what they know to be just > more mistaken ideas in mind? > There are two approaches to advaita - a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach. Most Westerners who do not have the baggage of Indian culture and upbringing will prefer the top-down approach. Here, one may understand advaita intellectually as saying there is only one Reality and may set out to experience the same. Here, advaita is understood as an isolated philosophy, having nothing to do with religion. I am not sure if this is the best approach to advaita, but I cannot say it is futile either, since I have not tried it. Most Indians have to take the bottom-up approach where we grow up being told numerous stories of Gods, demons, and other beings, and the way they influence us, besides a lot of other cultural and religious aspects. The beauty of advaita is that we can reconcile such beliefs with the highest truth that it teaches. For example, advaitins from India should worship five Gods in their daily household duties - GaNesha, Shiva, Shakti, ViShNu and sUrya. Your contention that these Gods do not exist at all seems erroneous to us. For example, sUrya or the Sun God is clearly seen by all. How can you deny Him? You may say, "OK, the sun is seen but show me the others." The others are also "seen" though not in the same way as we see the sun. For example, those who meditate on them do see them in the temple of their minds, and quite clearly at that! I do agree that having known intellectually that Reality is one and without attributes, it is inconsistent to not even attempt to go beyond the worship of Gods or to restrict advaita to only an intellectual level, something that is good for only discussions. At some point, one who is following the bottom-up approach has to move beyond mere intellectualization of advaita and bring it into day-to-day life. Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2001 Report Share Posted March 14, 2001 Namaste Sri Anand, This is one of the clearest and most concise articulations I've seen of the two kinds of approaches. I think you have very skillfully capsulized the cultural, social, religious and philosophical aspects by relating the top-down approach mostly to Westerners and the bottom-up approach mostly to Indian! Each is unavoidable within its given context, along with its advantages and disadvantages, and it is helpful for all to know these issues. By the way, as a Westerner, I embarked on a top-down approach-with-theism, adopting Durga as a chosen deity overall, and Saraswati as she who could bless my study. Before coming to advaita vedanta, I grew up as a staunch philosophical atheist, but a bit later in life other channels of information opened up. I became a born-again Christian. And it seemed as natural to experience the Christian god as it was to experience the people next door. But not exactly, as Dennis would say, in the same way :-). When it came to learning about advaita vedanta it seemed very natural for me to see that, if the Divine can incarnate once in one radiant deity-form, then why not in another?? There is also symbolic theism, where it deity is taken as more of a locus and symbol for the bundle of vast, positive attributes that one is working towards. And despite this symbolic understanding, there can be great, wonderful attraction and phenomenal bliss when worshipping the deity. This kind of theism works both ways: one can have a sophisticated intellectual understanding of the nature of the diety while at the same time enjoying a very strong heart connection! Another note - speaking from experience, the overall benefits from bhakti yoga are of inestimable value on the path and even as an aid in the jnana marga! Also, it opens the Heart and helps smooth the egocentric rough spots in mind and personality. Bhakti even makes the intellect more pliant. Thanks again for your brilliant and simple post! Om! --Greg At 10:20 PM 3/14/01 -0000, anandhudli wrote: >>>> advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote: > My problem arises when people who already obviously understand the truths of > advaita nevertheless still talk happily about gods as though these are > experienced in the same way as one perceives other individuals. Why do such > knowledgeable people, knowing intellectually that there is only Brahman, > nevertheless go to temples and make offerings to what they know to be just > more mistaken ideas in mind? > There are two approaches to advaita - a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach. Most Westerners who do not have the baggage of Indian culture and upbringing will prefer the top-down approach. Here, one may understand advaita intellectually as saying there is only one Reality and may set out to experience the same. Here, advaita is understood as an isolated philosophy, having nothing to do with religion. I am not sure if this is the best approach to advaita, but I cannot say it is futile either, since I have not tried it. Most Indians have to take the bottom-up approach where we grow up being told numerous stories of Gods, demons, and other beings, and the way they influence us, besides a lot of other cultural and religious aspects. The beauty of advaita is that we can reconcile such beliefs with the highest truth that it teaches. For example, advaitins from India should worship five Gods in their daily household duties - GaNesha, Shiva, Shakti, ViShNu and sUrya. Your contention that these Gods do not exist at all seems erroneous to us. For example, sUrya or the Sun God is clearly seen by all. How can you deny Him? You may say, "OK, the sun is seen but show me the others." The others are also "seen" though not in the same way as we see the sun. For example, those who meditate on them do see them in the temple of their minds, and quite clearly at that! I do agree that having known intellectually that Reality is one and without attributes, it is inconsistent to not even attempt to go beyond the worship of Gods or to restrict advaita to only an intellectual level, something that is good for only discussions. At some point, one who is following the bottom-up approach has to move beyond mere intellectualization of advaita and bring it into day-to-day life. Anand Sponsor <http://rd./M=163100.1357384.2947150.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:N/ A=524804/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=2629>Classmates.com Click here for Classmates.com Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: <http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv aitin/ Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server For details, visit: </local/news.html>/local/news. html Post message: advaitin Subscribe: advaitin- Un: advaitin URL to Advaitin: <advaitin>advaitin File folder: <advaitin>/group /advaitin Link Folder: <advaitin/links> advaitin/links Messages Folder: <advaitin/messages>/gro up/advaitin/messages Your use of is subject to the <> <<<< Greg Goode (e-mail: goode) Computer Support Phone: 4-5723 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2001 Report Share Posted March 14, 2001 Namaste, The same doubt has been expressed by Arjuna in the Gita Ch XII:v.1 and Greg's response answers that beautifully. There is a vast field of 'Devata-Mantra-Upasana' that can yield as dramatic results as modern science can, if not even more. The bottom-up/top-down approach would seem to be a rather bland way of describing the phenomena. Yes, 'Gods' do exist, but not apart from Brahman! Regards, s. advaitin, f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote: > hariH OM! anandji- > > i quite agree with you. i can understand dennisji's view, > re the absolute nature [embracing the concept One-without-a- > second essence of brahman, by definition...and yet!] there > is the irrefutable matter of Its projection into the 'saguna' > aspect of the leela, which maya--also by definition--has a > *real component*! (this is what i attempted to point out in > my 'universal koan' posts).. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 > >I do agree that having known intellectually that Reality is one >and without attributes, it is inconsistent to not even attempt to >go beyond the worship of Gods or to restrict advaita to only an >intellectual level, something that is good for only discussions. >At some point, one who is following the bottom-up approach has >to move beyond mere intellectualization of advaita and bring >it into day-to-day life. > >Anand True Anand - Beautiful analysis. From the bottoms-up approach - Kena tries to take us to go beyond the names and forms - tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yadidamupaasate. - Brahman is not this that you worship here. From the top down approach - A correct intellectual understanding involves recognition that creator is not different from creation and one can invoke him in any form since he is there in every form; and for the purpose of meditation one may need a form that mind can rest without running away from it. Otherwise we will end up with meaningless meditations that do not make any sense to the meditator - as taught by TM techniques. Intellectual bhakti involves appreciation of everything in the creation as His manifestation and his glory so that mind starts seeing his signature in and through the changing forms and names until the final knowledge dawn in - Krishan points out the truth from both ways -from the bhakti point and from j~naana point - sarva bhuutasta maatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani - all beings in oneself and oneself in all beings - and in the very next sloka yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati -- one who seems me everywhere and everything in me. A proper bhakti will lead to knowledge and a correct knowledge will lead to bhakti - upaasana in each case depends on upbringing or conditioning one has gone through before. We cannot discard the role of bhakti - it should be properly directed - Bhakit without j~naana will lead to fanaticism and j~naana without bhakti can lead to arrogance and another ego-build up. j~naana involves an inquiry with dedication which comes with devotion to the object of inquiry. That is as Shankara points out as bhakti. - 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 March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 anandhudli wrote: > advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote: > > > My problem arises when people who already obviously understand the > truths of > > advaita nevertheless still talk happily about gods as though these > are > > experienced in the same way as one perceives other individuals. Why > do such > > knowledgeable people, knowing intellectually that there is only > Brahman, > > nevertheless go to temples and make offerings to what they know to > be just > > more mistaken ideas in mind? > > > > There are two approaches to advaita - a top-down approach and > a bottom-up approach. Most Westerners who do not have the baggage > of Indian culture and upbringing will prefer the top-down approach. > Here, one may understand advaita intellectually as saying there is > only one Reality and may set out to experience the same. Here, > advaita is understood as an isolated philosophy, having nothing to > do with religion. I am not sure if this is the best approach to > advaita, but I cannot say it is futile either, since I have not > tried it. > > Most Indians have to take the bottom-up approach where we grow up > being told numerous stories of Gods, demons, and other beings, and > the way they influence us, besides a lot of other cultural and > religious aspects. The beauty of advaita is that we can > reconcile such beliefs with the highest truth that it teaches. > For example, advaitins from India should worship five Gods in their > daily household duties - GaNesha, Shiva, Shakti, ViShNu and sUrya. > Your contention that these Gods do not exist at all seems erroneous > to us. For example, sUrya or the Sun God is clearly seen by all. > How can you deny Him? You may say, "OK, the sun is seen but show > me the others." The others are also "seen" though not in the same > way as we see the sun. For example, those who meditate on them do > see them in the temple of their minds, and quite clearly at that! > > I do agree that having known intellectually that Reality is one > and without attributes, it is inconsistent to not even attempt to > go beyond the worship of Gods or to restrict advaita to only an > intellectual level, something that is good for only discussions. > At some point, one who is following the bottom-up approach has > to move beyond mere intellectualization of advaita and bring > it into day-to-day life. > > Anand > namaste. Thanks shri Anandji for a very nice presentation. I like to add two points. 1. I do not think it is really a conscious decision (whether to follow a top-down or bottom-up approach). Our upbringing decides for us which way we go. 2. God is not restricted to what we *see* only with our eyes. There is God who is always with us and we *see* every moment. I *see* shri lalitA parameshwari every moment (through the mental eye); while I drive, while I lecture, while I attend to my daily activities. That *seeing* is much more godly for me than seeing intellectually for e.g. the Sun crossing the sky east to west every day. Thus, God is there and we *see* God. In answer to Dennis' query from the earlier post as well as the recent one: As I see, the difficulty with God-worship is when we seek something in return. We see people going to temples, pray God for something in return. That portrays God as a middle agent, as a medium to satisfy our desires. If that aspect of God-worship is taken out, and if God is viewed as a pure sAttwic personification of nirguna brahman, and if we pray God seeking nothing in return, that, in my view, is the highest form of achievement for a human. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 Namaste, May I enter a note of mild disagreement? The top-down and bottom-up approach is a logical fallacy, in that if sarva.n khalvidaM brahma is the Reality, there is no top or bottom! Regards, s. advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > >----------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 Hari Om: Here are my thoughts on Gods. The Tamil word for God is ‘Kadavul.' Kada means that which transcends ‘ul' signifies the heart of all things. When the absolute transcends (manifests), the stored mass of Energy (Sakti) is released to become the universe. The Tamil word Kadavul represents the Brahman and the manifestation represents the "Maya" or Myth. Shankara's entire life was dedicated to rekindle Sanatana Dharma which prevailed from the foot of the Himalayas to the shore of Kanyakumari. According to Sanatana Dharma, God is eternal and He is present everywhere (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, all merciful and impersonally personal). The Tamil Proverb "Thoonilum Iruppan, Thurumbilum Iruppan" emphasizes the fact that God is present in living and material objects. Any one can experience the presence of God and actually knowledge can become a potential obstacle for such an experience. Let me try to illustrate this point using some examples. We can all experience the presence of God through Agni(creator of fire), Varna (creator of water), Surya (Sun, the creator of light), Indira (creator of sky or space), and Vayu (creator of wind). Those without the scientific knowledge on fire, water, space, light and wind were able to experience the magic of those creations. Consequently they attributed those creative wonders to the invisible God.. Interestingly, the God who created us and all the wonders of nature also created the ‘knowledge' which enabled us to ask the question about ‘Gods!' Whether we go from top to bottom or from the bottom to the top, the answer to all questions on Gods has to come from Him! regards, Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 I very much like Anand's top-down versus bottom-up idea (something encountered quite often in computer engineering). I was with you in all that was said apart from the few sentences in the middle: - "Your contention that these Gods do not exist at all seems erroneous to us. For example, sUrya or the Sun God is clearly seen by all. How can you deny Him? You may say, "OK, the sun is seen but show me the others." The others are also "seen" though not in the same way as we see the sun. For example, those who meditate on them do see them in the temple of their minds, and quite clearly at that!" It is very understandable that culturally, some would not find the idea of gods in everyday life to be strange. It is also clear that many brought up in such a tradition would be happy to live with it, and perhaps benefit from it spiritually, even though they had now intellectually seen through it, so to speak. But it seems you lapse into your cultural background when you say 'the Sun God is clearly seen by all'. Most of us (westerners!) see the sun and, if we think of it at all, are aware of an inconceivably vast and ongoing nuclear fusion - immense energy, yes, but where is the god in this? Is there a line drawn anywhere? Would you, for example, see Agni (?) in an atom bomb? What about an internal combustion engine or a battery? Please note that I am not trying to denigrate the practice; indeed, I can envy it to some degree. I can see that perhaps my own spiritual 'pursuits' might benefit if I could find a little heart to offset the cold intellectual approach! But, as things stand at present, there seems to be more than a little illogicality in all of this! Even returning to paaramaarthika for a moment (!), I do not see why we need to think of Brahman as 'God'. This carries overtones of a benign 'being' when what we are speaking of is nirguNa not saguNa. There is no interest in 'us' since there are no 'us'; no interest in good as opposed to bad because there is no such distinction. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 advaitin, sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > May I enter a note of mild disagreement? > > The top-down and bottom-up approach is a logical fallacy, in that if > sarva.n khalvidaM brahma is the Reality, there is no top or bottom! > > Regards, > > s. You are right. The One Reality has no top or bottom but because of differing backgrounds, temperaments, inclinations of individuals, they find it easy to approach that Reality in slightly different ways. This is also recognized in the gItA, for example 3.3, where the Lord states that there are two disciplines - one for the sAMkhyas and the other for the Yogis. The discipline of the sAMkhyas is pure jnAna which itself becomes a yoga for them, and hence they are jnAna-yogis. The discipline of the Yogis is related to the various yogas - karma-yoga, bhakti-yoga, and so on. In some sense, the discipline of the sAMkhyas can be thought of as analytical or top-down while that of the Yogis is synthetic or bottom-up. The analytical approach tackles the problem of duality head-on, and is based on relentless and intense inquiry (athAto brahma-jiGYAsA) driven by VedAnta, than on anything else. As Shankara remarks, the sAMkhyas are those who proceed to the renunicate or sannyAsa stage directly from brahmacharya. They are not interested in entering the society with all its cultural, social, and religious obligations. This might seem easy and straightforward and perhaps this is why many Westerners are attracted to it since it does not much involve the usual religious and social obligations and is direct. But it is indeed very difficult for those who do not have the necessary qualifications or sAdhana-chatuShTaya as they are called. The synthetic or bottom-up approach is indirect or relatively gradual because it allows the Yogi to progress to higher and subtler levels of consciousness, starting from the lowest level of external worship and service of God. At some point, the Yogi should get into jnAna yoga or may continue with the same yogic discipline as before. There is some debate among advaitins here because some contend that only GYAna yields mukti while others hold that even though GYAna alone can lead to jIvan-mukti, the approach through bhakti-Yoga may yield what is called krama-mukti or mukti in stages. Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2001 Report Share Posted March 15, 2001 Namaste Anandgaru, Thank you. If I understand the approaches correctly, the mukti is always instantaneous [like waking up from a dream, according to Sw. Vivekanada], but to make it a sustained or sahaja state requires practice, be it j~naana or bhakti maarga [as explained by Sri Ramana.] teshhaa.n j~naanii nitya-yuktaH eka-bhaktiH vishishhyate . priyaH hi j~naninaH atyartham aha.n saH cha mama priyaH .. 7:17.. brahma-bhuutaH prasanna-aatmaa na shochati na kaa~Nkshati . samaH sarveshhu bhuuteshhu mad-bhakti.n labhate paraam.h .. 18:54.. Regards, s. advaitin, anandhudli@h... wrote: > advaitin, sunderh wrote: > > Namaste, > > > > May I enter a note of mild disagreement? > > > > The top-down and bottom-up approach is a logical fallacy, in that if > > sarva.n khalvidaM brahma is the Reality, there is no top or bottom! > > > > Regards, > > > > s. > > You are right. The One Reality has no top or bottom but because of > differing backgrounds, temperaments, inclinations of individuals, > they find it easy to approach that Reality in slightly > different ways. This is also recognized in the gItA, for example > 3.3, where the Lord states that there are two disciplines - > one for the sAMkhyas and the other for the Yogis. The discipline > of the sAMkhyas is pure jnAna which itself becomes a yoga for > them, and hence they are jnAna-yogis. The discipline of the Yogis > is related to the various yogas - karma-yoga, bhakti-yoga, and so on. > > In some sense, the discipline of the sAMkhyas can be thought of > as analytical or top-down while that of the Yogis is synthetic > or bottom-up. The analytical approach tackles the problem of > duality head-on, and is based on relentless and intense inquiry > (athAto brahma-jiGYAsA) driven by VedAnta, than on anything > else. As Shankara remarks, the sAMkhyas are those who proceed to > the renunicate or sannyAsa stage directly from brahmacharya. They > are not interested in entering the society with all its cultural, > social, and religious obligations. This might seem easy and > straightforward and perhaps this is why many Westerners are > attracted to it since it does not much involve the usual religious > and social obligations and is direct. But it is indeed very difficult > for those who do not have the necessary qualifications or > sAdhana-chatuShTaya as they are called. > > The synthetic or bottom-up approach is indirect or relatively > gradual because it allows the Yogi to progress to higher and > subtler levels of consciousness, starting from the lowest level > of external worship and service of God. At some point, the Yogi > should get into jnAna yoga or may continue with the same yogic > discipline as before. There is some debate among > advaitins here because some contend that only GYAna yields mukti > while others hold that even though GYAna alone can lead to > jIvan-mukti, the approach through bhakti-Yoga may yield what is > called krama-mukti or mukti in stages. > > Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote: > It is very understandable that culturally, some would not find the idea of > gods in everyday life to be strange. It is also clear that many brought up > in such a tradition would be happy to live with it, and perhaps benefit from > it spiritually, even though they had now intellectually seen through it, so > to speak. But it seems you lapse into your cultural background when you say > 'the Sun God is clearly seen by all'. Most of us (westerners!) see the sun > and, if we think of it at all, are aware of an inconceivably vast and > ongoing nuclear fusion - immense energy, yes, but where is the god in this? > Is there a line drawn anywhere? Would you, for example, see Agni (?) in an > atom bomb? What about an internal combustion engine or a battery? > You have raised a legitimate question. What science tells us about the Sun is ultimately based on what we can perceive. If there is a theory and that theory cannot be verified by some observations ( those observations could be with man made instruments) then that theory cannot be accepted by Science. Another point that Science makes is, of course, repeatability of those observations. But Science is silent about those "observations" that are NOT made through our ordinary senses and about "observations" that are handed down to us by a source that is known to be absolutely reliable. For example, a person believes his/her parents when the parents say that they are in fact the natural parents of that person. There is no "scientific proof" of the fact that the parents are indeed responsible for the birth of that person, but still there is no reason to doubt them (unless there is some other extra-ordinary reason.) (I must add that in modern times there is DNA evidence that can be taken as scientific proof but it is not necessary to seek it in general. One may take the parents' word at its face value.) In the same way, when we hear from reliable sources that there is a Sun God who is "seen" by those who worship Him, there is no reason why we should doubt them. What we see externally by way of nuclear fusion is OK; it can be accepted as the gross form of the Sun God. But the subtler form of His can be seen by the mind's eye. What I am trying to say is that it is NOT inconsistent to say that there are Beings who can be perceived in an extra-sensory way. Just because they are not perceived/verified by ordinary senses does not mean they do not exist. Of course, this approach could be criticized by saying that it is likely to be abused by fake "seers" but this cannot be grounds to rule out ALL "seers." Further, there is no reason why the gross world that we perceive through ordinary senses is any more real than the others that reliable sources talk about, from the perspective of advaita. All these are ultimately unreal so none is more real or less real that the others. In fact, there is an argument, and a logically sound one at that, which treats the dream world to be no less real that the world we see in the waking state. So, the advaitin should have no problem in accepting worlds/Beings that are perceived in an extra-sensory way, because he knows that all these are not ultimately real and his acceptance is only conventional and not at an absolute level! He does not, in the final analysis, bother to challenge those who claim extra-sensory perception any more than he bothers to challenge those who present facts based on scientific observations. What then is the utility of extra-sensory perceptions? Its utility lies only in helping us realize that One Reality proclaimed by vedAnta. Ordinary perceptions do not help us in the same way. So, in this respect, worship/contemplation of Gods is superior to just dealing with the gross objects of ordinary senses all the time. > Please note that I am not trying to denigrate the practice; indeed, I can > envy it to some degree. I can see that perhaps my own spiritual 'pursuits' > might benefit if I could find a little heart to offset the cold intellectual > approach! But, as things stand at present, there seems to be more than a > little illogicality in all of this! > > Even returning to paaramaarthika for a moment (!), I do not see why we need > to think of Brahman as 'God'. This carries overtones of a benign 'being' > when what we are speaking of is nirguNa not saguNa. There is no interest in > 'us' since there are no 'us'; no interest in good as opposed to bad because > there is no such distinction. In this connection, I refer you to a discussion thread titled "saguNa and nirguNa are the same" in the archives of advaita-l. Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 As Swami Vivekananda said, relationship between a person and God is purely unique. This unique relationship may be compared to uniqueness of fingerprints. One need not struggle very hard to fit into a theory. Rather, one must try to locate that comfort level that results in bliss with his/her relationship with God. If this needs a mix and match from Advaita, Dvaita, VishishtaAdvaita, etc., so be it ! Following of dictates from Svadharma results in a balanced state; thwarted svadharmas result in agitation which eventually will recongize the need for balance thru recongnizing of Svadharma. The question is, how does one identify one's Svadharma in the context of one's relation with God ? In my humble opinion, it is by trial and error method, like tuning the violin to find that perfect chord. The trial and error experimentation, when it is blissful, one will know internally that he/she is getting there, though faltering at the moment. Comments and corrections are welcome. With Love, Raghava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2001 Report Share Posted March 17, 2001 Namaste, Anandgaru mentioned 'extra-sensory' perception, and Raghavagaru mentioned Sw. V.'s explication. The Gita, 11:8, states [in response to Arjuna's request in 11:4]: na tu maa.n shakyase drashhTum anena eva chakshushhaa . divya.n dadaami te chkshuH pashya me yogam aishvaram.h .. But thou canst not see me with thease eyes of thine; I give thee supersensuous sight; behold My supreme Yoga power. In 11:15, Arjuna exclaims: pashyaami devaan tava deva dehe sarvaa.n tathaa bhuuta-visheshha-sa~Nghaan.h . brahmaaNam iisham kamalaasanstham R^ishhiin cha sarvaan uragaan cha divyaan.h .. I see all the devas,, O Deva, in Thy body, and hosts of all grades of beings; Brahma, the Lord, seated on the lotus, and all the Rishis and celestial serpents. The key is to be in the state that Arjuna was in. Oppenheimer's reference to Gita 11:12 is well-known, when he saw the 1st atomic explosion. This has also been mentioned by almost all mystics. Regards, s. advaitin, raghavakaluri wrote: > As Swami Vivekananda said, relationship between a person and God is > purely unique. > > This unique relationship may be compared to uniqueness of > fingerprints. > > One need not struggle very hard to fit into a theory. Rather, one > must try to locate that comfort level that results in bliss with > his/her relationship with God. If this needs a mix and match from > Advaita, Dvaita, VishishtaAdvaita, etc., so be it ! > > Following of dictates from Svadharma results in a balanced state; > thwarted svadharmas result in agitation which eventually will > recongize the need for balance thru recongnizing of Svadharma. > > The question is, how does one identify one's Svadharma in the context > of one's relation with God ? In my humble opinion, it is by trial and > error method, like tuning the violin to find that perfect chord. The > trial and error experimentation, when it is blissful, one will know > internally that he/she is getting there, though faltering at the > moment. > > > Comments and corrections are welcome. > With Love, > Raghava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2001 Report Share Posted March 18, 2001 advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote: > > It is very understandable that culturally, some would not find the idea of > gods in everyday life to be strange. It is also clear that many brought up > in such a tradition would be happy to live with it, and perhaps benefit from > it spiritually, even though they had now intellectually seen through it, so > to speak. But it seems you lapse into your cultural background when you say > 'the Sun God is clearly seen by all'. Most of us (westerners!) see the sun > and, if we think of it at all, are aware of an inconceivably vast and > ongoing nuclear fusion - immense energy, yes, but where is the god in this? > Is there a line drawn anywhere? Would you, for example, see Agni (?) in an > atom bomb? What about an internal combustion engine or a battery? > wherever you see a water body or water particle, it is understood that it is a sthuula or gross form of Lord varuNa. There is a nice talk higlighting this by kAnchi paramacharya. That is true with others like agni too. Regarding Sun, think about this. An alien being can come and look at you and say, Dennis Waite is a bunch of complex electro-chemical reactions going on. There is nothing like person (as defined by the aliens) behind it. Probably an android or a robot. The idea that you have a soul is questionable belief. Is there any intellegent entity behind Dennis Waite? or it is some inert stuff behaving as dicated by the laws of physics? AUM shrImAtre namaH Ravi www.ambaa.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2001 Report Share Posted March 18, 2001 Hari Om Ravi: Namaste, Thanks for your beautiful explanation. The essence of what you are saying has been explained profoundly by Sri Ramana Maharishi. I have posted this before but it is more relevant for this discussion and this repetition will definitely enhance our understanding. Once a person approached Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi and said, ""O Bhagavan, can you show me God?" Ramana Maharishi replied, "I can show you, but I do not know whether you will see Him?" The man felt insulted and said, "If you can show Him to me, why can't I see Him? I have eyes." He did not realize that one must have more than just physical eyes to see god; one must have the True Knowledge. The man insisted, "No you show me and I will see." So Bhagavan Ramana sat in front of him. The he just raised one finger and started moving it from one side to another. Five, ten, fiteen minutes went by. The was still expecting some vision of god to appear. Finally, the man asked, "I thought you were going to show me God. Where is He?" Bhagavan said, "I told you I can show yo God, bu you may not be able to see Him." The man said, "But you have not shown me anything." Bhagavan said, "for twenty minutes I have been showing you God." "How can that be?" asked the confused man. Then Bhagavan raised his finger and asked "What is this?" "A finger." "But what is it doing?" "It is moving back and forth," the man replied. Ramana Maharishi said, "I am showing you God, but are seeing only a finger. What can I do? That is your problem." "But," the man protested, "anyone will say it is only finger!" Ramana Maharishi replied, "If you cut this finger and put it on the table, does it move?" "No, it does not move." "Now, what is it because of which the finger moves?" "There is life in it," answered the man. "You see," said Bhagavan Ramana , "at most you can say there is life in the finger, but life is only an expression of Consciousness. Therefore, that which is expressing in the bod as life, as sentiency, is God. How can you deny its existence?" Source: Hindu Culture Part I, Mananam Publication Series Volume XIV: Number 4, page 44-45. Author: Swami Tejomayananda, Head, Chinmaya Mission advaitin, "Ravi" <miinalochanii> wrote: > Regarding Sun, think about this. An alien being can come and look at > you and say, Dennis Waite is a bunch of complex electro-chemical > reactions going on. There is nothing like person (as defined by the > aliens) behind it. Probably an android or a robot. The idea that you > have a soul is questionable belief. Is there any intellegent entity > behind Dennis Waite? or it is some inert stuff behaving as dicated by > the laws of physics? > > AUM shrImAtre namaH > > Ravi > www.ambaa.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2001 Report Share Posted March 18, 2001 Some one asked Bhagawaan Ramana Does God has a form? Bhagawaan answered -If you think you have a form then God can have a form too. - Essentially in the process of conditioning oneself -one conditions the rest that includes God or Gods. Hari OM! Sadananda _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2001 Report Share Posted March 18, 2001 Hari Om! Some more thoughts on God and His Grace: Ramana Maharishi's remarks about `how to see God' is a powerful message. In our life, we can witness the presence of God provided we contemplate deeply on things that happen around us. Why do the parent birds sit on theegg to give the warmth and protection to enable it to hatch? Also why do these parent birds take turns to feed the baby birds until they become independent? What caused the baby birds to keep their mouth open and swallow everything that came in? Who taught new born elephant to find and accept its mother's milk? No one can deny the fact that every new born child irrespective of the origin of their birth receive kindness and compassion from everyone! Seriously speaking, what is the origin for kindness and compassion? Is it human instinct or His Grace? We have seen news several time that someone without knowing swimming jumping into a swimming pool, a lake or a river to save an unknown child. There are numerous incidents that we have seen in the TV and news about such heroic incidents. Is it human instinct or His Grace? All that we know and we can say is that the presence of God can't be seen by everyone but need the vision to see Him and that vision is His Grace! regards, Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2001 Report Share Posted March 18, 2001 Namaste, Gita III:10-14 gives Sri Krishna's advice to Arjuna and to all humanity, as to why/how to relate to Gods. Brahma Sutra Bhashya I:iii:26 has a discussion about gods, besides some other sections. Regards, s. advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > Hari Om! > > Some more thoughts on God and His Grace: > > Ramana Maharishi's remarks about `how to see God' is a powerful > message. In our life, we can witness the presence of God provided we > contemplate deeply on things that happen around us. > > Why do the parent birds sit on theegg to give the warmth and > protection to enable it to hatch? > > Also why do these parent birds take turns to feed the baby birds until > they become independent? > > What caused the baby birds to keep their mouth open and swallow > everything that came in? > > Who taught new born elephant to find and accept its mother's milk? > > No one can deny the fact that every new born child irrespective of the > origin of their birth receive kindness and compassion from everyone! > > Seriously speaking, what is the origin for kindness and compassion? > Is it human instinct or His Grace? > > We have seen news several time that someone without knowing swimming > jumping into a swimming pool, a lake or a river to save an unknown > child. There are numerous incidents that we have seen in the TV and > news about such heroic incidents. Is it human instinct or His Grace? > > All that we know and we can say is that the presence of God can't be > seen by everyone but need the vision to see Him and that vision is His > Grace! > > regards, > > Ram Chandran 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.