Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Namaste, Sorry for chopping off the subject ... it is too long! Sadanandaji said: "When the scripture says only existence which is consciousness is there in the beginning and that is infiniteness - there cannot be jadam in reality or inert thing - If one sees the jadam, what idam or iti stands for - it is na iti - not this." Indeed! And as I have argued, one can arrive at similar conclusions through philosophy, in my opinion. Here is a vivid example. Many people today are materialists, especially if they are educated in Western universities (or in the many Indian universities that follow the Western example ... according to what I have read on the web). This means, for example, that they think they are only the body, and in particular, our consciousness is no more than 'chemicals in the brains'. If you took a poll of professors at leading universities, I think this would be by far the most common opinion. This would mean that when the body dies and the brain dissolves, our consciousness would disappear forever ... a pretty scary thought! Many people secretly fear this very much, and live a life of sense-indulgence partly in order to forget their fear. Now think about this! Chemicals are normally considered to be inert, as is the entire material world. Therefore, how could they support consciousness? It is really impossible, according to the very definition of matter as inert. So consciousness CANNOT be identified with the brain, though there is obviously a close connection. Therefore the dissolution of the brain does not mean a 'death sentence'. But as you know, I don't believe the chemicals, or any other matter, even exist, except as perceptions in consciousness. So the entire issue goes up in smoke! And we don't need to depend solely on scripture, in my opinion. I have nothing against scripture, but there will always be those who don't believe. For them, philosophy may work. Then you quoted Krishna from Ch. 9 of the Gita" "I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, all beings are in me but I an not in them. " I certainly agree that Krishna, as Brahman, or Consciousness, is the substratum of all reality, so that all reality is 'in him'. But when he says that 'I am not in them', this is a bit more mysterious to me. I guess it means that the totality of all consciousness is not exhausted by the apparent material universe of galaxies, etc. Even in my own personal self, I see more than just those perceptions I call the 'world'. For example, I am aware of thoughts and feelings, which I (mistakenly) take as 'internal'. And there may be other 'modes' of consciousness far beyond anything I can imagine. Still, I wonder about the 'unmanifest' and 'transcendental' aspect of Brahman. I rebel at the idea that it is simply 'nothing' ... blacker than the blackest deep space. Some people seem to take this view, but I am not sure. I now feel that I may have neglected this issue in the past, and I am now more curious about it. Perhaps some people here have thoughts. Of course, this is an extremely difficult and inaccessible topic! Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote: > >> > > Then you quoted Krishna from Ch. 9 of the Gita" > > "I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, all beings > are in me but I an not in them. " > > I certainly agree that Krishna, as Brahman, or Consciousness, is the > substratum of all reality, so that all reality is 'in him'. But when > he says that 'I am not in them', this is a bit more mysterious to me. > I guess it means that the totality of all consciousness is not > exhausted by the apparent material universe of galaxies, etc. Namaste, Benjaminji The movie is in the screen, but the screen is not in the movie. I am sure you know this analogy, Benjaminji! PraNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > But as you know, I don't believe the chemicals, or any other matter, > even exist, except as perceptions in consciousness. So the entire > issue goes up in smoke! And we don't need to depend solely on > scripture, in my opinion. I have nothing against scripture, but > there will always be those who don't believe. For them, philosophy > may work. > > > > Then you quoted Krishna from Ch. 9 of the Gita" > > "I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, all beings > are in me but I an not in them. " > > I certainly agree that Krishna, as Brahman, or Consciousness, is the > substratum of all reality, so that all reality is 'in him'. But when > he says that 'I am not in them', this is a bit more mysterious to me. > I guess it means that the totality of all consciousness is not > exhausted by the apparent material universe of galaxies, etc. Benjamin - Prof. VK has provided an example - Krishna is pointing out as one dependent and another independent realities - The scripture in fact provides three examples to illustrate the point - Gold and its ornaments; mud and the mud-pots and Iron and the iron-tools. Can I say ornaments do not exist - can I say ornaments are different from gold - the sloka that Krishna gave - the gold can out to its Arjuna! - I pervade this entire ornamental in unmanifested from (formless form) all ornaments are in me but I am not in them - in the sense their mutations - birth, growth, disease, decay and death, utility and attributes do not belong to me. That is what maaya means. For a wife - necklace is different from ring etc. But from gold point it is unmanifested. If a ring thinks I am only a ring with date of birth and jealous of the necklace which is close to the heart and suffers consequence of that identification - Geeta comes to help her to say that you are not the ring you are the gold - na 'iti' na 'iti'. Ring may argue that Gold is in heaven but scripture says from which the whole world of golden ornaments rose, they are sustained and they go back it gold Brahman. Ring depends on gold but gold does not depend on ring, in the sense that it can exist without being a ring. It is the glory of gold that it can exist as gold without being ornaments and also ornaments - pasyam me yogamaiswaram | Say my glory or vibhuuti. You say you do not believe in chemicals - But Brahman say - look at my glory - I can exist in the form of chemicals also - that is my glory. There is no need to deny the world - one can enjoy the fun while realizing it is only for fun. Remember with in the realm of the chemical world - the laws are all self-consistent - it is very well ordered universe with laws of causes and effects - That is the glory and that is the beauty. One can understand it is all-apparent and still enjoy the beauty of the apparent. The beauty of the sunrise and sunset- the beauty of life pulsating in tiny insects to gigantic animals, the beauty and order in the universe - no need to deny it but one needs to understand it. You say you do not belief in chemicals, but belief in Benjamin is different from belief in the scriptures - don't you think? Hari OM! Sadananda > > Hari Om! > Benjamin > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch./promos/britneyspears/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 --- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > SNIP > > Then you quoted Krishna from Ch. 9 of the Gita" > > > > "I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested > form, all beings > > are in me but I an not in them. " > > > > I certainly agree that Krishna, as Brahman, or > Consciousness, is the > > substratum of all reality, so that all reality is > 'in him'. But when > > he says that 'I am not in them', this is a bit > more mysterious to me. Michael comments: It's mysterious to me as well!!! > Benjamin - Prof. VK has provided an example - > SNIP I pervade this entire ornamental in > unmanifested from > (formless form) all ornaments are in me but I am not > in them - in the > sense their mutations - birth, growth, disease, > decay and death, utility > and attributes do not belong to me. That is what > maaya means. For a > wife - necklace is different from ring etc. But from > gold point it is > unmanifested. Michael comments: I'm sorry, I don't want to appear to be contrary or argumentative; but this (classic) example doesn't seem to fit the situation. After all, the gold is in the ring. SNIP Regards, michael Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch./promos/britneyspears/ 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.