The sum total of everything is nothing

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

The two basic concepts of Vedic dhrama- The Karma Theory and the Nirugna Brahamam seems to be related as follows:

 

1) Brahamam is Nirguna (i.e., Attributeless, neither good nor bad, neither bright nor dark, neither positive nor negative, etc., etc.,)

 

2) Everything is Brahamam

 

But we see good people, bright spots etc., this apparent contradication can be resolved by "The sum total of everything is nothing always at all the time".

 

The number of good people in the universe is equal to number of bad people,the number of positive charge is equal to number of negative charge, the amount of clockwise momentum is equal to the amount of anticlockwise momentum (this has been proven experimentally that if the direction of rotation of one electron is changed , instantenously another electron changes its direction), and this would remain the same way, no body can change it, i.e., if you make one guy good (or rich), some where some body else will make another guy bad (or poor).

 

This also implies to the individual soul (Jiva), the total sum of experience he passes through all his births is Zero, ie., he will be rich and healthy in one birth, poor and sick in another birth and so on. Even if you make some body rich or healthy in this birth, he has to suffer in next birth due to "Karma" balance.

 

i think this is what Bhagavan means when he defines Karma as "Visarga of Spirits" at the start of creation, i.e., the Karma balancing effect starts at that point.

 

if any body has another alternate explanation (i.e., valid one, not the usual reply - "Your argument is nonsense/ rubbish/silly" kind), please let me know.

[Guest guest]

1)brahman is nirguna from the point of view of conditionated materialistic living beings. In his own environment, the spirit, brahman is bhagavan, full of opulences

 

2)if everything is brahman... brahman is everything, not nothing. If you are now speaking, it is something, and this something is inside brahman, so brahman cannot be nothing

 

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

"If you are now speaking, it is something, and this something is inside brahman, so brahman cannot be nothing"

 

In my speech i am producing some amount of acoustic energy and some amount of intelligence (or foolishness), i would assume that the same amount of negative acoustic energy and same amount of foolishness (or intelligence) is produced some where by some body else, hence the sum is Zero.

 

So even though, i a part of Brahaman does produce Something , there is another part of Brahaman somewhere producing an equal and opposite thing and in effect Brahaman produces nothing.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

You are limiting Brahman by saying it cannot have form. As Human beings we all have our own forms, even twins although they look alike act different. So this is a material example. Now to limit spirit by saying it doesn't have form is simply foolishness.

 

Another point maybe can spirit 'take on form'? But then the question arises that how can it so? If it is changeless?

[Guest guest]

"In my speech i am producing some amount of acoustic energy and some amount of intelligence (or foolishness), i would assume that the same amount of negative acoustic energy and same amount of foolishness (or intelligence) is produced some where by some body else, hence the sum is Zero."

 

why do you assume it? it is your fantasy, there's no logic in it...

 

and if it is in this way there's something that surely exists, this thing is the fact that i am illuded to exist and to be not annihilated in my action by an opposite..

 

and if some opposite to me exist, he lives in the same illusion i live, he thinks to exist ..

 

so we have at least found one thing who's real and has no negative counterparts to be summed with to get zero

 

---

again:

 

at least one thing exists without negative counterpart.. the illusion to be existent

 

 

[maadhav]

<< The number of good people in the universe is equal to number of bad people, >>

 

no. in satya yoga, most (almost all) are good people, gradually their number decreases and becomes maximum in kaliyuga. then the cycle repeats.

 

some think that if there ar more people happy, then it means there are other people unpappy. in vedic society most are happy, regardless of their varna, ashrama or financial status. in some cultures most are unhappy regardless of their position in society.

 

 

 

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

dear friends, combining three replies in one post, please bear with me.

 

1) Maadhav----- yes in Satya yuga most people in THIS world would have been good, but there must have been a Kali Yuga in some other world, so the net effect is zero

 

2) Govindram---- i didn't say Brahamam is formless, some manifestations of Brahamam have a positive form, some have negative form (i.e., may be material body made up of negative mass) and the sum total is zero.

 

3) Guest--- complex question, couldn't come up with a proper reply, illusion by its definition is not real, so i can think of only two replies- two different types of illusory energy and the sum total is zero, illusion matches with reality (Bhagavan aspect) and both cancels zero (i.e., similar to God and Satan concept), but i find both of these answers are not satisfactory to myself, will try to think further.

[Guest guest]

dear subham... the first thing is that if you have a new theory like this, you have to prove it, not that you say this theory and we have to prove that it is false. So you have the duty to prove that now, in a place opposite to mine there's someone who is doing an opposite thing (what's the opposite of writing in an internet forum with the computer?).. until you do not do it, you are simply recalling to us your fantasy

 

yes in Satya yuga most people in THIS world would have been good, but there must have been a Kali Yuga in some other world

••van you bring any evidence that while there's ahlf the universe in satya yuga, the other half is in kali yuga? Then when you have checked it, there's something who is only positive.. that thing is the karma law who brings somewhere kali yuga, somewhere else satya, treta, dvapara..

 

some manifestations of Brahamam have a positive form, some have negative form

••what is a negative form?

 

illusion by its definition is not real

••no.. illusion by its definition is real.. the effect of illusion aren't real. So if i am illuded to exist, my existence is illusory, but illusion is there suggesting to me something that can be not real. The opposite of illusion is reality.. so, in both cases, we have two things who exist and who do not annihilate themselves

 

 

similar to God and Satan concept

••that is a nonsense... if there's satan, or an anti-god or anti-brahman.. this means that brahman is not everything and omnipervadent..

 

---

 

so, for first, you have to examine everything in the universe to demonstrate to yourself and to us that everything that's happening has his opposite happening in a opposite world..

 

but it will be not enough to demonstrate that everything is nothing..

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

dear Guest , not all theories in Science have proof, for example the origin of universe has three theories- "The Big Bang", "The steady state" and "The Quasi Steady state", none of the theories have a concrete proof, other wise only one theory would remain. Similarly the Quark theory, the Strings Theory, Cosmological constant, Space-time curvature, nothing has proof, all are just theories, even some theories which have proof are just logical or infered proof, not observational proof.

 

For example the theory sun light has seven colours is an observational proof, that you can pass sun light through a prism and see the seven colours, but the theory nuclear fusion takes place inside sun is not an observational proof, only a theortical one (by observing the spectrometer of suns electromagentic spectrum and infering that if such and such wave lengths are present, then such and such chemicals (e.g., Helium, Deterium) should be present, and if such and such chemicals are present then Nuclear Fusion should be taking place)

 

In mathematics , there are 13 basic theorems can't be proved , and all other theorems (or axioms) can be prooved only based on these. Mathematics has a seperate chapter called "Proof by induction" i.e., if a theorm is true for "1", "n" and "n+1" then it is true for all numbers, no need to check it against all numbers]

 

The "Proofs" for my axiom - Sri AdiShankaracharaya states that "Brahamam is Nirguna" [ ref book VivekaChudamani authored by him] "Everything is Brahamam" is a vedic statement. The conclusion is my inference.

 

Negative form, means people having material form but with negative mass [ please read in some science magazines what is meant by negative mass and negative energy, too big to explain here]

 

if there is no negative equivalent of illusion and can't be anhiliated , then how does illusion comes to end? ( it should meet with some thing to come to end, right?)

 

Just for Fun, the opposite to writing in an internet forum, is the reading from a interent forum

 

[Guest guest]

Sri AdiShankaracharaya states that "Brahamam is Nirguna"

••yes.. brahman has no material egoistic qualities... only infinite spiritual ones

 

"Everything is Brahamam" is a vedic statement.

••of course.. so if everything is brahman there's nothing like a SATAN or an anti-brahman

 

Negative form, means people having material form but with negative mass

••that can be a way to explaint that in vaikunta, the absolute, we are made of eternity, consciousness and bliss, and in this world we are prisoners of a body made of the opposite.. death, ignorance and pain

 

if there is no negative equivalent of illusion and can't be anhiliated , then how does illusion comes to end?

••illusion cannot be annihilated, because it is a brahman's (actually param brahman's) energy. Simply, for god's mercy, if we firmly desire it, accepting a valid spiritual path under a "tattva darshinah" spiritual master, god can free us from illusion bringing us back in the saticitananda state.

It is not that we annihilate the maya, it is maya who stops to illude ourselves for god's desire..

 

the opposite to writing in an internet forum, is the reading from a interent forum

••that's not opposite because it does not bring to any annihilation... the forum, the internet, the computer, me and you go on existing without problems

 

:-)

 

[Guest guest]

I disagree with your concept of nirguna

 

"Look for the changing in the unchanging, and the unchanging in the changing". Internalize this. Then describe in a forum regarding nirguna, if you so like.

 

Karma theory is a teaching to ensure perfection in actions. So it's about how to perfect your actions in the line of good karma, right now and this moment. So the Karma carried forward, balancing etc are irrevelant. Quite well possible that in Kali yuga that the karma theory is more a to-do plan for the future and for the janma's to follow, and making sure to minize the take of karma theaory this opportunity & this moment.

 

[krishnadasa]

Satya Yuga - Good in one planet and the bad in the other

Treta Yuga - Good and bad on the same planet (Rama and ravana)

Dwapara yuga - Good and bad in the same family (Pandava and kaurava)

Kaliyuga- Good and bad are in the same person - thats reely sucking , so chant hari nama and become clean and good

 

Hari Hari bol

 

[Guest guest]

"Karma theory is a teaching to ensure perfection in actions"

 

that's superficial... going deeper in the study of scriptures we discover that any action on karmic plane brings the bad result of remaining entangled in the material world..

 

karma is simply to bound us to the matter, the only way to get perfection is devotion and surrendering to the lord.. in this way our karma(=actions) becomes yoga (=union with the lord)

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

2) Govindram---- i didn't say Brahamam is formless, some manifestations of Brahamam have a positive form, some have negative form (i.e., may be material body made up of negative mass) and the sum total is zero.

 

 

If this is so how can you say Brahman is changeless and or Eternal? If it takes on these forms. And you call them Negative forms. I suppose by positive you mean the living entities. So that still means Brahman is changeable. Which means it is NOT eternal. Which means God doesn't exsist, and we are God.. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

you cane use all the "good" aspects of brahman and all the "bad" aspects of brahman and negate eachother coming up with nothing. if brahman is the sum totality, then he includes the good plus the bad. it is actually doubling everything. i believe you are giving all good things a + characther and all bad things a - characther, thus they equal at 0. but thatmeans to assume that brahman has an equally bad side as well as good. and this is false.

 

brahman has no bad side. the bad things are done by bad people. to assume that there are enough people doing bad things so as to constitute a full half of brahman's nature is too much. we aws a people arent even a small fraction of what brahman is. our actions, be they bad or good, couldnt equal half of brahman. therefore, the evil we produce is a very small part of brahman and therefore he couldnt be negated at 0.

 

either way, negating is not a logical way to recognize brahman. if you hit me and then i hit you, that doesnt mean no one got it. it means there were two punches. one must add to find the sum totallity, not negate.

[Guest guest]

How could you get so cynical of all the chapters in BG in which krishna explains of karma samnyasa & spiritual self-realization.

 

And at the same time get so euphoric regarding the alternate path (Bakthy) suggested for the lower intellects who cannot obtain self-realization during this janma.

 

For all you know, Kali-yuga may be about people who are impatient and cynical of spiritual self-realization this very janma. Kali-yuga might also provide lavish euphoria & hype on the thinking of such people.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

What are you saying? That 1+1=0? In Brahman. A more logical conclusion would be 1+1=1?. A more sincere thing to say would be we are coming from Brahman therefore we are something.

 

The point being if you accept the above conclusion this means we are eternally seperated from Brahman. Therefore 1+1 does equal to 1. So therefore we are one in quality with Brahman.

 

You cannot say we are nothing O. And then say Brahman is everything, then say 'We are God [brahman]`. That doesn't make any sence at all.

 

If you say we are parts of Brahman, and Brahman is Supreme [That is Param brahman]. And we are His servants. That makes more sense. This gives us the purpose to live. Not to become Zero.

 

A Supreme Being means He is both all-prevading and has a Spiritual Body. Otherwise you cannot call Him God. Just taking one side [brahman] Won't do. You need to learn about His Sac-cid-ananada-vigraha body. Eternal-blissful spiritual body. 'How' can God have a body?

 

You said yourself before everything is Zero, in the spiritual world everything is eternally manifest. Of-cource God has a Body. And Brahman is His own energy. But of cource we cannnot know this without Reading Bhagavatam. www.vedabase.net

 

So to seperate Brahman from His form, is taking one side. To think one is more supirior is intelligence. Form is more relishable then formlessness. So you would have to conclude the form is the manifestation of the formlessness. Eternally.. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

One more point, look at the picture above in my Profile. When Krishna Holds up Govardhana Hill. Brahman cannot do this. It doesn't hold anything. Leave that thought with you /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

How could you get so cynical of all the chapters in BG in which krishna explains of karma samnyasa & spiritual self-realization.

----that's karma yoga... you, surrendering to the lord, start to see, by his mercy, everything connected to the lord and in this way everything turns in yoga. Not that karma, by itself, is a teaching or there's absolutely good or bad karma.. The demonstration is that arjuna turns the "bad" karma of killing million of people, in devotion, yoga and he's advised that if he goes to do "good" karma, peacefully meditating, he's in maya..

 

And at the same time get so euphoric regarding the alternate path (Bakthy) suggested for the lower intellects who cannot obtain self-realization during this janma.

---that's your well known style...... you have no advancement and knowledge to answer to other's opinions and you start insulting

 

 

[maadhav]

the words "sum total is zero" have more meanings,

ana all meanings are not correct.

 

the forst vers of isopanisha is:

 

OM pUrNamidah pUrNamidam PUrNAt pUrnam udachyate

PurNasya PurNamAdAya pUrnamevA vashishhyate

 

so, the sum total is God - Purna.

God is not zero.

 

teh sum total is zero words also imply that if some people get rich, then others get poor. this is not true either.

 

if some people eat more, that does not mean it causes others to starve. (strvation in this world at this time is caused by greed and lack of compassion, not lack of food.)

 

[Guest guest]

Bakthy is the alternate path suggested by Krishna in BG, for those who find spiritual self-realization difficult in this lifetime. This is not a style of speach. Sticking to BG is more advancement than giving merit to cut pastes & freaky interpretations of scriptures from vaishnavas.

 

See how vaishnavas consider Krishna as a demi-god and become a force against his own teachings.

 

Krishna considers as ignorance in arjuna that he assumes

-killing million of people in the mahabarata war is bad karma

 

Krishna never says that

-if arjuna does "good" karma, peacefully meditating, he's in maya..

 

Vaishnavas want to follow none of krishna's teachings, vaishnavas become a force against krishna by doing karma with ignorance, vaishnavas fall at krishna's feet considering him as a demi-god with their greedy desires & form of krishna (saguna) to forgive them from bad karma, without any pursuit to learn & engage in line with good karma as taught by krishna.

 

Vaishnavas learn better to be cynical than learning these stuff. This is nothing new with vaishnavic doctrine, as it has centered around cynicism to the rest of beliefs than a sincere prayer to bhagavan.

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

The total, i.e., the Sum total of all Parts-remain changeless, i.e., zero

 

While the Parts are always changing (i.e., constantless) but each part is compenstated by some other part (instaneously within microseconds) and the total remains Zero "always"

 

Also "God" in english means both "Bhagavan" and "Brahamam" , people generally associate God with Bhagavan, no equivalent term for Brahamam in english.

 

i am discussing only about Brahamam here, not Bhagavan, Bhagavan may or may not be Nirguna, i dont know.

 

But Brahamam should be Nirguna, other wise quite difficult to explain good/bad things in world and the Karma theory.

 

Any one else please try to explain the above two issues without touching two points

 

- God is biased (He favours some and distrubs some)

 

- All events are completely random without any basis whatsoever

 

Regarding "illusion" i am still thinking about and will come back with a reply when i get.

[Guest guest]

Bakthy is the alternate path suggested by Krishna in BG, for those who find spiritual self-realization difficult in this lifetime.

--that's you undemonstrated assumption.. you have two ways to speak, one is insult, another one is to write such nonsense. Bhakti means love, and inside love there's all forms of consciousness.. even in the material world..

 

Krishna never says that

-if arjuna does "good" karma, peacefully meditating, he's in maya..

--that's the very starting point of the gita... arjuna refuses to fight and he wants to retire in the forest doing meditation. Krsna explains that he has to leave all external and superficial religious duties and simply surrender his own life to Him through bhakti, love..

[Guest guest]

Also "God" in english means both "Bhagavan" and "Brahamam" , people generally associate God with Bhagavan, no equivalent term for Brahamam in english.

--i do not agree... the personality of god is almost unknown for everyone in the world. If you ask a deep, sincere definition of god, the majority of people will answer that god is love or god is peace and so..

 

God is biased (He favours some and distrubs some)

--god is not biased, god is free.. and his free will is beyond any our imagination and explanation. But our present condition is the exact result of the impartiality and love of god.. we are here suffering in this world because god want us free to choose to love him or not. That's impartiality.... who wants to stay with god is allowed to do it, who wants to go away is also allowed.. who wants to go back is also allowed through many valid religious paths given by god to the mankind..

 

All events are completely random without any basis whatsoever

--if they were random, you'd have discovered a reign where "random" is god and brahman is inpotent.... and it is not possible... brahman/paramatma/bhagavan is omnipervasive and omnipotent

 

(bhagavan is nirguna, in the sense that he has no material (dis)qualification.. but he has features.. he's bhagavan, the one who owns all the spiritual opulences)

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

dear guest, please read the full thread, understand and reply, please don't reply point by point.

 

i had asked to explain the differences found in the universe without making statements like "God is biased or all events are random"

 

now i can't understand why you are refuting those two statements. [ that is not my statements, i am just asking you don't include those statements in your reply, since it would be false]

 

When they say God is love do they mean "Bhagavan" or "Brahamam" as God.

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

here is my theory about illusion.

 

illusion is a mental concept (like anger, sad...). illusion arises from lack of knowledge about something (either we don't know about it at all, or had forgotten after knowing)

 

So the counter-part of illusion is knowledge, illusion about some thing gets anihilated when the knowledge about that thing is acquired.

 

the next question i am thinking now is- ego what is the negative of that ?