Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 In a message dated 10/31/2003 5:55:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, orion777ben writes: > "I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, all > beings are in me but I am not in them." > Here are a few excerpts from Chapter3 of my eBook "People Super Highway; the Mystique & Quest of Soul" that provides an overview of Bhagavad Gita before concluding with the People Super Highway theme. -------- I pervade this world in my non-manifest form; all beings exist in me, but I do not dwell in them, that is - I am not confined in any way. Nor do beings exist in me; behold my divine yoga: supporting all beings but not dwelling in them, is my self, the efficient cause of beings. -Only one thing exists in the universe - God is the sole, though not so obvious, reality pervading all. However, that permeation does not limit or condition its full significance or power. -This is a good example of the fact that every thesis is immediately opposed by its antithesis, and the resultant inexpressible synthesis is the nearest point which human intellect can reach before awakening to the reality which is enlightenment (an event which the Zen Buddhists call "Satori"). -All beings are mere space that is filled with divine presence whose nature is "cit-sakti"; not blind energy, but energy that is full of consciousness -------------------- Beings stay in a non-manifested (or unknown state) before their present life journey begins, they manifest during their life span (their middle state) and become non-manifested again at the end of their present life span. -We should keep in mind that what happens in this present state has had a cause in the unknown past and will in turn have an effect in the unknown future -The mystery of life or the effects of "adrsta" (the unseen Karma) is: One does not work for or seek unhappiness and yet one ends up with it - in fact, we strive all the time to push unhappiness away in order to bring in happiness, but pushing it away sinks us into deeper unhappiness for we are ignorant of the laws of Karma (cause and effect) -On account of past karma, we experience pleasure and pain as they seek us out, but, if we stop desiring for pleasure and hating pain - karma will exhaust itself and that puts us on the path to liberation ---------------- The unintelligent think of me, the non-manifest, as having manifestation, knowing not my higher, immutable and most excellent nature. I am not manifest to all as I am veiled by the Yoga Maya - the deluded world can not know me, the unborn and imperishable. -Maya is an illusion created because of the limited capacity of the senses and the intellect - the senses, intellect, and the mind together start believing that the information brought in by the senses is the entire truth - the fundamental nature of reality is that it is unborn, non-manifest, and unchanging -The Brahman is imperishable, the supreme being whose essential nature is called self-knowledge (adhyatman) -Karma causes the many life spans of beings in order to have them attain self-knowledge of "you do not belong to yourself; yourself belongs to the totality" -------------------------------- The 3-fold nature of God in the Christian religion as "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" maps into "SAT, TAT, OM" that defines God in Hinduism. -God the Father is the Absolute Unmanifested, existing "beyond" vibratory creation (SAT). -God the Son is the Christ Consciousness (Krishna, Brahma, or Kutastha Chaitanya) existing "within" vibratory creation; this Christ Consciousness is the sole reflection of the Uncreated Infinite (TAT). -The outward manifestation of the omnipresent Christ Consciousness, its "witness" (Revelation 3:14), is OM, the Word or Holy Ghost: invisible divine power, the only doer, the sole causative and activating force that upholds all creation through vibration. OM, like the Holy Ghost, is the blissful Comforter that through meditation reveals the ultimate Truth - For this and all related subject matter, please visit my site: <A HREF="http://www.PeopleSuperhighway.com">http://www.PeopleSuperhighway.com</A> Dave Anand .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Namaste, In a previous post, I was a bit puzzled by the second part of Krishna's statement in B.G. Ch. 9: "I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, all beings are in me but I am not in them." Prof VK kindly commented: "The movie is in the screen, but the screen is not in the movie. I am sure you know this analogy, Benjaminji! " Then Sadananda kindly commented: "Ring depends on gold but gold does not depend on ring, in the sense that it can exist without being a ring." My comments: I have no major problem with these statements, but still I wonder. If Advaita (nonduality) is to be taken rigorously, then can one really distinguish between screen and movie? Is this not a form of dualism? Sada's answer may be a bit more helpful. It does indeed seem that gold can exist without being a ring. But a subtlety here is that the ring does not really exist! It is merely an appearance in the gold, like the snake in the rope. I do agree that many different appearances arise in Consciousness, and that Consciousness is surely not exhausted by any particular appearances. But I also cannot say that 'Consciousness is not in the appearances' any more than I can say that 'the rope is not in the snake'. Really they are the same, as far as I can see, and my view seems to be consistent with the definition of Advaita as 'nondualism'. That is, the reality of rope and illusion of snake are really identical, though the latter is a *misinterpretation* of the former. Hence, the reality of rope really is in the illusion of snake. Perhaps I am being too simplistic about the 'nonduality' of Advaita. Perhaps I am making a caricature of logic instead of using it properly. But it does seem to me that nonduality implies an identity between consciousness and appearances, though consciousness is surely not exhausted by any *particular* appearances. Anyhow, this is not a pressing issue for me. I was just wondering about the logical consistency of Krishna's comment from an Advaitic point of view. Perhaps Krishna was speaking from a partly dualistic point of view in those particular words, for the benefit of those humans who think dualistically. I think it is a bit naive, and contrary to the evidence, to suppose that Krishna always speaks from a purely Advaitic point of view. Then Sada said: "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." When I said that I do not believe that chemicals exist, I meant that I do not believe that they exist 'outside' of consciousness, as materialists believe that matter exists outside of consciousness. So when you say that the glory of Brahman is manifest even in chemicals, I agree, provided that the chemicals are no more than appearances in Consciousness and not distinct entities 'outside' of consciousness, as per the materialists. Everything is illusion. Really, this all may seem like tedious philosophical semantics. To me, 'nonduality' is primarily an experience of those sages in which I have confidence. I have read various scriptures and accounts and have acquired faith in the sincerity and intelligence of their words. I believe that they achieved a higher, blissful, enlightened state of consciousness, and they all seem to describe it as 'nondual' (even those who are not Advaitin or Hindu). This is invariably explained as the disappearance of any difference between subject and object. Somehow, this attitude is closely related to enlightenment. This is basically what it all means to me. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 Namaste Benji. We discussed that particular Bhagwad GItA verse in October 2002. Perhaps, my post # 14926 might help in clarifying your doubt. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ___________________________ advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> > In a previous post, I was a bit puzzled by the second part of > Krishna's statement in B.G. Ch. 9: > > "I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, all > beings are in me but I am not in them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 Namaste, all <<<When I said that I do not believe that chemicals exist, I meant that I do not believe that they exist 'outside' of consciousness, as materialists believe that matter exists outside of consciousness.>>>> >From the absolute point i.e paramartha, it is okay. However, I have a small doubt, which I hope can be cleared by the learned members of the group. Are the chemicals inside the limited (?) consciousness of the “i” (ego) that looks at them or outside? Since sarvam khalu idam Brahma, both the looking “i” and the chemicals that appear to be outside are inside(?) consciousness, is there a distance between the looking “i” and the chemicals outside? I think if we use “Gnanam” (Knowledge) in place of “Consciousness” most of the doubts will be cleared. It is “satyam gnanam anantham brahma”. When the word consciousness, or awareness is used, one normally takes it for “his consciousness” i.e. consciousness limited by the upadhis, i.e. adjuncts. Hari Om R.S.Mani Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > > Namaste, > > In a previous post, I was a bit puzzled by the > second part of > Krishna's statement in B.G. Ch. 9: > > "I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested > form, all > beings are in me but I am not in them." > > > > Prof VK kindly commented: > > "The movie is in the screen, but the screen is not > in the movie. I am > sure you know this analogy, Benjaminji! " > Michael comments: Dear friends, it seems to me that the movie is ON the screen not IN the screen. I do agree however that the screen is not IN the movie. Neither the movie nor the screen are IN one another. I make this comment only because the verse from the Gita that inspired this discussion is incomprehensible to me. And these examples that have been given by various members of the list don't seem to really explain the verses import. 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.