Guest guest Posted April 22, 2001 Report Share Posted April 22, 2001 My friend, The most sense I can make of this is....without desire, we would not be (as jivas, as individuals separate from other individuals)...it is desire that makes us separate. " desire " = I like this, do not like that. I think that good and evil pertain to the phenomenal world, to us as jivas....get rid of desire and we do not see either good or evil. God didn't create...anything! Well, these are just my thoughts...I'd like to hear YOUR thoughts on this matter. Blessings, Mkewbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2001 Report Share Posted April 23, 2001 - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda list <Ramakrishna > Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:09 AM [ramakrishna] questions.... > > answers > > this is what i think for the second question. > > i think that god is only the source of good, and tht we are the source of > evil. i say this because god did not intend us to be evil but he did expect > it. because he gave us the freedom to think and to do as we pleased. i may > be wrong but this is what i think. > > " Vishal Kohli " <silentwitness2 But shouldn't God have the capacity for both " good " and " evil " ? For humanity to be capable of comitting evil actions then God must be aware and capable of them as well, us being an extension or creation of God. Think of it this way, how could we recognize something that is not within our nature? We cannot. We , as humans can only recognize what we see as " evil " because we ourselves are capable of commiting evil. Its like looking at a piece of machinery, if you know what the piece of equipment is used for then you have knowledge of it, and if you have knowledge of it then you are capable of utilizing it. If you do not know what the machine is then you will be completely ignorant of its intended purpose and thus not be able to utilize it or recognize it for its true function. Or its like a word, if one doesn't know what a word means or how to use it, it will in effect be gibberish to the person who sees the word. In the same regard if God gave us free will (the ability to choose & commit either good or evil acts) then we being creations or an extension of him need to have the capacity to understand evil and we only got that capacity from God and how could God give us a capacity for something that HE doesn't understand, recognize and is capable of comitting himself? He couldn't. So naturally God must be not only good but evil as well. It is important to point out that largely good & evil are not absolutes, the notion is in many cases a social construct which differs with the ages. I hope I explained myself ok, if I did not please feel free to correct me. kind regards, Jeremy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2001 Report Share Posted April 23, 2001 TO Jeremy's statement 'So naturally God must be not only good but evil as well'. I don't agree. God is pure, self less, without form and without desire. There is no question of good or evil here. It is like water neither sour nor sweet. Good and evil are 'gunas' attached to humans. There is no need for God to punish since 'evil' it self sows the seeds of destruction and 'good' that of freedom from bondage. If one eats poison there is no need for God to come and kill. Regards Yours sincerely Milind Sathye Department of Finance and Banking University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland 4350 Australia Phone 61 +7 + 4631 5509 Fax 61+ 7 + 4631 2625 web page: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/sathye Jeremy Frost [frost] Monday, 23 April 2001 17:59 Ramakrishna Re: [ramakrishna] questions.... - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda list <Ramakrishna > Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:09 AM [ramakrishna] questions.... > > answers > > this is what i think for the second question. > > i think that god is only the source of good, and tht we are the source of > evil. i say this because god did not intend us to be evil but he did expect > it. because he gave us the freedom to think and to do as we pleased. i may > be wrong but this is what i think. > > " Vishal Kohli " <silentwitness2 But shouldn't God have the capacity for both " good " and " evil " ? For humanity to be capable of comitting evil actions then God must be aware and capable of them as well, us being an extension or creation of God. Think of it this way, how could we recognize something that is not within our nature? We cannot. We , as humans can only recognize what we see as " evil " because we ourselves are capable of commiting evil. Its like looking at a piece of machinery, if you know what the piece of equipment is used for then you have knowledge of it, and if you have knowledge of it then you are capable of utilizing it. If you do not know what the machine is then you will be completely ignorant of its intended purpose and thus not be able to utilize it or recognize it for its true function. Or its like a word, if one doesn't know what a word means or how to use it, it will in effect be gibberish to the person who sees the word. In the same regard if God gave us free will (the ability to choose & commit either good or evil acts) then we being creations or an extension of him need to have the capacity to understand evil and we only got that capacity from God and how could God give us a capacity for something that HE doesn't understand, recognize and is capable of comitting himself? He couldn't. So naturally God must be not only good but evil as well. It is important to point out that largely good & evil are not absolutes, the notion is in many cases a social construct which differs with the ages. I hope I explained myself ok, if I did not please feel free to correct me. kind regards, Jeremy Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah Vivekananda Centre London http://www.vivekananda.co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 Namaste Milindji Just to bring the argument a little further, even the word pure cannot be used on God. Because it becomes another attribute of God. Brahman is nirguna, without attributes. What we can say is that although God is formless, all forms depend on God for its existence, like the way the waves depend on the ocean or water. purity included. That's why we use Neti, Neti.....to negate what God is not. Good and evil are our minds' creation or even our judgement. It is purely subjective. Judging each wave in the ocean to be either good or bad is our judgement, but the Wave IS! The existence of the wave cannot be rejected and at the same time the water of the wave (which is God) is also there, in every object we judge. In that sense God is also THE Good and THE Evil we create in our minds. That's why we worship the lovely Krishna and the terrible Kali......as both forms of God. Please feel free to comment. Kathi > > Milind Sathye [sMTP:sathye] > Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:27 AM > 'Ramakrishna ' > RE: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > TO Jeremy's statement 'So naturally God must be not only good > but evil as well'. I don't agree. God is pure, self less, without form > and > without desire. There is no question of good or evil here. It is like > water neither sour nor sweet. > Good and evil are 'gunas' attached to humans. There is no need for God to > punish since 'evil' it self sows the seeds of destruction and 'good' that > of > freedom from bondage. If one eats poison there is no need for God to come > and kill. > > Regards > > Yours sincerely > Milind Sathye > Department of Finance and Banking > University of Southern Queensland > Toowoomba, Queensland 4350 > Australia > Phone 61 +7 + 4631 5509 > Fax 61+ 7 + 4631 2625 > web page: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/sathye > > > > > Jeremy Frost [frost] > Monday, 23 April 2001 17:59 > Ramakrishna > Re: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > > - > Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda > list <Ramakrishna > > Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:09 AM > [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > > > > > answers > > > > this is what i think for the second question. > > > > i think that god is only the source of good, and tht we are the source > of > > evil. i say this because god did not intend us to be evil but he did > expect > > it. because he gave us the freedom to think and to do as we pleased. i > may > > be wrong but this is what i think. > > > > " Vishal Kohli " <silentwitness2 > > > But shouldn't God have the capacity for both " good " and " evil " ? For > humanity to be capable of comitting evil actions then God must be aware > and > capable of them as well, us being an extension or creation of God. Think > of > it this way, how could we recognize something that is not within our > nature? > We cannot. We , as humans can only recognize what we see as " evil " because > we ourselves are capable of commiting evil. Its like looking at a piece of > machinery, if you know what the piece of equipment is used for then you > have > knowledge of it, and if you have knowledge of it then you are capable of > utilizing it. If you do not know what the machine is then you will be > completely ignorant of its intended purpose and thus not be able to > utilize > it or recognize it for its true function. Or its like a word, if one > doesn't > know what a word means or how to use it, it will in effect be gibberish to > the person who sees the word. In the same regard if God gave us free will > (the ability to choose & commit either good or evil acts) then we being > creations or an extension of him need to have the capacity to understand > evil and we only got that capacity from God and how could God give us a > capacity for something that HE doesn't understand, recognize and is > capable > of comitting himself? He couldn't. So naturally God must be not only good > but evil as well. It is important to point out that largely good & evil > are > not absolutes, the notion is in many cases a social construct which > differs > with the ages. I hope I explained myself ok, if I did not please feel > free > to correct me. > > kind regards, > Jeremy > > > > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.vivekananda.co.uk > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 Hi Kathi, - K Kathirasan ADM NCS Ramakrishna Tuesday, April 24, 2001 02:15 PM RE: [ramakrishna] questions.... Namaste Milindji Just to bring the argument a little further, even the word pure cannot be used on God. Because it becomes another attribute of God. Brahman is nirguna, without attributes. San: LOL Say anything and you are in deep trouble. Nirguna, (without attributes), is itself now THE attribute. Nothing can be said about ParamaBrahman is saying something about ParaBrahman. And thus conceptual. -------- What we can say is that although God is formless, all forms depend on God for its existence, like the way the waves depend on the ocean or water. purity included. That's why we use Neti, Neti.....to negate what God is not. San: Yes, Neti, Neti it is useful to an extent. For really the culmination is the " Netification " of the entity itself who says " Neti Neti " It is fairly easy to comprehend that all this, the cognized, is Maya, illusion. What is more difficult to comprehend, that the cognizer of the illusion, is itself an illusion. ----------- Good and evil are our minds' creation or even our judgement. It is purely subjective. Judging each wave in the ocean to be either good or bad is our judgement, but the Wave IS! San: No. Wave is the illusion. The Ocean IS. ------------ > The existence of the wave cannot be rejected San: Oh it is very simple. Just pick up the " wave " in your hand and you see the illusion of it's apparent form -------- and at the same time the water of the wave (which is God) is also there, in every object we judge. In that sense God is also THE Good and THE Evil we create in our minds. That's why we worship the lovely Krishna and the terrible Kali......as both forms of God. San: Indeed. Without the sinner, how can the saint be a saint? But all this is the tenet of duality, which is what, through which, phenomenality gets defined. What is to apperceived that phenomenality, along with it;s divsions of good/evil, sage/clown, mundane life/spiritual life, all this itself is a conceptual construct. Phenomenality itself is a concept. And really there is no Krishna or Kali, There is no creation nor destruction. Just appears to be, seems to be existing, like a dream, with the ethos and pathos of the dreamed-up characters. Please feel free to comment. San: My conceptual two bits anyway.......... Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 Dear Kathirasan But is not 'nirguna' it self an attribute? That distinguishes it from the one with 'guna'? The whole problem is one of languaging. It is hard because it is undescribable. Language is always finite (it defines or puts a fence around), how can it be used to describe the infinite? Hence the trouble. In research terms, I would call this a measurement error. It is not possible to fully grasp the concept of God (being infinite) because it is not measurable. Because it is not measurable it is unprovable as per modern research methods hence God can't be proved. Ramakrishan so rightly said God can't be seen with these 'eyes' by Charma chakshoo. However modern science is all based on charmachaksoo. This is the reason why the seers found it easier to describe God by what it is not than what it is. By giving anologies the seers tried to give a glimpse of what it (GOd) resembles somewhat though all the time they hoped that the analogy didn't confuse us. Regards Yours sincerely Milind Sathye Department of Finance and Banking University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland 4350 Australia Phone 61 +7 + 4631 5509 Fax 61+ 7 + 4631 2625 web page: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/sathye K Kathirasan ADM NCS [kkathir] Tuesday, 24 April 2001 18:45 Ramakrishna RE: [ramakrishna] questions.... Namaste Milindji Just to bring the argument a little further, even the word pure cannot be used on God. Because it becomes another attribute of God. Brahman is nirguna, without attributes. What we can say is that although God is formless, all forms depend on God for its existence, like the way the waves depend on the ocean or water. purity included. That's why we use Neti, Neti.....to negate what God is not. Good and evil are our minds' creation or even our judgement. It is purely subjective. Judging each wave in the ocean to be either good or bad is our judgement, but the Wave IS! The existence of the wave cannot be rejected and at the same time the water of the wave (which is God) is also there, in every object we judge. In that sense God is also THE Good and THE Evil we create in our minds. That's why we worship the lovely Krishna and the terrible Kali......as both forms of God. Please feel free to comment. Kathi > > Milind Sathye [sMTP:sathye] > Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:27 AM > 'Ramakrishna ' > RE: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > TO Jeremy's statement 'So naturally God must be not only good > but evil as well'. I don't agree. God is pure, self less, without form > and > without desire. There is no question of good or evil here. It is like > water neither sour nor sweet. > Good and evil are 'gunas' attached to humans. There is no need for God to > punish since 'evil' it self sows the seeds of destruction and 'good' that > of > freedom from bondage. If one eats poison there is no need for God to come > and kill. > > Regards > > Yours sincerely > Milind Sathye > Department of Finance and Banking > University of Southern Queensland > Toowoomba, Queensland 4350 > Australia > Phone 61 +7 + 4631 5509 > Fax 61+ 7 + 4631 2625 > web page: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/sathye > > > > > Jeremy Frost [frost] > Monday, 23 April 2001 17:59 > Ramakrishna > Re: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > > - > Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda > list <Ramakrishna > > Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:09 AM > [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > > > > > answers > > > > this is what i think for the second question. > > > > i think that god is only the source of good, and tht we are the source > of > > evil. i say this because god did not intend us to be evil but he did > expect > > it. because he gave us the freedom to think and to do as we pleased. i > may > > be wrong but this is what i think. > > > > " Vishal Kohli " <silentwitness2 > > > But shouldn't God have the capacity for both " good " and " evil " ? For > humanity to be capable of comitting evil actions then God must be aware > and > capable of them as well, us being an extension or creation of God. Think > of > it this way, how could we recognize something that is not within our > nature? > We cannot. We , as humans can only recognize what we see as " evil " because > we ourselves are capable of commiting evil. Its like looking at a piece of > machinery, if you know what the piece of equipment is used for then you > have > knowledge of it, and if you have knowledge of it then you are capable of > utilizing it. If you do not know what the machine is then you will be > completely ignorant of its intended purpose and thus not be able to > utilize > it or recognize it for its true function. Or its like a word, if one > doesn't > know what a word means or how to use it, it will in effect be gibberish to > the person who sees the word. In the same regard if God gave us free will > (the ability to choose & commit either good or evil acts) then we being > creations or an extension of him need to have the capacity to understand > evil and we only got that capacity from God and how could God give us a > capacity for something that HE doesn't understand, recognize and is > capable > of comitting himself? He couldn't. So naturally God must be not only good > but evil as well. It is important to point out that largely good & evil > are > not absolutes, the notion is in many cases a social construct which > differs > with the ages. I hope I explained myself ok, if I did not please feel > free > to correct me. > > kind regards, > Jeremy > > > > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.vivekananda.co.uk > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Namaste Sandeep Just joined the list hah? Welcome. Thanks for the reply. I do agree with everything you've said. What you are presenting is the view of the Jivanmukta (have to use a name buddy, without which I can't converse), the liberated in life. To the one who thinks 'I am not liberated' needs the teaching of Vedanta in a systematic manner. That's why I am here to discuss and learn. This list is for the discussion of the teachings of Ramakrishna who happens to be a traditional Vedantin too. I am....................... > > Sandeep Chatterjee [sMTP:sandeepc] > Wednesday, April 25, 2001 12:48 AM > Ramakrishna > Re: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > Hi Kathi, > > > > - > K Kathirasan ADM NCS > Ramakrishna > Tuesday, April 24, 2001 02:15 PM > RE: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > Namaste Milindji > > Just to bring the argument a little further, even the word pure cannot > be > used on God. Because it becomes another attribute of God. Brahman is > nirguna, without attributes. > > > San: > > LOL > > Say anything and you are in deep trouble. > > Nirguna, (without attributes), is itself now THE attribute. > > Nothing can be said about ParamaBrahman is saying something about > ParaBrahman. > > And thus conceptual. > -------- > > What we can say is that although God is > formless, all forms depend on God for its existence, like the way the > waves > depend on the ocean or water. purity included. That's why we use Neti, > Neti.....to negate what God is not. > > > San: > > Yes, Neti, Neti it is useful to an extent. > For really the culmination is the " Netification " of the entity itself > who says " Neti Neti " > > It is fairly easy to comprehend that all this, the cognized, is Maya, > illusion. > > What is more difficult to comprehend, that the cognizer of the illusion, > is itself an illusion. > ----------- > > > Good and evil are our minds' creation or even our judgement. It is > purely > subjective. Judging each wave in the ocean to be either good or bad is > our > judgement, but the Wave IS! > > > San: > > No. > Wave is the illusion. > The Ocean IS. > ------------ > > > > The existence of the wave cannot be rejected > > San: > Oh it is very simple. > Just pick up the " wave " in your hand and you see the illusion of it's > apparent form > -------- > > and at the same time the water of the wave (which is God) is also there, > in > every object we judge. In that sense God is also THE Good and THE Evil > we > create in our minds. That's why we worship the lovely Krishna and the > terrible Kali......as both forms of God. > > San: > Indeed. > Without the sinner, how can the saint be a saint? > But all this is the tenet of duality, which is what, through which, > phenomenality gets defined. > > What is to apperceived that phenomenality, along with it;s divsions of > good/evil, sage/clown, mundane life/spiritual life, all this itself is a > conceptual construct. > > Phenomenality itself is a concept. > > And really there is no Krishna or Kali, > > There is no creation nor destruction. > > Just appears to be, seems to be existing, like a dream, with the ethos > and pathos of the dreamed-up characters. > > > Please feel free to comment. > > > San: > > My conceptual two bits anyway.......... > > > Cheers > > Sandeep > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Namaste Milindji Yes it is true. Perhaps we are just confused with words. I agree that God is not an object of experience. Thanks Sir. Kathi > > Milind Sathye [sMTP:sathye] > Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:27 AM > 'Ramakrishna ' > RE: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > Dear Kathirasan > But is not 'nirguna' it self an attribute? That distinguishes it from the > one with 'guna'? The whole problem is one of languaging. It is hard > because it is undescribable. Language is always finite (it defines or > puts > a fence around), how can it be used to describe the infinite? Hence the > trouble. In research terms, I would call this a measurement error. It is > not possible to fully grasp the concept of God (being infinite) because it > is not measurable. Because it is not measurable it is unprovable as per > modern research methods hence God can't be proved. Ramakrishan so rightly > said God can't be seen with these 'eyes' by Charma chakshoo. However > modern > science is all based on charmachaksoo. > > This is the reason why the seers found it easier to describe God by what > it > is not than what it is. By giving anologies the seers tried to give a > glimpse of what it (GOd) resembles somewhat though all the time they hoped > that the analogy > didn't confuse us. > Regards > > Yours sincerely > Milind Sathye > Department of Finance and Banking > University of Southern Queensland > Toowoomba, Queensland 4350 > Australia > Phone 61 +7 + 4631 5509 > Fax 61+ 7 + 4631 2625 > web page: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/sathye > > > > > K Kathirasan ADM NCS [kkathir] > Tuesday, 24 April 2001 18:45 > Ramakrishna > RE: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > Namaste Milindji > > Just to bring the argument a little further, even the word pure cannot be > used on God. Because it becomes another attribute of God. Brahman is > nirguna, without attributes. What we can say is that although God is > formless, all forms depend on God for its existence, like the way the > waves > depend on the ocean or water. purity included. That's why we use Neti, > Neti.....to negate what God is not. > > Good and evil are our minds' creation or even our judgement. It is purely > subjective. Judging each wave in the ocean to be either good or bad is > our > judgement, but the Wave IS! The existence of the wave cannot be rejected > and at the same time the water of the wave (which is God) is also there, > in > every object we judge. In that sense God is also THE Good and THE Evil we > create in our minds. That's why we worship the lovely Krishna and the > terrible Kali......as both forms of God. > > Please feel free to comment. > > Kathi > > > > > Milind Sathye [sMTP:sathye] > > Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:27 AM > > 'Ramakrishna ' > > RE: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > > TO Jeremy's statement 'So naturally God must be not only good > > but evil as well'. I don't agree. God is pure, self less, without form > > and > > without desire. There is no question of good or evil here. It is like > > water neither sour nor sweet. > > Good and evil are 'gunas' attached to humans. There is no need for God > to > > punish since 'evil' it self sows the seeds of destruction and 'good' > that > > of > > freedom from bondage. If one eats poison there is no need for God to > come > > and kill. > > > > Regards > > > > Yours sincerely > > Milind Sathye > > Department of Finance and Banking > > University of Southern Queensland > > Toowoomba, Queensland 4350 > > Australia > > Phone 61 +7 + 4631 5509 > > Fax 61+ 7 + 4631 2625 > > web page: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/sathye > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy Frost [frost] > > Monday, 23 April 2001 17:59 > > Ramakrishna > > Re: [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > > > > > > - > > Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda > > list <Ramakrishna > > > Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:09 AM > > [ramakrishna] questions.... > > > > > > > > > > > > answers > > > > > > this is what i think for the second question. > > > > > > i think that god is only the source of good, and tht we are the source > > of > > > evil. i say this because god did not intend us to be evil but he did > > expect > > > it. because he gave us the freedom to think and to do as we pleased. > i > > may > > > be wrong but this is what i think. > > > > > > " Vishal Kohli " <silentwitness2 > > > > > > But shouldn't God have the capacity for both " good " and " evil " ? For > > humanity to be capable of comitting evil actions then God must be aware > > and > > capable of them as well, us being an extension or creation of God. Think > > of > > it this way, how could we recognize something that is not within our > > nature? > > We cannot. We , as humans can only recognize what we see as " evil " > because > > we ourselves are capable of commiting evil. Its like looking at a piece > of > > machinery, if you know what the piece of equipment is used for then you > > have > > knowledge of it, and if you have knowledge of it then you are capable > of > > utilizing it. If you do not know what the machine is then you will be > > completely ignorant of its intended purpose and thus not be able to > > utilize > > it or recognize it for its true function. Or its like a word, if one > > doesn't > > know what a word means or how to use it, it will in effect be gibberish > to > > the person who sees the word. In the same regard if God gave us free > will > > (the ability to choose & commit either good or evil acts) then we being > > creations or an extension of him need to have the capacity to understand > > evil and we only got that capacity from God and how could God give us a > > capacity for something that HE doesn't understand, recognize and is > > capable > > of comitting himself? He couldn't. So naturally God must be not only > good > > but evil as well. It is important to point out that largely good & evil > > are > > not absolutes, the notion is in many cases a social construct which > > differs > > with the ages. I hope I explained myself ok, if I did not please feel > > free > > to correct me. > > > > kind regards, > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > > Vivekananda Centre London > > http://www.vivekananda.co.uk > > > > 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.