destiny and human beings

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

Good comments. I was out of town the last 3 days, so still reading and thinking...

[Guest guest]

************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"****************

 

I have read your posts, which are nice and logical.

 

But you have somewhere questioned the use of word "created", and I see that you have used it yourself.

 

 

And based on your above statements, I would be glad if you cleared a doubt: which is saguna? atma or purusha or which is nirguna? atma or purusha?

 

[Guest guest]

After studying the vedic literature,I find the concept of God as an element which is there in every atom of every living & nonliving thing rather than an entity controlling everything as more correct & appealing.This is explained by our thinkers as Ghataakash,Mathaakash,Taadaaakash & chidaakash.Briefly this means that there is space[Akaash] inside a pot which is separated from the space outside,however if you break the pot the space inside merges with the space outside but no space is destroyed. Similarly the space which is inside the house, though separate from the outside space; merges with outside space when the house is demolished. No loss of space is there. To beautify the house or to have public toilets or liquor bar is your choice and not of the space but the post effects of the choice are unavoidable.If you make it an open toilet it will stink.If you make it into a liquor bar the drunkards will create problems.

You are master of your destiny in terms of making choices but the effect of the choices has to be suffered or enjoyed by you alone. Sometimes the choices are not with you in the sense of municipality coming and demolishing the hut.You have to suffer in the rain all the same.

Moksha or mukti is knowing self i.e.Atman identifying it with the element which pervades the universe[uni & verse i.e. one line,a beautiful concept] & to be one with that element. There is no god in the sense of any deity as Vishnu or Shiva etc.No god writes you future, you and the circumstanes write it. But if your atman is one with the paramatman then you are happy and content & your action are more intune with the universal god

[Guest guest]

may be

 

I thought the example of water drops and sun are more related to Advaitha.

Because what I heard and read - the reflection of sun in water drops resembles Sun, the image will move with air and will reflect rays, it will appear as if it is the Sun, but in reality it is not, it is just a mirror image that is is 'Jagat Mithya' concept and we are possessed by Maya so we feel that the image as itself true and real. But in reality the Brahman/Parmatma is different.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

Thanks for your compliments, even though i don't deserve it.

 

My "views" are second-hand or bookish and that too novice ones.

 

Thanks for questioning the contradications and thanks for Narayanadasa for his questions.

 

i think all the contradications will be happening , until we "see" the truth, and also i am aware of what Bhagavan says in Gita "Only yogis and striving recluses would be able to see the truth enshrined in their hearts, others would fail in spite of their best efforts", even though i am neither yogi nor a recluse, still i am trying to "see" the truth since Bhagavan has not explicility discouraged

others.

 

Now coming to your question, i think purusha is a term of yoga (Patanajli) origin which talks about Prakriti, Purusha and Iswara, while Atma is of vedantic origin which talks about Jagat, Jiva, Atma, Brahma and ParaBrahama

 

In yoga terms purusha is Guna while Iswara is Saguna(all Magnificent Gunas) , while in Vedatana, Jiva is Guna bound while Atma is Nirugana (no gunas), Brahama is Guna-Addetha (Beyond Gunas) and ParaBrahama is Saguana (with all magnificient gunas). But i think comparing between two systems, purusha of yoga and atma of vedanata may be beyond my expertise

 

 

BTW as a side-topic, let us "see" what is meant by "seeing"

 

generally what we consider seeing is the pattern-matching by the mind.

 

A part of the energy spectrum (light, sound, chemical and thermal) is converted to electro-chemical inputs by the senses which is again converted to an electro-magentic pattern in the brain.

 

The mind, which is other than the brain, "sees" this pattern and compares this pattern with its own pattern store-house (called memory) where billions or trillions of patterns are stored. From this comparison the memory gets the name-form-attribute of the pattern (nama-rupa-guna) ,from which it analysis and decides about the pattern.

 

However we may not be able to "see" the truth or God in this way, since the corresponding pattern for them may not be registered in the memory and the mind keeps on searching for that pattern and hangs.

 

However there is another way of "seeing" that is seeing through the intellect where there is no patterns exist for the object and the intellect directly "perceives" the truth about the object. No prior "knowledge" of the object is required in this case (which would not have been available also).The rishis are the advanced seers of this category while the scientist are the beginners of this category.

 

 

We can "see" the truth only by intellect not by our usual mind seeing.

 

Sorry for the lengthy reply

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

now i can understand that you are making so much of irrelevant noise out of ignorance and not arrogance which i intially suspected.

 

 

"I find the concept of God as an element which is there in every atom of every living & nonliving thing"

 

1) what is the term used for representing non-living things in veda?

 

2) How can God be inside a non-living thing unless He is also dead? or re-phrased how a thing can become non-living if God is inside it?

 

 

 

 

 

[ajit12]

Dear Guest,

I think you have not understood the concept of god ,so the lack of humility.Upnishads speak of god as the one which encompasses 'CHARACHAR' i. e. every thing in this universe you are still thinking of god as a being as an entity.Therefore you are ascribing living or nonliving labels to god. God does not exist in that sense of a supreme being. That is why vedas say he does not do anything ,he is not a reason for anything,neither he has any physical properties. If you read Patanjali yoga sutra this concept is enumerated there.

request you to read brahmsutras also .That is why srutis describe god as 'NETI,NETI---not understood'

I am not making a noise as you say but just putting forward my interprtation or views. You may not agree, which I accept but don't call your views as noise.

Love to you

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

CHARACHARA-- moving and non-moving

SURASURA-- bright and non-bright

 

What is the term for Living and non-living?

 

i think you still have time to save yourself, if you read a good and genuine Gita instead of a Gita with some research institute and all.

 

Remember, "Man has to raise himself by his own effort and not degrade himself. Ones own self is his best friend and worst enemy" (in Gita, "outside" the Genuine chapters), remember that and try to araise yourselves