destiny and human beings

[Guest guest]

There are certain questions for which I can never get an appropriate answer.It is said that everything thats happening is pre-determined by god.Without gods wish nothing can happen in this world,and on the other hand it is said that human beings get punished or rewarded according to their karmas(whether bad or good).But since everything is predetermined,and it is god who makes us do anything that we do,then why do we get punished by god,why at all does he make us do wrong deeds,does he just randomly choose on who he would have doing good deeds and who would be doing wrong deeds?In short my question is whatever we do is it all destiny or what happpens and will happen is our karma if yes whats gods role in this?

I hope my question is clear,and i also hope i get a logical answer

thanks-

dreamy

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

The misconception here is about the interpretation of "God knows everything so whatever I do is because he wants me to do" This is not the correct interpretation.

 

God knows the LIST of all actions and all reactions but he necessarily doesnt want to choose the list of actions that you need to perform... you have freedom and intelligence to choose that yourself. God doesnt interfere and make you do Bad things and Good things.. however, based on your desire he allows you to do both. He has given you all guidelines (with Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and Gita etc) and even incarnates when necessary to teach you. But, the reaction is awarded to you whether it be good or bad - this you have no control. Souls desired to be enjoy material world and so God created the body and the rest of the world. In the process the souls accumulated many 'actions' (Karma) and the result (destiny) was awarded.. thats why we are always here cycling through actions and reactions. The Karma that you acquired by yourself, you need to get rid of it yourself i.e you are responsible for this and GOD can help you for sure. The prescribled methods are Devotional Service, perform prescribled duties and responsibilities sincerely, love all (if loveable, some are not!), atleast TRY NOT to hate anyone (if they cant be loved!).

[Guest guest]

Hari OM:

 

To understand answers for these types of questions, need to mature enough and then read Upanishads.

 

The most close answer to your question, which i can think of, based on Vedanta is like below, i don't know whether you accept or reject this , anyhow i just tell my thought on this

 

Initially there was only one "HE" and called "Hari" who was bliss personified (literally) and aslo called "Saguna Brahmam" - Brahaman with All Atrributes

 

Then He created out of Him a Pure Consicous field which was Nirguna and called "Nirguan Brahmam" or simply as Brahman and denoted by "OM"

 

From this field Spread forth all living and non-living "things" (or appeared to spread forth as per Advaithic principles)

 

However neither Hari nor "OM" dictated any individual "entity" to arise from Brahmam at any particular time or in any particular form or with any particular attribute, if He had done so, then He becomes responsible for our actions, however it is purely out of choice that an individual entity choose a time, place, form and attribute to come out of that field.

 

Once that choice was made that entity enjoyed/suffered that choice for the life time of Brahama, and this is called Karma, as defined in Gita "Visarga of Spirits at the beginning of Creation is Karma"

 

So "Hari" is not the direct cause of your existence as we say a father is the direct cause of the child. But he is the root cause for the cause which caused your existence, hence He is called "Para-Pitamaha" - the great grand-father. Brahaman is called "Pitamaha" -- grand father. While Shasthras does not clear specify who is the father and generally considered to be "Manu", i think your first choice is your father (in a spiritual sense), since it was the direct cause of your existence.

 

Hope this is clear, and i don't think anywhere it is said that everything that's happening is predetermined by God, what Bhagavan says in Gita, is that "I know everybody who has already come, who is here and even who will come later" but He does not tell I know what everybody will Do in the future.

[shvu]

Dreamy,

 

The controlling God who is capable of influencing the lives of humans is a theistic concept as found in the Vedas.

 

Eventually, several heretical, non-theistic concepts arose and gained popularity in India, including Karma, reincarnation, etc. Saankhya, Jainism and Buddhism are the most popular among these, although there were many many such schools at that time.

 

At some point of time, the concept of Karma (which is athesitic) and the concept of the controller God (Theistic) were both merged to form what is known today as Hinduism. In other words, Karma and reincarnation are *not* found in the Vedas and are known only through the Mahabharata and the Puranas.

 

When you see things this way, the dichotomy of Karma vs. controller God no longer exists.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

Sorry, your answer looks more like wish list than logical.

 

 

"Karma and reincarnation are *not* found in the Vedas "

 

You know what is the other name for Purava-mimamasa --- it is called "Karma"-Kanda....

 

Please try to study atleast the basic concepts, before making expert statements

 

[shvu]

Don't get confused.

 

Jaimini's mimamsa, also known as karma mimamsa uses karma in the sense of sacrifice. Their focus is on rituals (Yajnas) which produce good results. Jaimini does not accept a supreme being or creator as he holds that the world is eternal. In that sense, mimamsa is considered non-theistic when compared with vedanta. There is no concept of liberation either.

 

Karma as used in vedanta deeply draws from the Bhagavad gita, where Karma translates to action. This Karma is closely tied to reincarnation as the effects are believed to get carried over to the next life. This is in line with the concept of Karma as believed in Buddhism.

 

Note that none of these concepts are actually found in the Vedas (unless one uses plenty of imagination & interpretation). Also, the veda does not split itself into Karma Khanda & Jnana Khanda. These differences were introduced much later than the Vedas themselves and they are in fact, post-Buddhist. For instance, Madhva rejects this kind of categorization and states no such differences exist between the various sections of the Vedas and they are uniform in purport.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

"Karma as used in vedanta deeply draws from the Bhagavad gita"

 

Gita is only 6000 years old while Vedanta dates back to antiquity (as per our tradition, not much bothered about the western scholars opinion here since my view is that their research is either biased or shallow or both)

 

 

"Also, the veda does not split itself into Karma Khanda & Jnana Khanda. These differences were introduced much later than the Vedas themselves and they are in fact, post-Buddhist"

 

my opinion based on Adi Shankaracharaya does not say anything about changes in Vedas either pre or Post-Buddhism.

 

"Jaimini does not accept a supreme being or creator as he holds that the world is eternal"

 

May not be the correct view, as per Acharyas, Jamini is not an atheist and unlike your view he is NOT the author of Mimimasa or any part of Veda so the Karma Kanda is NOT his view. Rather he belongs to the Karma Kanda school and Karma Kanda was part of Vedas (Anathi, Apureshyam)

 

Jaminis view was that man need to concentrate on Heaven , his highest goal and obtain it by means of Yagnas, he was not willing to accept the theory of renouncing even that and obtain the Creator's abode, but i dont think anywhere he refutes altogether the creator himself.

(PS: Jamini's mimamsa is a misnomer i dont know whether you are using it out of ignorance or intentionally, the most proper names are Purava mimamsa or Karma Kanda)

 

 

[shvu]

You lack knowledge of basics, as I see. Find some definitions to help you out. Don't take my word on it and get these meanings verified by other sources.

 

Mimamsa - Common term to denote Purva Mimamsa - the system founded by Jaimini through his Mimamsa Sutras. They focus on what they call the Karma Khanda of the Vedas (the portions dealing with rituals). This system is also known as Karma Mimamsa.

 

Vedanta - Common term to denote the school that came up from Badarayana thru his Brahma Sutras, aka Vedanta Sutras. It is based on the Upanishads, the Brahma-sutras and the Bhagavad Gita. Traditionally, Vedanta is also known as Uttara Mimamsa.

 

The above defintions should set your misconceptions right. More precisely, the facts are,

 

1. Vedanta is post Bhagavad Gita.

 

2. "Jaimini's Mimamsa" is just as correct as saying Shankara's Advaita.

 

3. Karma Khanda is the section of Vedas that deal with rituals. It is not an alternate name of the Mimamsa school.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

You have defined the terms of Karma Kanda (even though your original post was no *Karma* in Vedas), Vedanata and Gita.

 

Then you say you had prooved Vedanata is after Gita.

 

May i be allowed to ask you how definition of terms become a proof?

 

If we accept western scholars of assigning dates to the Vedas then it is possible.

 

However my faith is that Vedas were propogated from God in continuous succession and without alteration (which has six grammatical and phonentical checks to prevent alteration).

 

So basically i say vedas (of which the Vedanata is also a part) is from time immemorial and Gita is about 6000 years old.

 

I don't know what is the basis of your statement Vedanata is after Gita.

[Guest guest]

But since everything is predetermined,and it is god who makes us do anything that we do,then why do we get punished by god,why at all does he make us do wrong deeds,does he just randomly choose on who he would have doing good deeds and who would be doing wrong deeds?

----------

God - creates the game with only one exit

You - Play it

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

"God knows everything so whatever I do is because he wants me to do" This is not the correct interpretation"

 

This may be a correct interperation. Why?

 

When He says I know everything about future, He refers to the future of Arjuna not himself.

 

Because He does not have duality, so can't have Past , present or future. So Sri Krishna of today is the same as Sri Krishna of 6000 years ago and would be the smae as Krishna of 6000 years later.

 

Just like i know all the events of today in my place, He also knows all the events of today in my place now, however since He is the same person 6000 years ago He knows all the events of my place 6000 years ago also.

 

Like time he is undivided by space too, which means He knows all the events of all the places at all the times. Something which we may be able to comphrend only after crossing the time barrier (hopefully)

 

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

When He says I know everything about future, He refers to the future of Arjuna not himself.

 

In my opinion he knows when everyone is going to die and he also knows that if I do action X I will get reaction Y and if I do action A I get reaction P. There may be 10000000+ actions and 1000000+ reactions, he know all of them and which maps to what and various combinations of that. So, I am not telling he doesnt know. I am telling that he can know if wants to know (he knows how to know!)

 

So, the interpretation should be "God knows everything so whatever I do is because God ALLOWS me to do". What I do is based on my knowledge, intelligence, surroundings, environment etc I am placed in and this is based on my past Karma.

 

Knowing events may not be the same as knowing the actions that each soul is going to perform. He know Kaliyuga would start at this time, end at this time etc. But, he *need not* know about what each soul is going to do to make this event happen.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

May be what you say is true and logical.

 

"if I do action X I will get reaction Y and if I do action A I get reaction P"

 

Can you please say who determines this?

 

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

if I do action X I will get reaction Y and if I do action A I get reaction P.

Can you please say who determines this?

God has already determined all the actions and their respective reactions. He has given us the knowledge, guidelines etc to decide what actions to choose. Now, if God wants to choose for us he can do so if he wills, no doubt and no one can stop him. But, there is no reason why he would interfere with our freewill which is again based on our previous Karma.

 

Now coming to beginning of Karma, some philosophies say "Souls were beginning-less and Karma was part and parcel of the soul" while others say "Souls were beginning-less and were originally without Karma and by their desire they accumulated the 1st Karma and then the cycle countinued". Honestly, I am trying to find out which one of the above is more logical although as of now both are acceptable to my very basic intelligence, knowledge.

 

One important point to remember here is, that God is always Satya (Unchanging, truth doesnt change), Gnana (Knowledge, all knowing), Anantha (All-prevading, exists everywhere) and Ananda (Bliss, Happiness) Swaroopa. This means he doesnt get bored, he is not unhappy as he is, he doesnt desire anything for himself, he doesnt need the material world to enjoy. So, he doesnt need to create the bodies for the souls, nor the material world. According to other faiths like Christianity and Islam where it is said that God creates for his own glory... which tends to say that he lacks something, so he desires to perform some action. This contradicts the above fact.

 

If he has created all this, the only logical answer would be that he did so for our sake. It is we who need him to go out of the miserable material condition (not the other way round). Ofcourse, he is very compassionate towards us when we show the desire to go back to him and behave according he does reciprocate. We dont realize this and so end up not getting Bhakti for him.

 

Although, there may be some very basic events that may not change (like we being born in the age of Kali, we being put into so many difficult situations etc)... there certainly are a lot of actions that although we know is bad we end up doing. This is wrong and God is not responsible for that. Hence it would be wrong to say that "God made me do this and that and so he is responsible and I am not".

[Guest guest]

********1. Vedanta is post Bhagavad Gita.**********

 

BG refers to Vedanta and Brahma Sutras as existing at the time of teaching imparted to Arjuna.

[Guest guest]

********Now coming to beginning of Karma, some philosophies say "Souls were beginning-less and Karma was part and parcel of the soul" while others say "Souls were beginning-less and were originally without Karma and by their desire they accumulated the 1st Karma ***********

 

 

No. Atma is untainted ever. Please see Gita (13 th Chapter). Atma is, however, the father (or source) of the thoughts or desires (manas or mind)that have the karma.

 

Atma is unbound. One who has successfully killed the wandering mind (silenced the mind) has become free.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

 

"God has already determined all the actions and their respective reactions"

 

But Gita says, I don't determine their actions, their contact with Gunas and not even their fruits, it is nature alone that functions.

 

 

"If he has created all this, the only logical answer would be that he did so for our sake. It is we who need him to go out of the miserable material condition (not the other way round). Ofcourse, he is very compassionate towards us when we show the desire to go back to him and behave according he does reciprocate. We dont realize this and so end up not getting Bhakti for him"

 

The basic point here is "HE" and "WE"is that distinction well-defined, anambiguous? even if you say yes, still one question remains what is the NEED for HIM to create US?

 

 

[narayanadasa]

"God has already determined all the actions and their respective reactions"

 

But Gita says, I don't determine their actions, their contact with Gunas and not even their fruits, it is nature alone that functions.

 

This again means that God doesnt determine what each action everyone chooses. But, he does indeed know the list of every action and every reaction. If we say nature of soul is Karma then again the point is where it started. It either started (1) because the soul that was originally free wanted to enjoy material world or (2) because the soul was originally there with some built-in nature. (1) or (2) I am not sure as I said before but in both cases God had to take some action to satisy the soul (not himself!)

 

The basic point here is "HE" and "WE"is that distinction well-defined, anambiguous? even if you say yes, still one question remains what is the NEED for HIM to create US?

 

Yes, HE is the super soul (Paramatma) and WE are the different souls (atma). HE created so that souls can experience their Karma. To do Karma both the body and the rest of the world is necessary..right? Thats the need for him to create.

 

I dont think God created the souls and gave them one life-time with imperfect senses, imperfect knowledge and then based on their actions he takes them to heaven or pushes them to hell for eternity - just like the christian / islamic faiths. Now, it would seem really foolish of God to simply create souls (for his glory?) and get souls to enjoy/suffer for eternity (unless he is bored!). This definitely cant be true!.

 

Please go ahead with your comments.. we seem to be discussing more finer topics in simple terms.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

"HE created so that souls can experience their Karma"

 

 

1) At the point of creation souls can't have "their" Karma

 

Right?

 

i will further reply seeing your re-phrased sentence.

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

I think you need to read my posts fully.

 

I did'nt ever say God created the souls.... I have always said in my posts that God created the body and the material world. I also always said "Souls are beginningless". Just like God was not created, souls were not created too. The last few posts were about how souls got their first Karma. If you read the posts fully you will see my answers for that too.

 

Material body and Souls are different thats why AAcharyas always say "You are not the body".

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

i was just pointing out a semantic error not a logical error, when discussing complex theories language becomes very critical, that is why language lessons were also included in earlier days.

 

Unless the language is clear, precise and unambiguous our mind may not reach near the truth (but irrespective of how good the language is it can't acquire it, a different topic)

 

instead of creation, it is better stated as "manifested", i.e., God manifested himself as this Universe (Prakriti), the Base consicouness field (Brahaman), the individual entity (atman) and every thing else, as stated in Gita, "everything is like beads of Yarn clustered on Yarn itself, there is nothing else besides me", so this universe is not a seperate entity created and pushed aside by God to be enjoyed by Souls, it is also as much a part of God, as "Souls" are, the concept of Universe created for Soul is Abrahmic not Hindu (please let me know any Gita verse against this)

 

As for the "glue" which binds soul to material is Guna as stated in Gita, when somebody stands apart from Guna, he is immediately liberated. Guna is like a channel through which the Soul interacts (controls/enjoys) the Universe (Prakiriti) and as per Advaitha, the Soul, Guna, Prakiriti and HE are one without anything besides.

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

Ok, you are talking from an Advaitic point of view.. I do not have much knowledge on the Advaitic concept.

 

But, let me ask you this question: When you say God manifisted himself as Prakriti, Brahman, Atmam why did he manifest? Was'nt he happy without that?

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

Advaitha is quite a complex subject, i was not writing on that point of view.

 

In fact many people fail to understand its meaning, and just apply our everyday meaning to it, like you said "was He Happy" this denotes two things - He and His Happiness, so not advaitha.

 

Any serious student of vedanata is interested in five questions about creation-- Why,How,Where,Who and When.

 

When-- is clearly defined in Hinduism and if you open any Panchanga, you can see the when given in days

 

Who -- generally considered a trivial question and most of the acharyas agree that He (who existed before creation) was beyond human comphrension of form, so can be called with any name and assumed with any form, no difference.

 

Where & How--Both are related and there are three schools of thought here

 

Dvaitha- He created the universe outside Himself, like a spider spinning its web from itself and then retracting inside it, the most common objection to it being the presence of space outside Him (EVERYTHING IS FROM GOD)

 

VistaDvaitha-- Like Sun reflected in millions of water drops, the real He is reflected in millions of souls, objections being what happens when the drop bursts, how does the reflection reach Sun (EVERYTHING IS GOD)

 

Advaitha--- not really explained well, generally said with a man mistaking a rope to be snake, however this is not advaitha from a glance, since it involves two things-Man and rope, so this is explained by a complex concept of Dhrk, Dhristha and Dhristhi (the seer, the seen and the process of seeing), not much objection here, since very few people had understood even conceptually (THERE IS NOTHING BUT GOD)

 

Bhagvan endroses all three in Gita, so we can't be sure which is correct

 

WHY?--- This is not stated in Gita also no where it is directly stated, only deduced by Acharyas. The most common view, which i do accept currently is all this is play or drama, even though there are other views.

 

So you a good guy fighting a bad guy means that you had assumed a role of good guy and fighting another who had assumed a role of bad guy. But if you hate him it is as childish as a hero of a film hatting the villian, also hero can't go and hug the villian he has to fight the villian until his role is completed. Also here death, killing etc., are all just acting, only a persons role comes to the end on his death, not the real person himself, as is said in Gita, this soul can neither kill nor get killed.

 

This drama has lots of comedy,tragedy, violence, songs, etc., now this period is a particularly violent period. The God interfers in the drama (called Avathar) whenever the drama goes out of control or becomes too boring

 

Sorry for the lengthy reply, i had written whatever i had known

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

VistaDvaitha-- Like Sun reflected in millions of water drops, the real He is reflected in millions of souls, objections being what happens when the drop bursts, how does the reflection reach Sun (EVERYTHING IS GOD)

 

The explanation for this given in the form of a 'Ghata' (Pot)- which is made of clay.

When this 'ghata' is empty - there is space in it. When we break this 'ghata' it does not requires to do anything to get mixed with the outer space. Rather there is no differance between inner space and outer space. Just one is bound by 'ghata' and another is not.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

But i think the Gatha example is more suited for Advaitha.

 

Because as per VistaDvaitha, there is a divine element inside every material element. so the reflection of sun in each water drop satisifies that theory as also the actualy divinity or greatness of the sun.

 

But the Pot has the same ether (space) inside and outside and "just appears" to be divided by a non-space (pot) element which can be called an illusion or maya, since the Pot didn't exist in the beginning nor it would exist in the end, it just came out from nowhere (i.e., the raw material of the pot) and would disapper into nowhere. So an illusory pot comes and divides the One space into multiple apparent spaces (i think that is why Bhagavan says in Gita, Soul is spoken of as immutable, if he had told Soul is immutable then the question of Advaitha would have been solved), so in my opinion the pot example is more suited to Advaitha than VistaDvaitha.