The idea of perfection

[Gauracandra]

If you think about it, I think all (or most?) religion revolves around this idea. Whether you are speaking of Heaven as a place of perfection, or of becoming spiritually perfect. I was reading some C.S. Lewis a few days back, and he seemed to suggest (and I'm not sure I fully agree with him) that man has an innate understanding of what is good and bad. Religion then acts as a sort of reminder of what we know to be good, even though our will often wants to take short cuts for personal gain. He seemed to suggest that this idea that we know something is bad, stems from the fact that we have once experienced what is good (perfection). As such, (I think) he would support the "fall down" theory, that we once were in Heaven, and understood what is goodness, and now that we have fallen, we know what is right unconsciously, because of this. We know what is dark, because we have once seen the light. If all we've ever been exposed to was darkness, then there is no meaning to understanding the concept of light. I'm not doing his statements justice. Any comments? Perhaps I'll see if I can relocate his statements, though it was a bit of a random find.

[Guest guest]

......that man has an innate understanding of what is good and bad".

 

Yes that innate understanding is the due to the presense of the super conscious, the entity resding within us, Lord Purshottam Narayan.It is merely an expansion of the absolute truth.

 

"Religion then acts as a sort of reminder of what we know to be good, even though our will often wants to take short cuts for personal gain"

 

Its not our will that desires short cuts but its the external force of Maya exerting its energy on us that awakens such weak behaviour.

 

"He seemed to suggest that this idea that we know something is bad, stems from the fact that we have once experienced what is good (perfection)"

 

We have experienced something that is good - that is our original and eternal state of Brahman , free from material desires and full of energy and bliss. But there is an experinece that is even greater than the bliss of Brahm and that is the experience of Parbrahm Purshottam which we have yet to experience.

 

"As such, (I think) he would support the "fall down" theory, that we once were in Heaven, and understood what is goodness, and now that we have fallen, we know what is right unconsciously, because of this. "

 

The "fall down" thoery only applies to the material heavens which are all subject to destruction during the Maha-Pralay process where all is destroyed apart the divine abode of Purshottam.

 

"We know what is dark, because we have once seen the light. If all we've ever been exposed to was darkness, then there is no meaning to understanding the concept of light."

 

The light you refer to is our eternal blissfull state of Brahman.The darkness is Maya. But what we havnt seen is the power behind the light, the cause of this great light,because if we ever had than we would surely be in the service of this great great creator. I challenge anybody to contest this - we have not experienced the undescribale bliss and presence of the supreme Lord Purshottam and we have not originated form him. We are seperate entities who have a blissfull when we realise our true identity of Brhaman but beyond that , if we realise the greatness and real indentity of the supreme controller who we are uncomparable to, then we will enver return in this world which is full of nothign but darkness. In a world were there is no difference in those born with vision and those born blind.

 

 

Progression is perfection . For he who progressses attains this state , if not in this life then in the next or the next or then next...............

 

[theist]

"... we have not originated form him. "

 

How did you mean this? I only accept one origin. To say that we originated from the Brahman does not seem to be correct. To say that we originated in the Brahman may be correct. It may appear that we originated from the Brahman but under whose will?

[Gauracandra]

This comes from 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis. Its actually important to read from beginning to end, as he lays out step by step, like building blocks, his philosophy. But this is an interesting point to start - different conceptions of God.

 

 

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic--there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

 

The first big division of humanity is into the majority, who believe in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who do not. On this point, Christianity lines up with the majority--lines up with ancient Greeks and Romans, modern savages, Stoics, Platonists, Hindus, Mohammedans, etc., against the modern Western European materialist.

 

Now I go on to the next big division. People who all believe in God can be divided according to the sort of God they believe in. There are two very different ideas on this subject. One of them is the idea that He is beyond good and evil. We humans call one thing good and another thing bad. But according to some people that is merely our human point of view. These people would say that the wiser you become the less you would want to call anything good or bad, and the more clearly you would see that everything is good in one way and bad in another, and that nothing could have been different. Consequently, these people think that long before you got anywhere near the divine point of view the distinction would have disappeared altogether. We call a cancer bad, they would say, because it kills a man; but you might just as well call a successful surgeon bad because he kills a cancer. It all depends on the point of view. The other and opposite idea is that God is quite definitely 'good' or 'righteous,' a God who takes sides, who loves love and hates hatred, who wants us to behave in one way and not in another. The first of these views--the one that thinks God beyond good and evil--is called Pantheism. It was held by the great Prussian philosopher Hegel and, as far as I can understand them, by the Hindus. The other view is held by Jews, Mohammedans and Christians.

 

And with this big difference between Pantheism and the Christian idea of God, there usually goes another. Pantheists usually believe that God, so to speak, animates the universe as you animate your body: that the universe almost is God, so that if it did not exist He would not exist either, and anything you find in the universe is a part of God. The Christian idea is quite different. They think God invented and made the universe--like a man making a picture or composing a tune. A painter is not a picture, and he does not die if his picture is destroyed. You may say, 'He's put a lot of himself into it,' but you only mean that all its beauty and interest has come out of his head. His skill is not in the picture in the same way that it is in his head, or even in his hands. I expect you see how this difference between Pantheists and Christians hangs together with the other one. If you do not take the distinction between good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in this world is, a part of God. But, of course, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, 'If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is God.' The Christian replies. 'Don't talk damned nonsense.'* For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world--that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God 'made up out of His head' as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again.

 

*One listener complained of the word damned as frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say--nonsense that is damned is under God's curse, and will (apart from God's grace) lead those who believe it to eternal death.

 

And, of course, that raises a very big question If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling 'whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?' But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

 

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"How did you mean this? I only accept one origin. To say that we originated from the Brahman does not seem to be correct. To say that we originated in the Brahman may be correct. It may appear that we originated from the Brahman but under whose will?"

 

What gives you the impression that we have an origin?We are eternal in nature , just like the Supreme Absolute Truth. Yes we have an original form and that is comparable to Brahm ( Atma) but you must understand that we are completely seperate entities to Purshottam, we have no 'conceptual' relationship, but in this material world as we are under the force of His energy (maya) we are partially under his control. We are not completely independant while Purshottam is.

[theist]

are you saying that we are self caused? Just because we are eternal does not mean that our existence is not dependent on the Chief Eternal.

 

When Krsna says I am the seed giving Father of all existence does that only refer to the material creation?

 

 

In order to distinguish the personality whom the individual soul must approach, it is described herein that this puruña, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the chief amongst all living entities and is the ultimate form of the impersonal Brahman effulgence and Paramätmä manifestation. Since He is the origin of the Brahman effulgence and Paramätmä manifestation, He is described herewith as the chief personality. It is confirmed in the Katha Upanishad, nityo nityänäm: there are many eternal living entities, but He is the chief maintainer. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gétä also, where Lord Krsna says, ahaà sarvasya prabhavaù: [bg. 10.8] I am the origin of everything, including the Brahman effulgence and Paramätmä manifestation. SB 3.29.36 purport

 

 

No need for us to get too hung up on the word origin. We are probably trying to say the same thing.

[Guest guest]

"are you saying that we are self caused? Just because we are eternal does not mean that our existence is not dependent on the Chief Eternal.When Krsna says I am the seed giving Father of all existence does that only refer to the material creation?"

 

We accept that Krsna has no cause, he is eternal. We also have no cause in our ORIGINAL form, but in this material world, Krsna is our cause as we are under the control of his Maya and His laws. Just like we are goverened by the laws of the state, but have independence to abide by them or break them.This doesnt mean the state is our cause.

 

 

"I am the origin of everything, including the Brahman effulgence and Paramätmä manifestation"

 

Yes Krsna is the creator, in the form of Brahma, but in the context of creation( remember the BG was spoken to Arjuna in the material world, so he is telling Arjuna that is the origin of everyhting in that sense), which is on a material level. We are dependant on Him but He is totally independant. But he is not our cause in our purest Atma form(agian we are still not fullu independant even in this form form Krsna) we are eternal.We dont have a cause hard as it maybe to comprehend, just as God has no cause.

[Guest guest]

Having read the other replies to your question, I couldn't help noticing the absence of scriptural support offered. Forgive my weak-mindedness, but I've learned that the human heart is one NOT to be trusted. I think all of those who are really honest with the human sin problem have learned that. The scripture that came to mind was Jeremiah 17:9 which says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can understand it?" Also, in the New Testament, Paul stated: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Collosians 2:8). I believe that because of man's fall and his now innate "God-void", he has an deep sense of emptiness and longing for His Maker, who he was made to commune with. All men look for ways to fill that, medicate it, or otherwise address it, but only One can satisfy it - Jesus, Creator of the world and Savior of mankind. We cannot trust our own hearts, but with His Holy Spirit present, and checking our perceptions against His Holy Word (the scriptures), we can learn which voices are from Him and which came from desperately wicked hearts. Hebrews 4:12 - "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Even my motives are revealed there. What do you think about the distrust of the human heart?

Concerning perfection, we cannot expect emperical perfection, though we strive for it, until Christ comes again and makes us new, re-creating us and returning us to an unfallen nature we originally had (1 Corinthians 15:51-53). I will end with a great promise in Phillipians 1:6, which says, "I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ."

 

 

 

 

[gHari]

Mark 8

 

31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

 

32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

 

33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

 

34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

 

35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.

 

36 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

 

37 Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

 

Mark 9

 

1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

 

2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.

 

3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.

 

4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.