Gita Satsangh IX.4-6

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

About vasanas which I suppose along with samskaras are some of

the springs of karma in B.S.B. II.i.35 Sankara arguing against his opponent

who makes out that the statement of Ch.VI.ii.1 "O amiable one, in the

beginning all this was but Existence, one without a second" implies that

creation had a beginning. This would bring in its train the unfortunate

consequence that through starting with a clean sheet men's fates would have

no variety. "But before this emergence of diversity it would come to this

that the first creation would perforce be without any variety, since the

fruits of work bringing about differentiation would be absent."

 

Contra this position the Vedantin declares that this is not applicable as

transmigration has no beginning.

 

In this way the karma/janma connection is upheld.

 

In II.i.36 he goes to declare that this is a logical doctrine "for had it

(creation) emerged capriciously all of a sudden, there there would have

been the predicament of freed souls also being reborn here, as also the

contingency of results accruing from non-existent causes, for the

differences in happiness and misery would have no logical explanation."

 

So it seems that the position is that creation, and vasanas, have no

beginning but they do come to an end.

 

Continuing the theme of time in the various lokas Ramana Maharshi in his

Talks discusses and accepts that there was a case of a man who was the

reincarnation of someone who had not yet died. 'The upadhis are different'

he said. So it seems that there are bends in time. The common phenomenon

of pre-cognition suggests that you can experience something before it

happens albeit in an exiguous form such as dream.

 

How does all this talk about creation beginningless or otherwise tie in with

the fact of Evolution and the 'Big Bang'(if you accept that theory)? Can

they contradict each other or do they run parallel in different universes

of discourse, lokas if you will? To give an example some years ago the

Catholic Church apologised to Gaileleo for having denounced his theory of

heliocentrism. Fine so they should, they were wrong on a matter of fact.

Yet in the present Catechism the Adam and Eve story about the source of

original sin is included. Does this mean that in a few hundred years time

they shall have to be apologising to Charles Darwin?

 

Similarily and likewise I think that to compare and contrast doctrine and

myth from two different traditions is confused. ((Madathil it is Sri

Yukteswar in Auto. of a Yogi that relates the tree in the garden and the

serpent to Kundalini)). The Tree of Life etc. is a myth used to express

profound truth. At the level of realisation the truth is one. Moreover in

this case Kundalini Yoga is a science in its own right with subjective

empirical validity. So it's not myth compared to myth really. Though it

means well assimilation is a barren excercise.

 

Ciao and Blessings, Michael.

 

 

 

 

_______________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael.

 

Your post 14992 generated these random thoughts:

 

We are in a "situation" with the means to undo it. Then, do we have

to ask the question how the "situation" developed?

 

The crux of advaita is all-encompassing immortality. It teaches us a

shift of focus to realize that there has never been any birth and

there could never be any death. In other words, there is only an

ever-present present of timelessness without a beginning or end,

which is us.

 

Big Bang, time-warp, vAsanas and the like are the worry of those who

ask the question how the "situation" developed.

 

Bh. Ramana Maharshi talked about time-bend and reincarnation probably

because he was asked a question.

 

If the Church apologized to Galileo, there is every reason they may

soon say sorry to Darwin too. But, in our "situation", may be

tomorrow the Darwinists may also be forced to say sorry to some other

future school of scientific thought. Realization is when we don't

have to say sorry any more.

 

About Yogananda Parahamsaji, other than the reference you quoted

from his Autobiography, there is a separate book of his quotes

(transcribed from shorthand notes taken by one of his disciples),

which imparts vedantic import to Christian teachings. I couldn't,

however, locate it on the Net. Reading it helps satsang and to

eventually get out of the "situation".

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote: