Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita recently, and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. Does anyone have anything to say about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita recently, > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. Does > anyone have anything to say about that? > How would you compare the " I " of Yahweh to the " I " of Jesus? How would you compare the " I " of Yaweh to that of Krishna? .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 There is just one " I " not two. lulu Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita recently, > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. Does > anyone have anything to say about that? > How would you compare the " I " of Yahweh to the " I " of Jesus? How would you compare the " I " of Yaweh to that of Krishna? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 > >J: A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita recently, > > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, > > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. > > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but > > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. I see your dilema because the way Nisargadatta useses the terms Awareness, or Consciusness.... In Advaita Saguna Brahma or, God is with attributes. In contrasts to Nirguna Brahman, the Supreme Consciousness, or Supreme Spirit/Brahman is beyond attributes. 'God' is never Saguna Brahman, it is always Nirguna Brahman with no material attributes, but with spiritual attributes, like omni-potence, omni-presence, omni-science, the positive side of spiritual dimension, the word Saguna indicates material qualities the living entities and not God. According to Advaita philosophy creation comes about by the imbalance of the three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas) within the cosmic mind of Brahman. Nirguna Brahman is beyond mind, but Saguna Brahman equated with certain personal manifestation of God in human form: such as Shiva or Krishna. Advaita philosophy says, that God is simply [One] Brahman manifested into the material universe due to a complex illusionary power called Maya. Dvaita philosophical schools consider the material world to be Saguna Brahman, but God is never spoken about as Saguna Brahman by them... Era > Does > > anyone have anything to say about that? > > > > > >S: How would you compare the " I " of Yahweh > > to the " I " of Jesus? > > How would you compare the " I " of Yaweh > > to that of Krishna? > > > > ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 > How would you compare the " I " of Yahweh > > to the " I " of Jesus? > > How would you compare the " I " of Yaweh > > to that of Krishna? > > I don't know - that's why I'm asking....'Tis mine to ask... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual wrote: > > > > >J: A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita recently, > > > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, > > > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. > > > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but > > > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. > > > I see your dilema because the way Nisargadatta useses the terms Awareness, or Consciusness.... > > In Advaita Saguna Brahma or, God is with attributes. In contrasts to Nirguna Brahman, the Supreme Consciousness, or Supreme Spirit/Brahman is beyond attributes. > > 'God' is never Saguna Brahman, it is always Nirguna Brahman with no material attributes, but with spiritual attributes, like omni- potence, omni-presence, omni-science, the positive side of spiritual dimension, the word Saguna indicates material qualities the living entities and not God. > > According to Advaita philosophy creation comes about by the imbalance of the three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas) within the cosmic mind of Brahman. > > Nirguna Brahman is beyond mind, but Saguna Brahman equated with certain personal manifestation of God in human form: such as Shiva or Krishna. > > Advaita philosophy says, that God is simply [One] Brahman manifested into the material universe due to a complex illusionary power called Maya. > > Dvaita philosophical schools consider the material world to be Saguna Brahman, but God is never spoken about as Saguna Brahman by them... Thanks. I think it's the idea of " spiritual " attributes that I don't understand. The way I see it, Nirguna Brahma is God. That is like the stateless state which Nis speaks of. The way I have understood Krishna and Christ, is that they were just people who relaised their nature, like Buddha, but expressed it through primitive symbolism, which at the time was the onyl language available. Buddha used concepts that we can more easily understand - there are fewer obstacles. Nis gives expounds the knowledge like a man giving out grain - could not be put simpler.- But perhaps I have been wrong in my understanding of Christ and Krishna. Is it possible that they were always in the stateless state, from " birth " and upwards? That seems impossible to me. Or perhaps they realised spontaneuously early in their adolescence? Back to the Bhagavad Gita: This version is commented on by SWAMI DAYANANDA. ISBN 81-7094-395-7. Chapter 11 - Who is God? " If Arjuna had asked Lord Krishna 'What is that I that is the ominiscient, all-pervasive creator?' He would have replied that 'I is the Awareness because of which I am aware of My Omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent form'. If after this teaching anyone were asked, 'What is the I in you, the limited one?' one would say 'The I in me is the Awareness because of which I know my limited knowledge, limited power and limited form' " . This seems is very difficult to understand for me - or may be it's too simple. Is the first I the same as Nis's I, and the 2nd I like my I (limited ego consciousness?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita recently, > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. Does > anyone have anything to say about that? > no one has anything to say about that......not even the One God...except what was said to Moses from the bush that burned without burning up, " I Am That I AM " ......Nis kinda turned the phrase around a bit....but ol' Yahweh had already said all there was that could be said....which wasn't anything at all.....You had, and you have, to be there I guess.....or God guesses....or Krishna guesses...or...well you get it....you guess you do anyway...that's my guess...and I'm guessing ther same thing....but I can't say anything about it....THAT'S the DEAL. oh...and Buddha and Lao tse and a whole bunch of the Vedic 'seers', said that anything that can be said is not what your looking for......so the guess is, that they were saying the same thing....but the catch is.....before it's not JUST a guess, you got to guess that that it is a guess........and once you guess, that a guess is just a guess, a kiss is just a kiss, a smile is just a smile........as time just goes by.......you must remember this.....it's all just 'One Click Beyond'. .........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 > >J: A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita > recently, > > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, > omnipotent, > > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited > awareness. > > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the > same, but > > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. > > > >E: I see your dilema because the way Nisargadatta useses the terms > Awareness, or Consciusness.... > > J: The way I see it, Nirguna Brahma is God. That is like > the stateless state which Nis speaks of. Why mix a state with a thing [as 'God', or Awareness] ? J: Nis gives expounds the knowledge like a > man giving out grain - could not be put simpler.- I agree > Back to the Bhagavad Gita: This version is commented on by SWAMI > DAYANANDA. ISBN 81-7094-395-7. > > Chapter 11 - Who is God? > > " If Arjuna had asked Lord Krishna 'What is that I that is the > ominiscient, all-pervasive creator?' He would have replied that 'I > is the Awareness because of which I am aware of My Omniscient, > omnipotent, and omnipresent form'. If after this teaching anyone > were asked, 'What is the I in you, the limited one?' one would > say 'The I in me is the Awareness because of which I know my limited > knowledge, limited power and limited form' " . > > This seems is very difficult to understand for me - or may be it's > too simple. Is the first I the same as Nis's I, and the 2nd I like > my I (limited ego consciousness?) > If used Niz's term 'Awareness': both are the same awarenes. the first: the I of Krishna who knows he is God and the second I is like the I of us, humans including Niz, you and me; the same Awareness [god] at work in us which knows that we are " limited knowledge, limited power and limited form " What I like about Nisargadatta and Ramana, that they recognised, that the same 'One Awareness' is at work in all of us and God is the summa total of us. Jesus the son of God said, that " I and my father are One. " .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 > This seems is very difficult to understand for me - or may be it's too simple. Is the first I the same as Nis's I, and the 2nd I like my I (limited ego consciousness?) The first " I " is the same as the second " I " , your " I " is the same as Nis's " I " .... there is just one " I " . The omnipotent " I " . If you call your " I " limited, than you are calling the omnipotent " I " limited, if you perceive your " I " as limited, than you perceive the omnipotent " I " as limited. > But perhaps I have been wrong in my understanding of Christ and Krishna. Is it possible that they were always in the stateless state, from " birth " and upwards? That seems impossible to me. Or perhaps they realised spontaneuously early in their adolescence? Everyone is always in the stateless state, from birth and upwards, but not everyone realises. lulu Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 I see what you mean Jason, that Niz was able to abide in 'Awareness', in 'God', in the stateless state as you say it.. Why mix a state with something like 'God', or Awareness ? > > J: Nis gives expounds the knowledge like a > > man giving out grain - could not be put simpler.- > > > I agree > > > > Back to the Bhagavad Gita: This version is commented on by SWAMI > > DAYANANDA. ISBN 81-7094-395-7. > > > > Chapter 11 - Who is God? > > > > " If Arjuna had asked Lord Krishna 'What is that I that is the > > ominiscient, all-pervasive creator?' He would have replied that 'I > > is the Awareness because of which I am aware of My Omniscient, > > omnipotent, and omnipresent form'. If after this teaching anyone > > were asked, 'What is the I in you, the limited one?' one would > say 'The I in me is the Awareness because of which I know my limited > > knowledge, limited power and limited form' " . > > > > This seems is very difficult to understand for me - or may be it's > > too simple. Is the first I the same as Nis's I, and the 2nd I like > > my I (limited ego consciousness?) > > > > E: If used Niz's term 'Awareness': both are the same awareness [god or " I " here quoted]. the first: the I of Krishna who knows he is God and the second I is like the I of us, humans including Niz, you and me; the same Awareness [god] at work in us which knows that we are " limited knowledge, limited power and limited form " What I like about Nisargadatta and Ramana, that they recognised, that the same 'One Awareness' is at work in all of us and God is the summa total of us. Jesus, the son of God said, that " I and my father are One. " We were mixing, or uniting believe sysems of Advaita and Yoga. > . > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita recently, > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. Does > anyone have anything to say about that? it need the eye of God....to see Krishna and Arjunas " I " as One and same Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita recently, > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. Does > anyone have anything to say about that? > god is love your god is only as big as your love .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > > This seems is very difficult to understand for me - or may be it's > too simple. Is the first I the same as Nis's I, and the 2nd I like > my I (limited ego consciousness?) > > > The first " I " is the same as the second " I " , your " I " is the same as Nis's " I " ... > > there is just one " I " . The omnipotent " I " . > > If you call your " I " limited, than you are calling the omnipotent " I " limited, if you perceive your " I " as limited, than you perceive the omnipotent " I " as limited. > > > > > > > But perhaps I have been wrong in my understanding of Christ and > Krishna. Is it possible that they were always in the stateless > state, from " birth " and upwards? That seems impossible to me. Or > perhaps they realised spontaneuously early in their adolescence? > > > Everyone is always in the stateless state, from birth and upwards, > but not everyone realises. > > > lulu yes, God is a self-forgetful soul....and it's the only thing there is for him to forget. that situation creates a dreadful mess called us........but we forget that. ......bob > > > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > Troublemakers > > Since no one really knows anything about God, > > those who think they do are just > troublemakers. > > > Rabia a bit of an overstatement. here, in any case, no wonder " rabia " means rage, in spanish .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > > > --- skywhilds <skywords wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Noel > > <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > Troublemakers > > > > > > Since no one really knows anything about God, > > > > > > those who think they do are just > > > troublemakers. > > > > > > > > > Rabia > > > > > > > > > > a bit of an overstatement. > > > > > > > > here, in any case, > > > > no wonder " rabia " > > > > means rage, in spanish > > > > > Yes, well she wrote the poem before email lists > existed. Nevertheless she might have been in a > *discussion*...ha!, which led to the burst...but on > another day: > > There is a dog I sometimes take for a walk > and turn loose in a > field, > > when I can't giver her that freedom > I feel in debt. > > I hope God thinks like that and > > is keeping track of all > the bliss He > owes > me. > > Rabia oh, well in that case anything and everything is permitted, of course! (i only pulled her over cause i thought she was driving without a (poetic) liscence. sorry) .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 > > A was reading a rather good commentary on the Bhagavad Gita > recently, > > and it refered to Krishna's " I " as a form of omnipresent, omnipotent, > > unlimited awareness, and Arjuna's " I " as a form of limited awareness. > > Or something like that. It said that the awareness was the same, but > > the " I " was very different. The " I " of God, in other words. Does > > anyone have anything to say about that? > > > it need the eye of God....to see Krishna and Arjunas " I " as One and same > > > Marc > > > Yes, the various interpretations are due to, that Jason put the I into apostrophes " " as: " I " In the original text the I [without the " " ] means the ID of Krishna and Arjuna only Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 > yes, God is a self-forgetful soul....and it's the only thing there is > for him to forget. that situation creates a dreadful mess called > us........but we forget that. > > ......bob That kind of fits in with my understanding, but seriously, anything that can forget must have a memory, and if it has a memory then it is limited. My understanding is the God is basically awareness unaware of itself. 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.