Gods

[Guest guest]

19032001

Namaste Dennisji

>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?

 

'God' is in mind. Intellect knows otherwise but past cultivations are

difficult to forget for the mind.

What Intellect knows, mind expresses it as 'God' in the case of traditions

and religions. Easteners also see the sun and 'think' of it as inconceivably

vast and ongoing nuclear fusion naturally,but our mind is identifying it as

Sun God. It is the effect of past cultivations that ,we inspite of knowing

westernrs interpretation of sun, inspite of knowing it is probably

immposible for us to convince uninitiated westerner, makes us to call some

natural Objects as 'God'. We dont extend this idea to accept battery as

'god' because it is man made. We map natures activity as 'God' not mans

activity as god. We dont consider 'God' as expicitly percievable Object

because it does not reside beyond human mind. Only Human mind maps Nature as

'God' other Living being. Our great Yogis perceived it in their YogSadhana

and later on masses accpet it as ready model of acknowledging Natures

presence around us.

>But it seems you lapse into your cultural background when you say

>'the Sun God is clearly seen by all'.

 

It may be true to certain extent. Your past cultivations and enviornment

makes your mind to consider sun as mere source immense energy . Later you

intellect goes in accordance with your mind and indeed proves sun to be like

that. Your past cultivations did not allow you to put 'God' with sun or for

that matter in any natural Objects. It only says some high intellectual

aspect about 'God'.(It would be interesting to know westerners

interpretations of 'God'). Your mind is moulded not to see 'God' in natural

Object but apriciate it in rather cold intellectual manner. We say to change

your past cultivations of mind and try to see the way we have been told. You

find it difficult. You feel , since your minds understanding first and

intellect understanding later is a match and whereas in our case it is not,

so it is not required for you to change rather it is requried by us to

change. It is a cleaver argument and on the face of it convincing but point

is that so far as our mind and intellect are working in tandem without

creating any problem of any nature why should we? Is it wrong to map natural

activity as 'God'? are we culturally sentimental? Is it not good to

acknowledge the presence of nature around us? and other point is are we

really require to change? is it really a laspe on our part?

 

Thanks for your Time and Space.

 

Prabodh

[Guest guest]

A few comments on recent postings: -

 

Sadananda said "From the top down approach - A correct intellectual

understanding involves recognition that creator is not different from

creation...".

 

Would it not be more accurate to say that the correct intellectual

understanding involves recognition that there is no creator or creation,

only what IS, and that that is one and undifferentiated? The very word

'creator' requires there to be something (separate) that is created; this,

it seems, is the source of all of our problems. I do not see why 'a correct

knowledge will lead to bhakti'.

 

Anand said "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."

 

But experience also tells us that not all that we are told by our parents is

reliable. What about Father Christmas/Santa Claus for example or 'bogeymen'

who will come to get you if you do not do as you are told? What our parents

tell us is dictated by their degree of knowledge and wisdom, and in turn by

theirs.

 

Anand also said "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."

 

There are 'reliable' people who have sworn that they have been abducted by

aliens, too but surely we are right to be sceptical. It is perfectly

understandable that ignorance predisposes one to postulate divine

explanations for phenomena that are not understood. Hence gods of thunder

and sun gods.

 

Also "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."

 

But where do you draw the line? Many people believe in ghosts or claim that

they can communicate with the spirits of people who have died. Do these

exist?

 

Anand continues "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!"

 

Agreed that all are unreal and dream world has equivalent (un)reality. If

you are saying that, therefore, realm of gods is equally unreal, fine. But

it does seem that much more is being said. After all, no one is giving

credence to a world of fairies and gnomes. Is there a difference?

 

Anand concludes "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."

 

Is this true? I accept that, for those who cannot approach the truth

directly through knowledge, gods and bhakti have utility; I do no see how

this could be in doubt. However, I do see that it follows that reality

cannot be approached in effectively the same way through ordinary

perceptions. Nature, fine painting and music are a few examples where

meaning far beyond mere rocks, pigment or sounds may be apprehended. And all

of these are undeniable in a way that cannot be applied to gods.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dennis wrote:

>A few comments on recent postings: -

>

>Sadananda said "From the top down approach - A correct intellectual

>understanding involves recognition that creator is not different from

>creation...".

>

>Would it not be more accurate to say that the correct intellectual

>understanding involves recognition that there is no creator or creation,

>only what IS, and that that is one and undifferentiated? The very word

>'creator' requires there to be something (separate) that is created; this,

>it seems, is the source of all of our problems. I do not see why 'a correct

>knowledge will lead to bhakti'.

 

True - Since we see the creation and think it is separate from us

-Hence the inquiry. What you said is the final conclusion or

realization after the inquiry. Then, what need to be accomplished is

accomplished. No further question about Gods - since nothing else is.

 

But when the question of Gods arose, the discussion is not from the

state of absolute - is-ness or oneness - The duality is seen and the

seen duality is transacted as if it is real and that is the source of

suffering and samsaara - If it is clearly understood (vij~naana) -

not just Intellectually but factually - then it is adhyaasa. Then

there is no problem - nothing to do - no Gods no subjects and no real

creation to deal with. Until then, it is at the intellectual

understanding stage - the bhakti or karma and even j~naana has a role

- j~naaana is just informative knowledge - vij~naana is knowledge

supported by experience - anubhava puurvaka j~naanam - that is, firm

understanding that there is noting other than is-ness or existence -

consciousness.

 

Intellectual Bhakti starts at the sadhana level once one starts

appreciating the creation as His glory. Final understanding is soham

- He is I - that is the culmination of the saadhana. Thus as long as

saadhana state is differentiated from the realized state and there is

no mixing of these states from the point of understanding, then these

questions get dissolved.

 

From the point of saadhana - there is nothing that is absolutely

correct -since concept of saadhana itself is due to ignorance - Hence

yoga itself is for an ignorant but that itself is in maaya - yet it

can take one beyond maaya. Hence correct approach is that which

(as though) takes you to agitation-less state - since all agitations

are disturbances at the mind level. In the final analysis as long as

jiva is there Gods are also there and as real as jiiva - When jiiva

identifies himself with Brahman the God or Gods also merge along with

him to be one and that is what Brahma asmi - I am that infiniteness

and any division in that infiniteness is only apparent and not real

just as divisions in space as this is bathroom - this is kitchen etc.

From the space point even the dividers are in space - it is one

without divisions. Since the nature of the problem is adhyaasa

according to advaita - the inquiry is the ultimate means. To the

inquiry the mind should be free from agitations. This is true even

for objective learning - if ones mind is disturbed one cannot sitdown

and study or inquire. To gain that purity of the miind is the

saadhana in terms of karma and Iswara and Bhakti - As I have pointed

out in my first response to this topic - one cannot have karma yoga

without Iswara. Yoga itself involves yoking the mind to something

higher - that higher is how one perceives that higher which is

subjective - it has to be anyway since higher and lower itself are

the notions in the mind.

 

I mentioned once - Man created God so that that created God can

create him and the universe that he transacts. Hence as long as he

sees the creation separate from him, creator and creation are

separate. He needs to understand first the creation is not separate

from creator - that is what suutra 2 refers to and ultimately that

creator is not separate from him.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sadananda said:- "In the final analysis as long as jiva is there Gods are

also there and as real as jiiva".

 

But nothing was said prior to this to argue the case for gods other than

"Intellectual Bhakti starts at the sadhana level once one starts

appreciating the creation as His glory".

 

Do I correctly conclude that you are saying that there are two levels of

adhyaasa? i.e. jiiva first of all mistakenly superimposes the idea of, say,

a sun, on what is perceived as being part of a 'creation' and then, further,

mistakenly superimposes the idea of a god on the sun? I am still mystified

as to why this second level of adhyaasa is seen as useful; one level seems

quite enough to contend with as far as I can see!

 

(This question is slightly tongue-in-cheek but does seem a valid way of

looking at the situation and I know you won't be offended!)

 

Regards,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

>Sadananda said:- "In the final analysis as long as jiva is there Gods are

>also there and as real as jiiva".

>

>But nothing was said prior to this to argue the case for gods other than

>"Intellectual Bhakti starts at the sadhana level once one starts

>appreciating the creation as His glory".

>

>Do I correctly conclude that you are saying that there are two levels of

>adhyaasa? i.e. jiiva first of all mistakenly superimposes the idea of, say,

>a sun, on what is perceived as being part of a 'creation' and then, further,

>mistakenly superimposes the idea of a god on the sun? I am still mystified

>as to why this second level of adhyaasa is seen as useful; one level seems

>quite enough to contend with as far as I can see!

 

Adhyaasa involves mistaken superimpositions (a) I am different form

the rest of the word and (b) the rest of the world is as real as I am

.. From this it degenerates further as discussed in the end part of

adhyaasa. The world that is real out there is a creation and there is

a creator and I am tiny jiiva entity in this creation since I cannot

change the world and the laws of the world are beyond me.

 

As I bring in the creation and creator concept - and admiring the

intelligence behind the creations - gods and goddesses and supergods

and supreme gods - all come in to explain the things that I cannot

otherwise explain. This is all part of adhyaasa. Even saadhana is

also part of adhyaasa too. Now Vedanta teaches us that this is all

adhyaasa - I see the logic and still I ask the question - I know I am

Brhaman and all this is adhyaasa and what should I do now? - Why do

we need these gods - everything is self? I am alone is real etc-

Dennis can you see in the very last question there is a problem - If

I have really understood there is nothing other than the Self - then

the scope for further questions about gods and creations etc have no

relevance.

 

At this stage of the game it is only an -Idea - seems to be logical

and scriptural too. yet as Bhagavaan Ramana puts it -until one is

not firmly established in that understanding -dhR^iDaiva nishhTa -

The cause for it as Vedanta says strong notions in the mind that I am

these upaadhiis or body, mind, and intellect. There is a gap between

the understanding and realization - Hence sadhana comes into picture

not for helping in understanding the adhyaasa but for purifying the

mind so that it can see adhyaasa as adhyaasa. Karma and Bhakti are

recognized as the most efficient means for purification. Hence Giita

as yoga shaastra comes into picture. For those whose minds are

conditioned to think in terms of God and deities - the same gods can

help in purifying the mind if one does not get attached to the name

and forms or idols but recognize the ideals behind the idols. That

requires understanding of who that God - That is why I said without

the proper understanding bhakti can lead to fanaticism. If you go

and talk to Hare Krishna people you will know what I mean. People

kill in the name of religion without understanding the meaning of

that religion. People are destroying the Creative works like

Bhuddhas in Afganistan all in the name of religion.

 

But for those who understand one can make use of these very tools to

go beyond the tools. Only in the final analysis all this is

recognized as part of ahdyaasa too. But until then they are helpful

tools in the purification process. These will be discussed in the

final posts of suutra 4 when Shankara analyses the role of karma and

upaasana - once he negates puurvamiimaansaka-s theories. In the

final analysis everything is degenation of adhyaasa - Only I am that

I am is the reality beyond adhyaasa since I have to be there even to

discard ahdyaasa.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>

>(This question is slightly tongue-in-cheek but does seem a valid way of

>looking at the situation and I know you won't be offended!)

>

>Regards,

>

>Dennis

>

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623