Guest guest Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 advaitin, Vinayak Raghuvamshi <vs_raghuvamshi> wrote: > Pranam, > > Your reply is insightful. I happen to have similar > questions as yourself though I never got answers. I > would like to continue the discussion on your > question/answers as it may give me a chance of > furthering my knowledge and gaining some more > insights. > > > A: Why there is this creation, the universe, hell > > of lot of beings > > etc. at all? Where was the need to have created > > them in the first > > place? > > B: Ok. Let us assume that creation has not taken > > place. What would > > the situation be like? Namaste, It is like that already for creation doesn't exist. Where is it in your sleep? There is only Brahman, and this illusion is to trigger the end of the delusion. So there was never any need to create in the first place for it never ever happened.......ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 Namaste. I would request you to read my posts 14926, 15627 and 15837. Perhaps, you may then decide to reframe your questions. Madathil Nair _____ advaitin, Vinayak Raghuvamshi <vs_raghuvamshi> wrote: > > We believe that the manifested world, the creations, > are all maya, and 'false' and what is true is just the > never changing, unmanifested spirit. > > That being said, I would think that if there were no > creations then the situation would have been like some > kind of utopia where only truth prevailed. > ....................... > But HE is the unmanifested, never changing entity. So > he cannot himself be a creation. And he has got > infinite intelligence. When we pray, we expect HIM to > acknowledge and appreciate our prayers. So, there is > intelligence and ability to appreciate in HIM who is > no creation at all. so, the argument that we need a > creation to have appreciation of existence or > non-existence is not convincing. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 Namaste, You seem to have been in this group for a long time and you probably know that I joined just a couple of days ago. I have no idea how to get your posts just by knowing the number. But I definitely tried. I was able to list threads by date, but I could not find the id number anywhere (I am using a web-based client). For example, I tried searching the archives for 14926 and it just returned four threads, one was this current reply of yours and the other three were threads where you were reprimanding someone else. will be greatful if you could just send the links (urls) to your posts. Just to clear up any misunderstandings, I was not asking you questions and expecting you to find answers for me. Just thought I could look for some purposeful discussion where I may come to know more about the ideals, ideas and philosophy of the members and at the same time, gain some insights. Regards, -Vinayak --- "Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair" <madathilnair wrote: > Namaste. > > I would request you to read my posts 14926, 15627 > and 15837. > Perhaps, you may then decide to reframe your > questions. > > Madathil Nair Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 Namaste: Accessing the Archive files are quite easy! For the referenced messages, the respective file location addresses are: advaitin/message/14926 advaitin/message/15627 advaitin/message/15837 Good Luck! Ram Chandran advaitin, Vinayak Raghuvamshi <vs_raghuvamshi> wrote: > I have no idea how to get your posts just by knowing > the number. > > > will be greatful if you could just send the links > (urls) to your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 > --- "Madathil Rajendran Nair > <madathilnair" > <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste. > > > > I would request you to read my posts 14926, 15627 > > and 15837. > > Perhaps, you may then decide to reframe your > > questions. > > > > Madathil Nair > I read the above mentioned posts 14926 and 15837, but the post 15627 seems to belong to someone else. I guess you meant some other # and the #15627 was a typo error. The postings were insightful and elaborate. I liked the example of Gandhi and though I doubt the factual truth about that incidence, I liked the analogy. The above mentioned postings of yours were basically talking about the fundamental Advaita philosophy of oneness. I think the point I was trying to discuss with you was related to your question "Is a 'creation' necessary for intelligence and sensory appreciation". I guess we are not on the same page or maybe I just need to go through more of the threads in the archive before indulging in any further discussions, atleast on this topic... Regards, -Vinayak Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 The correct number is 15672. Sorry for the error and inconvenience. You said: "I think the point I was trying to discuss with you was related to your question "Is a 'creation' necessary for intelligence and sensory appreciation"." I didn't ask such a question, at least in the manner you have worded it. However, sensory appreciation falls in the realm of creation and, therefore, belongs to the first category detailed in my post # 15672 whereas Intelligence as Consciousness is alone in the second category. The first category is because the Second Is, or Consciousness Is or Intelligence Is. Vice versa is not true. So, the question, "Why creation?" is akin to "Why the first category?". "The first category is because the SECOND IS" is the only obvious answer. Intelligence (Consciousness) pervades creation but the created are not within Intelligence because Intelligence is logically indivisible (BG Ch. 9 initial verses -My post # 14926). Hope this clarifies. Madathil Nair _____ advaitin, Vinayak Raghuvamshi <vs_raghuvamshi> wrote: > I read the above mentioned posts 14926 and 15837, but > the post 15627 seems to belong to someone else. I > guess you meant some other # and the #15627 was a typo > error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 Namaste. God forbid! I haven't the capacity to reprimand. Regards. Madathil Nair ________________________ advaitin, Vinayak Raghuvamshi <vs_raghuvamshi> wrote: > For example, I tried searching the archives for 14926 > and it just returned four threads, one was this > current reply of yours and the other three were > threads where you were reprimanding someone else. 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.