Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Namaste, In the scriptures it is said that in the beginning there was lord alone. He got a desire to manifest himself in many. ( Ekoham bahusyam etc.) Which clearly shows that the creation is due to the desire of the lord. Now after the desire, the creation process is elaborately given atmanah aakasha sambhutah, aakashat vayuhu vaur agnihi etc. Here we can raise a question in the every blissful sachidananda why did the desire rose?!! whcih is the casue for all this name and form and misery and if the creation is due to the desire of the lord then he becomes the KARTA of the world and he cannot escape the good and evil results of creating this phenominal world. Secondly assume that all of us with great difficulty get liberation then what is the gurantee that we will not be pused back to the samsara due to some other desire of the lord? If that is so even liberated persons have to come back to this samsara of birth and death. I request you to calrify the above questions with scriptural explanation HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka. FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Namaste Sri Vinayaka-ji, advaitin, br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > In the scriptures it is said that in the beginning > there was lord alone. He got a desire to manifest > himself in many. ( Ekoham bahusyam etc.) Which clearly > shows that the creation is due to the desire of the > lord. > Here we can raise a question in the every blissful > sachidananda why did the desire rose?!! whcih is the > casue for all this name and form and misery and if the > creation is due to the desire of the lord then he > becomes the KARTA of the world and he cannot escape > the good and evil results of creating this phenominal > world. Why should the Lord, who is ever-free, ever full and blissful, ever wish to create? But first what is this creation? In truth there is no creation because that which is said to be created is always already present in the Lord. This world is a stage and the Lord presents on to this stage all those forms that are always in Him. But why does He do that? Now, all questions of 'why' are answered only in the realm of causality where the answer is never a final answer. The final answer is the Great Silence in which causality has been swallowed up. But we all want answers even when we are in this Leela, and one answer that comes to my mind goes something like this. Why is the body of Lord Krishna bent in the classical pose that we all know? It is said that Krishna is bent out of love for Sri Radha. (Sri Ramakrishna used to say this). Likewise, the Lord creates out of His love for us. We desire this world, and the Lord out of His love for us has a reciprocal desire to give us this world. He reciprocates because we are Him in a certain sense and our desires are reflected in His love for us. Who is it that gives the world and to whom? He who gives the world to us is also all of us to whom it is given -- for it is He Himself that has entered all beings as their souls. He has assumed these shapes, He has entered them, and it is He that moves about as the king, as the beggar, as the beautiful maiden, as the old man with a stick, as the virtuous man and as the murderer, as the animal in the forest, as the bird in the sky, as the plants and the trees on this earth, even as the inanimate objects like the stones and water of this world. There is no blame that attaches to Him because He gives sorrow to none other than Himself and pleasure to none other than Himself. It is He alone that grieves and it is He alone that laughs. The Great Lord is unattached in His grieveing and in His laughter. How can we understand this? He has not changed even when He entered all these beings. He is therefore not these jivas that wander about from birth to birth even though He is all of them. How can we understand this? It is the Great Power and Glory of God that He is always Transcendent in all of Creation. He created Hiranyagarbha, He became Hiranygarbha and yet He remained the same immutable Lord; He created Virat, He became Virat and yet He remained the same immutable Lord. He created Manu and Satarupa, He became Manu and Satarupa and yet He remained the same immutable Lord. Each being He created became a being, and He that became all of them remained the Great Brahman that is none of them. The Lord's desire to create is not His desire, but the desire of all beings that want this creation. His desire to create is His love for all beings reflected in His swatantriya. He therefore creates and yet He does nothing. Only he who can see action in inaction and inaction in action can see this great MayaShakti of the Lord. It is His power that expresses His swatantriya and absolute Lordship over everything - everything that is none other than He Himself. He that asks the question will ultimately find the answer in Himself! > Secondly assume that all of us with great difficulty > get liberation then what is the gurantee that we will > not be pused back to the samsara due to some other > desire of the lord? If that is so even liberated > persons have to come back to this samsara of birth and > death. Who is the Lord and who is the liberated soul? The freedom of moksha is not other than the freedom of the Lord. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Namaste Chittaranjan Ji, It is rightly said that one cannot understand an illusion untill he gets out of it. But the mind wants to know it. There comes a time in the life of all spiritual aspirants and intense desire to know the truth then the soul aspires for right answers for all these questions. It is not at all for the pleasure of the intellect but to quench the thirst of the sincere enquiry. Same thing happened to Swami Vivekananda also. When he was under sever poverty still he was holding to god and every day he was praying to him as soon he got up from the bed. Once his mother overheard his prayer and rebuked him severly telling that 'stop praying to god from childhood you are doing so but see what he has done for you'. He was taken aback and he started doubting the very existence of the lord. Then Eeshwar chandra vidyasagar's statement came to his mind that if there is ever merciful and loving god then why people are dying without food and why there is so much misery and evil in his creation. But then he had an unique expreience. Once after the whole day search for job in an empty stomach he fainted on the roadside. He says that that moment many factors were revealed to him. He said the veil after veil was removed and the mystery of the creation was revealed to him. But he never spoke about what he saw. But he clearly said that all my doubts vanished for ever. What he saw is still a mystery. But one thing is sure any amount of logical explanation will not satisfy these kind of deep questions of life. HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka. Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 Namaste Sri Vinayaka-ji, advaitin, br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > It is rightly said that one cannot understand an > illusion untill he gets out of it. But the mind wants > to know it. There comes a time in the life of all > spiritual aspirants and intense desire to know the > truth then the soul aspires for right answers for all > these questions. It is not at all for the pleasure of > the intellect but to quench the thirst of the sincere > enquiry. > > Same thing happened to Swami Vivekananda also. When he > was under sever poverty still he was holding to god > and every day he was praying to him as soon he got up > from the bed. Once his mother Your words are a reflection of the deep disquiet in the sadhaka's soul. The story of Vivekananda which you quote is very dear to me. Thank you. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 --- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: > Namaste Sri Vinayaka-ji, > > advaitin, br_vinayaka > <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > In the scriptures it is said that in the beginning > > there was lord alone. He got a desire to manifest > > himself in many. ( Ekoham bahusyam etc.) Which > clearly > > shows that the creation is due to the desire of > the > > lord. > > Here we can raise a question in the every blissful > > sachidananda why did the desire rose?!! whcih is > the > > casue for all this name and form and misery and if > the > > creation is due to the desire of the lord then he > > becomes the KARTA of the world and he cannot > escape > > the good and evil results of creating this > phenominal > > world. > > > Why should the Lord, who is ever-free, ever full and > blissful, ever > wish to create? > > But first what is this creation? In truth there is > no creation > because that which is said to be created is always > already present in > the Lord. This world is a stage and the Lord > presents on to this > stage all those forms that are always in Him. But > why does He do > that? Now, all questions of 'why' are answered only > in the realm of > causality where the answer is never a final answer. > The final answer > is the Great Silence in which causality has been > swallowed up. But we > all want answers even when we are in this Leela, and > one answer that > comes to my mind goes something like this. > > > Why is the body of Lord Krishna bent in the > classical pose that we > all know? It is said that Krishna is bent out of > love for Sri Radha. > (Sri Ramakrishna used to say this). Likewise, the > Lord creates out of > His love for us. We desire this world, and the Lord > out of His love > for us has a reciprocal desire to give us this > world. He reciprocates > because we are Him in a certain sense and our > desires are reflected > in His love for us. > > Who is it that gives the world and to whom? He who > gives the world to > us is also all of us to whom it is given -- for it > is He Himself that > has entered all beings as their souls. He has > assumed these shapes, > He has entered them, and it is He that moves about > as the king, as > the beggar, as the beautiful maiden, as the old man > with a stick, as > the virtuous man and as the murderer, as the animal > in the forest, as > the bird in the sky, as the plants and the trees on > this earth, even > as the inanimate objects like the stones and water > of this world. > There is no blame that attaches to Him because He > gives sorrow to > none other than Himself and pleasure to none other > than Himself. It > is He alone that grieves and it is He alone that > laughs. > > The Great Lord is unattached in His grieveing and in > His laughter. > How can we understand this? He has not changed even > when He entered > all these beings. He is therefore not these jivas > that wander about > from birth to birth even though He is all of them. > How can we > understand this? It is the Great Power and Glory of > God that He is > always Transcendent in all of Creation. He created > Hiranyagarbha, He > became Hiranygarbha and yet He remained the same > immutable Lord; He > created Virat, He became Virat and yet He remained > the same immutable > Lord. He created Manu and Satarupa, He became Manu > and Satarupa and > yet He remained the same immutable Lord. Each being > He created became > a being, and He that became all of them remained the > Great Brahman > that is none of them. > > The Lord's desire to create is not His desire, but > the desire of all > beings that want this creation. His desire to create > is His love for > all beings reflected in His swatantriya. He > therefore creates and yet > He does nothing. Only he who can see action in > inaction and inaction > in action can see this great MayaShakti of the Lord. > It is His power > that expresses His swatantriya and absolute Lordship > over everything - > everything that is none other than He Himself. He > that asks the > question will ultimately find the answer in Himself! > > > > Secondly assume that all of us with great > difficulty > > get liberation then what is the gurantee that we > will > > not be pused back to the samsara due to some other > > desire of the lord? If that is so even liberated > > persons have to come back to this samsara of birth > and > > death. > > Who is the Lord and who is the liberated soul? The > freedom of moksha > is not other than the freedom of the Lord. > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan > Dear Chittaranjanji, > > Your assumption of all created objects being already contained in the Lord, and all are his manifestations, and yet He transcends the limitations of manifest sorrow in spite of his apparent subjucation to the samsara in the form of various individuals- all this smacks of a lot of duality to protect the exalted status of the Lord given out by the scriptures. But does this theory console a man or deliver a liberating knowledge. We are very much in the empirical realm full of uncertainty. Hence, all this philosophical postulates do not help us in understanding life. Does Lord exist at all?-at least in the fashion believed by us. Or is there a totally different approach? Perhaps, all these theories may be false. May it not be that all of us are some characters in a fiction, being time-bound, coming to an end at the allotted time, and new beings being ushered in in this unknown cosmic play, all these theories of reincarnation and karma being merely the concoction of the priests. U.G.Krishnamurthy seems to hold such a view. He says that Life manifests itself in the form of various apparent individuals, the only truth being the biological mechanism that being merely an emanation of Life, which is causeless, there being no autonomy for any individual, and no purpose being inherent in Life. Why should we belabour our mind with philosophical speculations, instead of remaining with what we are? Sankarraman > > > Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 Dear Ganesan Sankarramanji, Namaste > > Your assumption of all created objects being > already > contained in the Lord, and all are his > manifestations, > and yet He transcends the limitations of manifest > sorrow in spite of his apparent subjucation to the > samsara in the form of various individuals- all this > smacks of a lot of duality to protect the exalted > status of the Lord given out by the scriptures. But > does this theory console a man or deliver a > liberating > knowledge. We are very much in the empirical realm > full of uncertainty. Hence, all this philosophical > postulates do not help us in understanding life. > Does > Lord exist at all?-at least in the fashion believed > by > us. Or is there a totally different approach? > Perhaps, > all these theories may be false. May it not be that > all of us are some characters in a fiction, being > time-bound, coming to an end at the allotted time, > and > new beings being ushered in in this unknown cosmic > play, all these theories of reincarnation and karma > being merely the concoction of the priests. > U.G.Krishnamurthy seems to hold such a view. He says > that Life manifests itself in the form of various > === message truncated === It is true that these theories prove illogical to clearly express the creation process and its cause. But as far as theory of karma and reincarnation is concerned there are sufficient proofs even in the west it has been proved. If you want to know about it you can read EDGAR KEYCEE'S works if you do not get that you can read Learn To Live 1&2 published by ramakrishna math. There keycee very cleary traces the present behaviour or ailments of different persons to the acts done in their previous birth. Not only keycee but i do recall a case with Mrs. Murphy a lady who recalled her previous birth and very clealy expressed the living conditions of her, almost two centuries ago. Another thing is that not only vedanta the theory karma and reincarnation is accepted by even buddhistic schools. The scriptures try to divert the mind of the aspirant to the ultimate reality. When it comes to final definition it clearly and boldly says that NETI NETI. and it also says yato vacho nivartante aprapya manasa saha. The scriptures are very honest when it comes to the definition of ultimate reality. We should held the scriptures in high respect and never resort to nihillistic ideas. Another point is to note that the best minds and intellects of the world like shankaracharya, swami vivekananda, sri ramakrishna, ramana maharshi all have spoken highly about the authenticity of the scriptures. Actually upanishads are not theory but it is the experience of the sages. They clearly say that i have known the truth you can also know. About your last point yes we can very well think that these speculations are useless and we can live without putting any effort on this front. But if we do that it will be barring our own spiritual growth. Ofcourse if one feels that these things do not satisfy one can very well take up the different sadhanas told by the scriptures and verify the truth oneself. But for that one requires tremendous patience it may take a long long time. Infact it has been done even in modern times by great souls like ramakrishnadeva, vivekananda, ramana maharshi etc. But if one progress in the path intuitively one nows that one is marching ahead. My idea of posting this issue was not to question the authenticity of the scriptures but to get more views on this point. Let us have high reverence for the Vedas which are the best and oldest spiritual heritage of mankind. HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka. FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 --- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: >> The Lord's desire to create is not His desire, but the desire of all > beings that want this creation. His desire to create is His love for > all beings reflected in His swatantriya. He therefore creates and yet > He does nothing. Only he who can see action in inaction and inaction > in action can see this great MayaShakti of the Lord. It is His power > that expresses His swatantriya and absolute Lordship over everything - > everything that is none other than He Himself. He that asks the > question will ultimately find the answer in Himself! OM TAT SAT Dear Chittaranjan, According to chapter 13 of Gita, Prakruti and Purusha are anAdi. If we accept that, then there is no such thing as creation since creation means a starting point of time. In other words, there never was the origination of any desire in Brahman. The 8 'things' - panch mahabhut, manas, buddhi and ahankar are also eternal. Please let me know if my thinking is correct. thank you OM TAT SAT Start your day with - Make it your home page! http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 Dear Sri Mahadeva-ji, advaitin, Brahmarpanam Brahmhavih <mahadevadvaita> wrote: > Dear Chittaranjan, According to chapter 13 of Gita, Prakruti > and Purusha are anAdi. If we accept that, then there is no such > thing as creation since creation means a starting point of time. > In other words, there never was the origination of any desire > in Brahman. The 8 'things' - panch mahabhut, manas, buddhi and > ahankar are also eternal. Please let me know if my thinking is > correct. I am not an authority on Advaita Mahadeva-ji, all I can say from my understanding of Advaita is that you are correct provided you don't understand Prakriti to be separate from Purusha. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 Dear Mahadevaji, Namaste, If you consider the prakriti and purusha as anadi then you have to accept the two infinities. This theory is held in samkhya and yoga philosophy. Now the question is how two infinities can co-exist? The vedanta says that the prakriti is anadi but it never says that it is ananta. It can be transcended and it will vanish for the realised person (rope snake example). Even if they co-exist we may have to assume some third thing which is substratum of these two isnt it? HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka. --- Brahmarpanam Brahmhavih <mahadevadvaita wrote: > --- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik > wrote: > >> The Lord's desire to create is not His desire, > but the desire of all > > beings that want this creation. His desire to > create is His love for > > all beings reflected in His swatantriya. He > therefore creates and yet > > He does nothing. Only he who can see action in > inaction and inaction > > in action can see this great MayaShakti of the > Lord. It is His power > > that expresses His swatantriya and absolute > Lordship over everything - > > everything that is none other than He Himself. He > that asks the > > question will ultimately find the answer in > Himself! > > OM TAT SAT > Dear Chittaranjan, According to chapter 13 of Gita, > Prakruti and Purusha are > anAdi. If we accept that, then there is no such > thing as creation since > creation means a starting point of time. In other > words, there never was the > origination of any desire in Brahman. The 8 'things' > - panch mahabhut, manas, > buddhi and ahankar are also eternal. Please let me > know if my thinking is > correct. > thank you > > OM TAT SAT > > > > > Start your day with - Make it your home page! > > http://www./r/hs > Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 Namaste Sri Sankarraman-ji, advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote: > Why should we belabour our mind with philosophical > speculations, instead of remaining with what we are? I am fully in agreement with you - if we are at ease with what we are, we should not belabour our minds needlessly. There is no solution required when there is no problem. I believe I have exceeded my quota of posts and must now remain silent. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 --- br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote: From Sankarraman > > Dear Vinayakji, > > Namaste > > > > >My response was not by way of belittling the scriptures, which I also have read a lot. Ultimately, one has to come to oneself. Bhaghavan Ramana says with regard to reading scriptures'" The Self is beyond the five kosas, whereas the scriptures are only within the kosas, and what is within the kosas cannot reveal what is outside it” Even in the Bradhaharanyaka Upanishad there is a verse to the effect that in the deep sleep state the vedas are no-vedas, and the worlds are no-worlds. Apropos the position of reincarnation, the reality or unreality of this has no bearing on the essential quest. The fact of the reincarnation can be understood even through spiritual séance very much practiced by Theosophy. Book knowledge of the ones advocated by you is only secondary. Infact reincarnation is neither true nor untrue. If we were aware of the truth of reincarnation, we would be deadly serious in our sadhanas, being afflicted by the great fear of Samsara. But for most of us it is only a comfortable theory. Nisargdatta Maharaj and J.Krishnamurthy do not approve of speculations of these theories. Even Sri Ramakrishna, if you carefully go through the Gospel, has not encouraged this speculation, his advise having been that one should concentrate only on the Lord and not these theories. Regarding your reference to the Buddhistic upholding of the concept of reincarnation, please note that according to the Buddha what continues is not a specific personality, but only the conglomeration of name, form, feelings, dispositions and a spurious offshoot of all these going by the name of vignana, there being no question of any individuality persistently continuing. All great teachers have looked at truth only from a higher perspective, the lower perspective being meant only for the goings-on of the world, which we are very much in and from the haunts of which we want to escape. So we had better refrain from those theoretical things we are already familiar with. When asked whether Gandhi continued, J.Krishnamurthy replied that it was not a question of the continuance of Gandhi, but that of the unreal psychological product of the memory, which is common to all of us, the rest of the things being merely the outcome of our cultural conditioning, biological intelligence, etc, the common factor being that all of us share this common error, the elimination of which demands only a subjective enquiry into the nature of psychological memory or the,"I", thought in the terminology of Bhaghavan. Please do not think that what I say is correct; I am talking only from the thought process. with regards, Yours Ever in Bhagh FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. 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.