Understanding "I" - Vedanta

[mahadevan]

Contradiction where ?, please enlighten me sir. If you did not understand what I said please ask I can elaborate. And Pradheep please do not get adhomistic here (I never called you stupid and would never do it), try to defend your stand by a logical refutation to what I said rather than personally accusing me.

[mahadevan]

I said that vedas contain stupidity, I stand by it
The following is the beginning of the 2nd hym in Rig veda, I just replaced soma with BEER, to be intune with the modern world. To me it just looks like drunken blabbering.

HYMN II. Vayu.
1 BEAUTIFUL Vayu, come, for thee these BEER drops have been prepared:Drink of them, hearken to our call.
2 Knowing the days, with BEER juice poured forth, the singers glorify Thee, Vayu, with their hymns of praise......


Pradheep, please post some philosophies from vedas. I have been trying so hard to find them, may be you found them.

[Idiappam]

Dear Friends

You can view in the links below, the classification of vedas and the upanishads and other branch of vedas in very systametic way, that will avoid confusion.

www.sakthifoundation.org/4vedas.pdf
www.sakthifoundation.org/4vedas2.pdf

Where did you hijack that charts from?? Kanchi?

[Idiappam]

All these are just propaganda -- to tell the world that all 'philosopies' and ideas of Indians came from the Vedas - when the Vedas contained nothing...

The Brahmanas, ARyankas, the upanishads etc etc -- are not part of the Vedas- they were written very much later - perhaps a millenium later!

It is just like saying - 'Athichoodi is part of Thirukkural...' or 'The Koran is part of the Bible..' Utter nonsense.

And these later text may not have any clue to what Vedanta is all about..

Don't belive half of what the Vedics here say - unless they can show some verses about vedantic thoughts written in the Vedas and echoed similarly in the Upanishads etc.

The main advantage, now, that the Vedics here have is that Sanskrit have been a forbidden langauge till now and no one, even the vedics themselves, really knows what is there and the readers are just told ''it is there, it is there,"...

IT IS NOT THERE!

[pradheep]

The Brahmanas, ARyankas, the upanishads etc etc -- are not part of the Vedas- they were written very much later - perhaps a millenium later!

Yes, was written by the great rishi "Idiappam" in the year 2005 in forumhub.

Pranams to idiappam Maharishi. continue your upanishads.

[pradheep]

Dear Mahadevan
No wonder your are intoxicated, drinking "canned" Soma.

when you vomit out the toxin and when you have clear chittam, then read this link


http://www.vedah.com/org2/literature/deeper_meaning/symbolism_rigveda.html

[stranger]

***The Brahmanas, ARyankas, the upanishads etc etc -- are not part of the Vedas- they were written very much later - perhaps a millenium later! ***

Yes, was written by the great rishi "Idiappam" in the year 2005 in forumhub.

Pranams to idiappam Maharishi. continue your upanishads.

well, you can "counter-argue" better than this if you really have some evidences.

I remember one of the Sandeep's posts saying the same:


"UPANISHADS were the last texts added to the Vedas http://www.realization.org/page/topics/upanishads.htm

what is the MEANING of ADDED here, anyway?!

[Sandeep]

stranger please dont post part of what i have posted prticularly when the other part furthur clarifies. :)

added is used as in "extension" (there will additions, modifications and deletions).

[pradheep]

The Brahmanas, ARyankas, the upanishads etc etc -- are not part of the Vedas

what is vedas according to you my dear idiappam

[Idiappam]

The Brahmanas, ARyankas, the upanishads etc etc -- are not part of the Vedas

what is vedas according to you my dear idiappam

The Rig, Saman, Yajur and the Atharvan!

[Idiappam]

Sandeep! There is something 'seriously Sandeep' about the vedics here!

http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/07/27/the-urge-to-prove

[Sandeep]

Sandeep! There is something 'seriously Sandeep' about the vedics here!

http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/07/27/the-urge-to-prove

Excellent link :D

I agree with him 100%.

The reason being Vedas has always been seen kept secretive. There needs to be better awareness as to what it says and what it doesnt. Which can be achieved only through better reading and discussions.

But I think Vedas should be delt with in a seperate topic and leave this one to Vedanta.

[stranger]

Sandeep!

I believe I have not twisted the meaning by quoting the "half sentence" of your "citation".

UPANISHADS were the last texts added to the Vedas, the vast collection of writings that constitute Hinduism's most sacred literature.

Anyway, I still feel this statement supports Idiappam's argument. :)

[mahadevan]

Hi Pradheep
Read the link that you have posted, the crux of the article is, vedas can never be properly understood. Thanks to deiva basha sanskrit having 50 meanings for the same word, so much for the perfect language. Hey this language is so incapable of conveying anything clearly, no wonder it is dead. Why dont sensible indians like you start adopting a great, clear and divine language like Tamil for your liturgical purposes.
Going back to the philosophy in vedas, the author of the article blames the foreign translators and poor Sāyaņa for the improper job that makes the vedas look like nonsense, and the author using all his geniuseness does the correct translation, which reads.

"forces of ignorance were overcome by the forces of knowledge"
" the forces of ignorance were destroyed by the power of mantra, the potent word"

after such a great deal of manipulation, Is this the best he could get from vedas ? and you call this philosophy ?
It is as banal as
'If you are thristy drink water' or
'if you bladder is full, please take a leak'.

Pradheep whenever you vedics quote anything about vedas you are just exposing the total lack of any philosophical content in it. No wonder you hardly ever post anything from vedas, even is asked a million times. I have an idea, since everything came from vedas anyway, why dont we invent a fifth veda called Burda and translate everything that we know from the west or east in spiritualism/science/technology into this veda and blame vysa for not including this in his original collation of vedas as he was interested only in the liturgical content. Belive me 100 % of the vedics would buy that!

[Bebeto]

'If you are thristy drink water' or
'if you bladder is full, please take a leak'.

:rotfl:
Me and you drink beer, pradeep drinks soma. I also read somewhere here in the hub that water has 70 names in sanskrit.



Pradheep whenever you vedics quote anything about vedas you are just exposing the total lack of any philosophical content in it. No wonder you hardly ever post anything from vedas, even is asked a million times. I have an idea, since everything came from vedas anyway, why dont we invent a fifth veda called Burda and translate everything that we know from the west or east in spiritualism/science/technology into this veda and blame vysa for not including this in his original collation of vedas as he was interested only in the liturgical content. Belive me 100 % of the vedics would buy that!
Then it becomes vedantham refering to SBadri. Added to the end he says.

[SRS]

I don't know why the anti-Vedic crowd has singled out soma. Ancient Hindus are not the only one's to use such a drink. According to the Greeks, the gods drank ambrosia (same as our amrita). The ancient Iranians had "hamoa", (same as soma). The Christians use wine to symbolize blood. So please stop these shallow arguments that pertain to soma.

[mahadevan]

Hi SRS my problem is not with soma, but calling such things as sacred philosphy and insulting hindus

[SRS]

-deleted-

Someone mentioned how Sanskrit has 70 names for water. Well, water is the primary life-giving property. Consider that were it not for something as simple as ice being less dense than liquid water, "life" as we know it would not be possible. And this is just one property. So it is no wonder Sanskrit will have so many names to describe one substance.

[stranger]

Am I in a wrong thread?! :roll:

Tamil vs Sanskrit thread, I mean?!

Why all these digression, genius?! :roll:

[mahadevan]

hey SRS, the problem is not with onething having different names, but the same word meaning different things. Is that not a cause for confusion ? Unless confusion is the very foundation for its sucesses. How can you call a confusing, unclear, irrationaly complex and dead language as divine ?

Anyway we are digressing a way too much from vedanta, let us go back to it. Mr pradheep please restart your sermon.

If Jeevathma and Paramathma is the same with athma is trying to understand which athma ?

[mahadevan]

correction : If Jeevathma and Paramathma are the same which athma is trying to understand which athma ?

[mahadevan]

SRS wrote "Well, water is the primary life-giving property. Consider that were it not for something as simple as ice being less dense than liquid water, "life" as we know it would not be possible"

how is the fact "ice being less dense than liquid water" the reason for life. Looks like you are confused about the concept of hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bond is the cause and some of the effects are
i) crystal structure of water is less denser than its liquid form and
ii)bio molecules get their structural stability and hence the life that we see it today (if not for H... we would have still evolved into some other forms)

the obeservation cannot be construed as one effect as the cause of the other. They are both the effects, brush up your chemistry MR SRS

[stranger]

Yeah, SRS knows too much of chemistry besides the hydrogen bonding. In his "earlier life" he tried to teach me the D- and L- form of glycine and beta-alanine as well. :lol: He said that he learnt that from Vedas and RamayanA! :lol:

But I could not buy it as I do know some chemistry :)

[aravindhan]

The Brahmanas, ARyankas, the upanishads etc etc -- are not part of the Vedas

what is vedas according to you my dear idiappam
The Rig, Saman, Yajur and the Atharvan!

The term "veda" is actually used in two different ways. The term in common usage refers exclusively to the four samhita collections. In a more technical sense, though, the term refers broadly to the large-ish corpus of core sacred texts used by particular vedic schools.

The vedic texts were historically compilations of sacred texts used in teaching and training in the different traditions represented in the various vedic schools. The primary (and oldest) texts used in these schools were the samhitas, and each school had its own tradition and its own recension of the samhitas (only one of the recensions of the RV-samhita survives today, but we have several different versions of portions of the others, most notably the Yajurveda samhita). But the samhita texts were not the only ones used in these schools. They also used a number of texts, composed at a later date than the samhitas. These mainly contained annotative explanations and supplementary notes (the Brahmanas), appendices (the Aranyakas), and final instructions (the Upanishads). Each of the texts used by a school was associated with the samhita text used by that vedic school. The collection of all such texts used by any given school formed the "vedic corpus" associated with that school. We can therefore speak of a particular Upanishad as being an upanishad of the Black Yajur Veda of the Taittiriya school. This doesn't mean the upanishad is part of the YV samhita - just that is a part of the vedic text corpus of that school.

For a scholarly study of how various portions of the vedic corpus came to be collected and compiled, I strongly recommend Prof. Witzel's The Development of the Vedic Canon and its Schools: The Social and Political Milieu, a version of which is available online at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/canon.pdf. It's a long piece, but well worth reading whatever opinion you may happen to hold on the worth of the vedas - at the least, it will help you to better understanding the origins of the tradition you're criticising / defending (strike out as applicable). Of course, if you adhere to the "adhikari" school of thought, it is quite pointless to read any scientific textual analysis of the Vedas.

Specifically on the upanishads, Prof. Witzel expresses the opinion that they contained the last things a student would learn before graduating from a vedic school (which could possibly explain the later use of the term "vedanta" for these texts, since they represented the final stage of vedic study). These were often philosophical, but not exclusively so - as Prof. Witzel points out, some of them also deal with ritual, behaviour, laws and so on.


When you call Tamil ......
As has been discussed elsewhere on this forum, Ramanuja and his early followers, who were steeped in the vedantic tradition, expressly accepted Tamil as a liturgical language, and Tamil texts as being of equal or greater sanctity than the Sanskrit vedas. Do you hold one of the three major schools of Vedanta to be a living insult to the vedic tradition?

You are, obviously, free to choose Sanskrit as the language through which you seek to relate to Andavan / Isan / Emperuman / Devaru / Atman / Brahman / Purusha / Shunyata (strike out as applicable), if that suits you best. What, in your opinion, is the problem with others choosing a different language?

[pradheep]

If Jeevathma and Paramathma are the same which athma is trying to understand which athma

If a human body is just a bundle of flesh and bones (and electrons atthe fundamental level) and is not different from an animal (at fundamental level , they are also just spinning electrons), then , when a human eats animal flesh, what is enjoying what?.

Well if you understand this, you are self realized.


Any way, I will come to a much basic level. The athman that is infinite identifies itself as finite body, mind and intellect, then rectifies that error.

Like an individual who takes the shadow play on a moview screen forget his real nature (audience|) and takes to the emotions of the characters in the play and become one with it. After the movie, the viewer recognizes his original nature , that he was not the character who under went emotions, but just the witnessor.

This is the same story with the jeevathman that realizes paramathman.

[mahadevan]

Hi Pradheep
The human and an animal/plant are distinct entities, one consumes the other for sure. what is enjoying what ?, if the consumer like eating tasty food he would enjoy it and if he is eating a live animal, unless the latter is a masochist it would not enjoy it.
Wow pradheep Am I self realized now ?

An individual watching a movie is a distinct entity from what he is watching. If the individual takes to the emotion of the characters, he is not just a witnessor, but a participant in the movie by the sheer power of his imagination.

hey if the person did not watch the movie at all, then by default would he have realized paramatham ?

Are you trying to say that the jeevathman and paramathman are different by these analogies ?

[mahadevan]

Well said Aravindhan,
Language is just a medium for communication. Some does their job better than the others but none are sacred perse. To my knowledge it is just the sanskritist that strech the concept of sacred language to such an extent that the knowledge content in its litreature would lose its sacredness if told in other languages. This is ludicrous at best. A great insult to its knowledge content, if it existed.

[SRS]

--

[SRS]

SRS wrote "Well, water is the primary life-giving property. Consider that were it not for something as simple as ice being less dense than liquid water, "life" as we know it would not be possible"

how is the fact "ice being less dense than liquid water" the reason for life. Looks like you are confused about the concept of hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bond is the cause and some of the effects are
i) crystal structure of water is less denser than its liquid form and
ii)bio molecules get their structural stability and hence the life that we see it today (if not for H... we would have still evolved into some other forms)

the obeservation cannot be construed as one effect as the cause of the other. They are both the effects, brush up your chemistry MR SRS

There is only one way to say that ice is less dense than liquid water, and that is to say that ice is less dense than liquid water. I did not state the reason for that, as the reason is irrelevent. It is a scientific fact that were ice not less than liquid water, evolution and consequently life would not be possible. This is because life began in the sea. Had there been no ice at the top surface of the water during the winter months, the aquatic life would have perished.

[Uthappam]

Oooi, so many people of science down here! Nice. Water.... Ice.... Air..... etc......

Can someone tell me pelase...

At what pressure would air dissolove in water?

And would you call that chemistiry of physics?

[pradheep]

Wow pradheep Am I self realized now ?



hope you knowthe story that in a clasroom ,a student was watching a rat going into a hole in the roof. when the teacher asked him, did he get (the lessons) into his head, the student replied, (thinking of the rat) yes the tail is still hanging out.

[Bebeto]

The ancient Greeks also believed that water is the origin of all life and because the origin of water is in the mountains the gods also reside there.

But they themselves proved it wrong and so SRS will too.

Just one thing more:

At 3.9x degree Celcius you find ice, water and steam if I remember right.


This is the same story with the jeevathman that realizes paramathman.

So we all got to watch the screen play to identify ourselves with paramathman? Will I be provided with peanuts and soda too? When are you going to realize that you are still watching your "shadow play"?

[mahadevan]

If what is taught by the teacher is worse than watching the rat, the student did the right thing.
If jeevathman is the same as paramathman which is supposed to be the repository of all knowledge, why the instanciation(jeevathman) of paramathman is so mired in ignorance. Looks like the inheritance is imperfect or infact the base class itself has poor definition, ignorant.

by the way, when an animal like lion/tiger eats a human, what is enjoying what ?, why dont you try giving your hand to that lion in the zoo ?

[pradheep]

when anintelligent person like yourself , in a movie theater .......why become emotional watching a movie, which is just a shadow play?

[pradheep]

Dear Mahadevan
what happened to you. Just with one explanation, you got it?. You are then Mahaa- Devan.

[stranger]

So, what do you try to conclude, Pradheep, from your "theatre-theory" huh?!

Emotion is also a God or what?! :roll:

[pradheep]

Dear stranger
You still did not get it.......Mahadevan's question was how come all knowing paramathman forgets itself and becomes a jeevathman and also what does jeevathman finally realizes.

In my example I said, that when we see a movie we forget ourself and get identified with the movie characters and undergoes its emotions, forgettign that we are watching the movie. So the problem is identification. The same with all knowing paramthman. With the manifestations which comes from itself, the identification to the forms, causes the problem. Self-Realization is de-clutching from the identification. To make it clear, we have to realize that we are not this body, mind, intellect complex but the Consciousness behind it.
You asked
Emotion is also a God or what?!

As I told earleir, out of ignorance people talk about God and creation. According to advaita, there is not one God, but only God. There is nothing other than God. Including emotions, it is also the manifestation of God. This is why in lalitha sahasranama, we glorify God as Vidya, Advidya sorupinyai Namaha. She is Vidya as Para Brahman and Avidya as Jeevathman. Here She refers to Consciousness.

[stranger]

In my example I said, that when we see a movie we forget ourself and get identified with the movie characters and undergoes its emotions, forgettign that we are watching the movie.

So the problem is identification.

Identification????

What identification?!

The word identification does not answer anything to me.

Please "spell it out"!

[mahadevan]

Hi Pradheep, how are you buddy ? Was just busy with the year end activities.

Are you saying that the all knowing paramthman has problems with self identity, what a pity. Is it a kind of transient amnesia ? or a more pronounced Alzheimer's ?. Hope not. Looks like the paramathman needs some memory building, why dont you recommend ayurvedic herbs to paramathman, would assume that If you(jeevathma)take it, the real benificiary would be paramathman and guess what since me too the manifestation of paramathman would get awesome memory, so when are you starting the course ?

Your state just reminds me of a villager living on the boundary of a national highway. When a stranger (not our beloved hubber) asked him where the highway starts and where it ends, the villager replied it has no beginning and no end, poor soul he has never crossed the village boundary to see how far the road really goes. Likewise some people whose knowledge domain is pretty limited jump into a conclusion based on the limited info they have.
Hope you got the message

[mahadevan]

Hi Pradheep
"Jeevathma which is the manifestation of the paramathma is realizing itself". We all know that Humans are just nothing but a tiny spec in the cosmic dust and the rest which is also the manifestation of the paramathma is all inanimate or our brethern in kingdom animalia or plants. The point is, these other folks(animal may have one though) lack proper concious thinking power, so what do they realize ? Without conciousness if they cannot realize then what is realized is nothing. Quantitatively if most of the manifestation of paramathma is realizing nothing then are we to assume that paramathma is nothing ---SOONYA---. I thought you were opposing that concept. Looks like humans like you are the abberations within in paramathma that fail to realize SOONYA

[pradheep]

the all knowing paramthman has problems with self identity, what a pity.

Dear Mahadevan
Hope you still did not get the example of the loss of identity when you watch movie. While watching the movie, you might be bachelor or a married man, still you wish and get tensed when the hero could not meet the heroine.

what do you say about this problem of self identity, is it to be pitied?.

sono matter what you are the (audience) you forget yourself and get identified with the characters in the movie. You might be a farmer or a doctor or a scientist or any intellectual genius, still you are lose your self identity and get identified with the movie character. Do you think it is psychological problem or alzhemers|?. No, forgetting your real nature and getting identified with the movie character is not a mental problem, it is just an identification aspect. This is why movies are enjoyable to watch.

(I equally enjoy watching and the expression of my wife and child and friends watching the movie).


The same thing happens when the paramathan is in contact with the energy manifestation oof itself.

when I get time I will write in detail. But the best is you experience yourself this whole mystery of life, which anyway you would.


The point is, these other folks(animal may have one though) lack proper concious thinking power, so what do they realize ?

They evolve to humans and then self realize. This is the force behind evolution. You can readmore details here in this link.

http://www.sakthifoundation.org/river-9.htm


Hope the above link answers some of your questions.

[mahadevan]

Hi Pradheep
Humans are fallible, some lose their self when watching a movie others do not, it all depends on their emotionally involvement with what is being watched. Is Paramathma also fallible ?
Any way once the movie is over humans get back their self, so once this life is over would not Paramathma get back his identity, why in the world would Parathma not have that much patience, Cant it wait till the mortal death of Jeevathma ? let the Jeevathma enjoy the life (like the humans watching movie). What is the point in, a human while watching a great movie, stops watching it to realize who he is ? I do not see any point in that, similarly why should Jeevathma realize itself as paramathma instead of just continuing life as it is ?

You might say that the life after realization is much more happier, nicer etc compared to life before that. But here the movie analogy does not work, because Humans make a concious decision to watch a movie so that they can have fun. They knew the life b4 and after the movie. The so called unrealized state is the state that we are born with, why change it ? it looks like a meaningless travel across the evolutionary chain to realize what you are. Is it a poor design by Jeevathma ? This kind of explaination for the purpose of material existence looks meaninless and mocks at the efficacy of Jeevathma.

[pradheep]

Humans are fallible, some lose their self when watching a movie others do not, it all depends on their emotionally involvement with what is being watched. Is Paramathma also fallible ?
Involvement is not the problem, losing the self identity is the problem. Once there is loss of self identity it is no paramathman , then it is only jeevathman. similarly, when there is awareness of the "SElf" then there is no jeevathman.


why in the world would Parathma not have that much patience, Cant it wait till the mortal death of Jeevathma ?

The paramathan is not impatient. it does not care whether the jeevathman realizes or not. It does not suffer. It is the jeevathman that identifies itself to be the body mind sense complex and then makes an attempt for self realization. This is where people mis the whole point of vedanta. Jeevathman is acutally paramathman only...when it realizes the paramathman, then it laughs itself that the whole thing was just a wrong identification. Like after the movie is over you detach from the character and you are back to your self.

while watching the movie, the audience aspect in you is not impatient for the movie to get over. when you identity yourself with the character in the movie, inspite of paying money and time to watch the movie you suffer.



let the Jeevathma enjoy the life (like the humans watching movie). What is the point in, a human while watching a great movie, stops watching it to realize who he is ?

Good questions Mahadevan. while watching the movie you dont need to take out your driving licence out of your wallet to make sure you are not amitab bacchan but mahadevan watching a movie. If you are aware of the movie watching and be detached then you enjoy all his shows. If not if he laughs you laugh, if he is sad you are sad and if he is panic chasing the villan you are close to falling from your seat.


I do not see any point in that, similarly why should Jeevathma realize itself as paramathma instead of just continuing life as it is ?

Life cannot be continued without self-relaization, becAuse that is the law of nature...evolution. If it does not then through suffering (hardhips) progressess , like life evolved through hardhips of environment. More over if life happens the way you expect, then you like to continue otherwise you just want to quit ot keep grumbling. Majority of the people are like my cousin watching movie, they do not want to know the reality of the ,movie (life) not want to get out of movie watching. they just keep suffering miserably.




You might say that the life after realization is much more happier, nicer etc compared to life before that. But here the movie analogy does not work, because Humans make a concious decision to watch a movie so that they can have fun. They knew the life b4 and after the movie. The so called unrealized state is the state that we are born with, why change it ?

Dear Mahavadevan, the movie example is so fitting, if you think little deeper. I will tell one example of my cousin (30 years old) who go to watch a movie. Half of the movie , she will close her eyes and cry because even a slight unhappiness of the heroine she cannot tolerate. Then if the ending is not good atleast she will take half a week to recover. In my family everyone gets mad at her and also ridicules at her behavior, but for me she is great guru teaching me, how we are all like her in real life.
Like my family members who are mad at her saying why do you waste money and time going to a movie and suffer, the realized people pity others because everyone caame here to enjoy life. But getting identified, instead of enjoying the whole show, 99% of our life we spend , like my cousin feeling guilty of the past or anxious of the future and never in the present. Understand the same with watching movie, instead of enjoying frame by frame, scene by scene, my cousin is so tensed about the future of the heroine and at the same time still crying for the bad incident happened in the firtst few scenes of the movie. Arent we like that still thinking of the bad incidents of the childhood even through we are the middle age?


it looks like a meaningless travel across the evolutionary chain to realize what you are. Is it a poor design by Jeevathma ? This kind of explaination for the purpose of material existence looks meaninless and mocks at the efficacy of Jeevathma.

you mean to say the movie director made my cousin to cry and suffer miserably? We can enjoy a tragic movie or a horror movie only when we are detached. If we are attached to the character we cannot enjoy the movie. This is the message of gita and upanishads, that attachment causes pain and suffering.

more to continue after your reply, "Maha-Devan".

[mahadevan]

Once there is loss of self identity it is no paramathman
The question is why does the all knowing paramathman loses self identity ?


The paramathan is not impatient. it does not care whether the jeevathman realizes or not. It does not suffer. It is the jeevathman that identifies itself to be the body mind sense complex and then makes an attempt for self realization. This is where people mis the whole point of vedanta. Jeevathman is acutally paramathman only...when it realizes the paramathman, then it laughs itself that the whole thing was just a wrong identification.

This is very similar to split personalities where one personality knows about the other, whereas the other personality knows only about itself. Realization of onenees is achieved when the split trait is gone, the disease is cured. It is just a dualistic non concurrent mental state. Some times the split is more than 2 and we have multiple personalities. Oneness is the norm and the split is the diseased state, What you are saying is exact opposite, dualistic is the norm and oneness is the abnormal/goal/end point/what ever you call it. The human state is normally a dualistic split between the J and P athma's the latter is aware of the former but not vice versa. So we remove the split and we realize that J and P are the same. Belive me Pradheep I do not have that split.



Life cannot be continued without self-relaization, becAuse that is the law of nature...evolution.
Why not ? what happens if you self realize ? matter stops evolving ? matter evolved just to get a specific mental state and than vanish ?


If we are attached to the character we cannot enjoy the movie. This is the message of gita and upanishads, that attachment causes pain and suffering

Detachment or detached attachment or attached detachment or the various degrees of the combination of the anti forces is a mental training one goes to attain a mental state that suits oneself, this endeavour is driven by selfishness and not selflessness. If you want not to be sad when you kith and kin dies, shackle the bonds defined by affection and you would not feel sad. It is a concious decision made by you followed by discplined training to help yourself, Jeevathma. This clearly shows the presence of obeserver and observed and the impact that the observed can have on the observer and the techniques that are available to the observer to be immune to the effects of the observed. This is definetly dualistic !

[pradheep]

The question is why does the all knowing paramathman loses self identity ?

This is very similar to split personalities where one personality knows about the other,

Dear Mahadevan
You have come back to same question whichI answered earlier. How is that youlose your identity while watching a movie. If you can answer methatitwill explain your question.

Is losing identity while watching amovie , a split personality? No.

Jeevathman Paramathman is not a split personality case.



Why not ? what happens if you self realize ? matter stops evolving ? matter evolved just to get a specific mental state and than vanish ?

The problem is not with matter, it is with identification with matter the problem. With that deep strong identification, then it takes time for the error to be corrected.

After self realization you realize that you are not this matter, but pure consciousness from which this very own matter is created.



This clearly shows the presence of obeserver and observed and the impact that the observed can have on the observer and the techniques that are available to the observer to be immune to the effects of the observed. This is definetly dualistic !


Please do not confuse here. The training is not to get immune to effects or life incidents. The training of themind is to accept the reality of things.Here the reality is that.......things that are born outof time and space will die in time and space ... physical law. But there is somethign that isnever born and die in time andspace and that is the real natureof you. Unable to recognize this reality is maya or illusion.

Our mind does not want to accept nature's law, for example death.

why isdeath scary and to whom?. it is forthe Ego that the death is scary because it identifies itself to matter (body), but this ego is projected by consicousnesswhich is immortal and so thisEgo has that nature to be immortal. Thisnature makes it to overcome death. This aspect of Ego is maya.

[pradheep]

Dear Mahadevan
To make it clear...paramathman and jeevathman is one and the same. It is not that paramathman is something sitting and controlling the jeevathman. When identification is to the matter it becomes jeevathman.

It is exameple I mentioned before. The person watching a movieis the same person who becomes identified with the characterof the movie. so the observer (paramthman) and the identifier (jeevathman) to the character in the movie is the same. Is the observer and identifier different in this case? There are one and the same. Butthe moment the identifier identifies and forgets that he is the observer , then he becomes different from the observer and undergoes the joy and sufferign the charcater he dientifies undergoes. This is the same with paramathman and jeevathman. This is why vedanta says, "|That Tvam Asi|"



with this example, ask yourself and enquire your questions of paramathman and jeevathman.

[mahadevan]

Pradheep Wrote: After self realization you realize that you are not this matter, but pure consciousness from which this very own matter is created.

Oh ok conciousness creates the matter, Are you saying that there are creator and created, Advaida ? then what is the conciousness made of ? Nothing SOONYA ?

Pradheep Wrote:But there is somethign that isnever born and die in time andspace and that is the real natureof you. Unable to recognize this reality is maya or illusion.

hey pradheep firstly are you saying that time and space have begin and end ? The immortal real nature.. of me what is that ?


HI Pradheep in your example, the Observer is paramthman and the identifier is jeevathman,
The identifier here is fictitious drawn by the sheer power of imagination/maya/whatever of the observer. But your next statement says

But the moment the identifier identifies and forgets that he is the observer ?

when did the fictitious state develop it own identity ? It is the observer that loses its identity and thinks that it is the identifier.

By your example you are just saying that the paramthman lost its identity by assuming it to be the observed.

[pradheep]

then what is the conciousness made of ? Nothing SOONYA ?

It is indescribable, you are "that". This is why in all spiritual traditions, one is required to purify the mind. The mind shadows the consciousness, like a cloud that blocks the sight of the sun. But the irony is that the very cloud is illuminated by the sun's light. The same way the mind clouds the consciousness , but the very same mind is illuminated by consciousness.

The above fact if you try to think of it and grasp you cannot experience it. You have to do practically the purification of the mind and experience what i am talking about. Otherwise it would be like thinking of how a chocalte would taste , instead of putting one in your mouth.


pradheep firstly are you saying that time and space have begin and end ? The immortal real nature.. of me what is that ?

Time and space has a begining and end when you think through your mind. But Consciousness never was born and dead. Only the mind does.



when did the fictitious state develop it own identity ? It is the observer that loses its identity and thinks that it is the identifier. By your example you are just saying that the paramthman lost its identity by assuming it to be the observed.

Yes the observer thinks it is the one who is the observed instead of knowing the reality that the observer, observed and the observed is one and the same.

Hey that is the whole practice in spirituality, you find yourself when you lost your identity. You are the one who lost it and you are the one who knows it. (You means not only you mahadevan, but all of us). When you trascend your mind that clouds your consciousness , then you know the reality.

Mahadevan, I know that you are trying to understand this and may be thinking that I am beating the bush and going round and round. it is not that easy because we are using the very mind that blocks the reality. Only trascending the mind can help. This is why puranas help in understanding at a mental plane and also helps to do the practices.

For example, Brahma represents the mind that creates everything (the world) and he is the one who is meditating to find who created everything. He sits on a lotus flower from the nabi (navel) of vishnu. Vishnu is the consciousness.

Our puranas are great with symbols. why does the creator brahma sit on a lotus flower and create?. Because lotus is a flower that will bloom in the presence of sun and droops when sun sets, like the creation in presence of consciousness.

Narad the son of Brahma is called manasa putra and represents the inquring aspect of the mind. But he always chants narayana narayana because narayana represents intellect. But this narad goes to seek help of shiva because shiva is awareness, which can be realized in meditation and so shiva is shown in meditating form.

Like this every character in puranas represent each aspect of mind, intellect, awareness and consciousness.

[mahadevan]

Hi Pradheep
According to dictionaries
Consciousness: A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group
Awareness: Having knowledge or cognizance
Mind : The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.
intellect: The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding

According to the scientific lit human consciousness originates from brain, a mortal piece of matter, from your postings it looks like you have a different defn for consciousness, please give your defn of it.

To furthur our discussions we need to talk the same language, please define the mind, intellect, awareness and consciousness in your language and we can continue our discussions.

[KoH]

You have to do practically the purification of the mind and experience what i am talking about. Otherwise it would be like thinking of how a chocalte would taste , instead of putting one in your mouth.
Will a piece of chocolate ever reveal the taste if you never have had tatsed it before? Will you ever see the god if you have never seen him before?


Time and space has a begining and end when you think through your mind. But Consciousness never was born and dead. Only the mind does. What did Einstein say? Everything is relative! The time runs faster when you are away from the Earth, it runs slower when you get deeper into it!


Our puranas are great with symbols. why does the creator brahma sit on a lotus flower and create?. Because lotus is a flower that will bloom in the presence of sun and droops when sun sets, like the creation in presence of consciousness. He was sitting on the lotus flower and casting for fish! By the way, where was Brahma sitting while he created the lotus flower? Don't tell me that he sat on another lotus flower!


Narad the son of Brahma is called manasa putra and represents the inquring aspect of the mind.You don't mean Jesus Christ, The King of Jews and the Son of God?

[pradheep]

[tscii:680a792b9c]

Consciousness: A sense of one's personal or collective identity,

This is the definition for Ego in Vedanta. The “I”ness is Ego and that creates separation from the rest of creation.

Consciousness in Vedanta is “Sath”, which means not any think that you can think of. It is the very source behind the thinking. Like the example of the sun in all activites. Sun has nothing to do with evaporation from seas, forming clouds and rainfall. However without the sun , there will not be these activities. Same with Consciousness. It is a not a brain phenomenon. In brain it is the conditional consciousness which is called as awareness. (In puranic term this is Brahman (not Brahma).



Awareness: Having knowledge or cognizance .
In Vedanta , the unconditional Consciousness (Sath) , when reflected in matter, is awareness (chith). This is Shiva. When these two aspects are bliss (ananda). Sath-Chith-ananda or sacchidananda.


Mind : The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

Manas are mind is the reflection of the Consciosuness-awareness, which arises with contact with matter. with matter the consciousness-awareness is expressed as thoughts or "vrithi". flow of vrithi or thoughts is mind.

intellect: The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding

Buddhi is the ability to discriminate the reality (Consciousness , awareness and mind).


According to the scientific lit human consciousness originates from brain, a mortal piece of matter, from your postings it looks like you have a different defn for consciousness,
It is like saying everyday sun arises from ocean and goes back to it. But the reality is not so. What we see is just an illusion, like the sun moving. The same way it is an illusion that consciousness arises in brain. But the reality is that brain is just a tool for the awareness to express itself. I have many times given the example of a mirror reflecting sun light. The sunlight is consciousness, the reflected light is awareness and the mirror is the brain or body. Any damage to the mirror results in the loss of reflection property but nothing happens to the sun.
Same way the body will die and there is a loss of the consciousness reflecting property, but nothing happens to consciousness.

summary:
So there is this wandering manas (mind) which is pulled to its source by the intellect (buddhi) transcending to awareness (chith), through which the consciousness (Sath ) realization leading to bliss (ananda).

The above is the path to consciousness realization.

Hope I have made clear. I am at your disposal to make clear of each terminology, if you wish for it.
[/tscii:680a792b9c]

[pradheep]

[tscii:3499839663]

Will a piece of chocolate ever reveal the taste if you never have had tasted it before? Will you ever see the god if you have never seen him before? Yes. A chocolate will taste when some one put into the mouth first time or to one who has eaten many times. When our own nature is God, what are we looking and seeking?



What did Einstein say? Everything is relative! The time runs faster when you are away from the Earth, it runs slower when you get deeper into it!
But the observer (witnessor) cannot be relative. Everything is relative in this world, that is correct, but there is one exception, the one who witnesses it. To say something is relative the person who says it should not be relative. Like if you want to say something is moving , you should be non-moving. If two are moving then you cannot see motion.
Sitting in a car you “feel” a standing tree or a standing man is moving. Because you are non-moving in the car (respective to it). Similarly the person who is in the road, sees you moving because he is also non-moving.
While a aircraft moves in a run way ready to take off , you feel the speed of the aircraft because of the relative objects outside. But the same aircraft looks stand still hanging in air when you look out to the clear blue sky.


He was sitting on the lotus flower and casting for fish! By the way, where was Brahma sitting while he created the lotus flower? Don't tell me that he sat on another lotus flower!
You missed the whole point. Brahma and lotus was the creation of Brahman. From Brahman (consciousness) comes the lotus and brahma and this brahma creates everything.


You don't mean Jesus Christ, The King of Jews and the Son of God?Jesus is same as Krishna, Buddha, KOH, pradheep, mahadevan, bush, osama bin laddin etc, are all just the expression of one Consciousness. You can relatively speak that some of these people are enlightened or avathars and others are not. In reality, that is only at the relative time scale only.
[/tscii:3499839663]

[karuvaadu]

[tscii:054fb86e27]

Will a piece of chocolate ever reveal the taste if you never have had tasted it before? Will you ever see the god if you have never seen him before? Yes. A chocolate will taste when some one put into the mouth first time or to one who has eaten many times. When our own nature is God, what are we looking and seeking?
You are joking, don't you?
I clearly asked you: If you have never tasted a chocolate before do you know the tatse of it?
And you answer: Yes. A chocolate will taste when some one put into the mouth first time
What are you trying to be?




What did Einstein say? Everything is relative! The time runs faster when you are away from the Earth, it runs slower when you get deeper into it!
But the observer (witnessor) cannot be relative. Everything is relative in this world, that is correct, but there is one exception, the one who witnesses it. To say something is relative the person who says it should not be relative. Like if you want to say something is moving , you should be non-moving. If two are moving then you cannot see motion.
Sitting in a car you “feel” a standing tree or a standing man is moving. Because you are non-moving in the car (respective to it). Similarly the person who is in the road, sees you moving because he is also non-moving.
While a aircraft moves in a run way ready to take off , you feel the speed of the aircraft because of the relative objects outside. But the same aircraft looks stand still hanging in air when you look out to the clear blue sky.
Again not all correct! Assume you are in an elevator and you push the button! Then you'll get the right answers! The house with the elevator is moving. The elevator is moving. And Pradheep inside the elevator is moving. Do you know why?



He was sitting on the lotus flower and casting for fish! By the way, where was Brahma sitting while he created the lotus flower? Don't tell me that he sat on another lotus flower!
You missed the whole point. Brahma and lotus was the creation of Brahman. From Brahman (consciousness) comes the lotus and brahma and this brahma creates everything.
Aha :idea: Brahman created only the lotus flower and brahma, right? And thereafter brahma took seat on the flower and created every otther thing, right? This means Brahman created two things. They are: First the Lotus Flower and then brahma (the otherway does not go because brahma needs this lotus flower to sit. This is like you have to have atleast a chair before you ask be to take seat, isn't it?)
Where did Brahman keep this Lotus Flower? In a vase, in a pond, in a bucket or in his pocket? If brahma created all other things than the Brahman and the Lotus Flower then brama also created all the clothes? Were they all naked? Brahman must have been naked as he only created Lotus Flower and brahma. Brahma must have been naked and Brahman too. And you also said a Lous flower is open when the sun shines. If the lotus flower is not open then she is closed and brahma can not sit on her. Was the sun shining at that time? If your answer is yes then who created the sun? Where is brahma sitting during the night when the lotus flower is closed? I mean most the people are created at night, at least the intial exchange of bodily fluids. I am serious and not joking, please answer!




You don't mean Jesus Christ, The King of Jews and the Son of God?Jesus is same as Krishna, Buddha, KOH, pradheep, mahadevan, bush, osama bin laddin etc, are all just the expression of one Consciousness. You can relatively speak that some of these people are enlightened or avathars and others are not. In reality, that is only at the relative time scale only.
I not only don't agree with you, I deny what you say! You can lift me up to the level of Jesus and Buddha and with respect to Mahadevan but to put all the others including you , I beg your pardon, at my foot step is simply exaggerated. :lol: (Take it easy, i'm kidding here - I for sure know that I am my personal Jesus)[/tscii:054fb86e27]

[pradheep]

I am serious and not joking, please answer!

Like many others you literally take symbolism. Brahma, Vishnu mahesh with their consorts and all the gods and demons are symbolic representation of awareness, consciousness intellect and mind, ego, positive and negative thoughts.

If possible read ....

http://sakthifoundation.org/puranas.htm
[/quote]

[pradheep]

According to the scientific lit human consciousness originates from brain, a mortal piece of matter, from your postings it looks like you have a different defn for consciousness,

Dear mahadevan
I explained the above with sun light reflection by a mirror, but to make it crisp and clear.......sunlight is every where , but through a mirror it is reflected. saying consciousness arises from brain is like saying sunlight arises from mirror. But without the brain consciousness cannot be reflected , like without a mirror light cannot be reflected. each brain is different , like different mirrors reflecting the same light of sun in different intensities. Hope this may make you more clear.

[karuvaadu]

Sunlight is a composition of waves. What is consciousness? How can you compare sunlight with consciousness?

[shambhavi]

but if u likened consciousness to sunlight then the requirement of a mirror to reflect it would indicate that it is dependant on something and therefore cannot be that supreme consciousness that is independant of everything, i believe trying to compare consciousness to anything limits it and that which is limited is not supreme

[mahadevan]

[tscii:59c9c8852f]
Consciousness in Vedanta is “Sath”, which means not any think that you can think of. It is the very source behind the thinking. Like the example of the sun in all activites. Sun has nothing to do with evaporation from seas, forming clouds and rainfall. However without the sun , there will not be these activities. Same with Consciousness. It is a not a brain phenomenon. In brain it is the conditional consciousness which is called as awareness. (In puranic term this is Brahman (not Brahma).

It looks like what we call scientifically as consciousness is called in vedanta as ego, all are afterall human definitions of observed so it does not matter. But Pradheep you are saying that Consciousness is not something that we can think of, it is beyond our thinking capabilities because it is the very source of it. In that case should we not call that as unknown.


To say something is relative the person who says it should not be relative. Like if you want to say something is moving , you should be non-moving. If two are moving then you cannot see motion.

Absolutley wrong it is with relation to be observer, to say whether something is moving or not all the observer needs to know is whether he is moving or not if so at what velocity again this is in turn with respect to some other body, Awareness. It is the simple school level physics of relative velocity


In Vedanta , the unconditional Consciousness (Sath) , when reflected in matter, is awareness (chith). This is Shiva. When these two aspects are bliss (ananda). Sath-Chith-ananda or sacchidananda.

are you saying that conciousness creates matter and reflects on matter, and these reflections create an illusion that is inturn perceived/misunderstood by the conciousness ? if so the confusion is just with the conciousness/paramathma and not on the matter which in itself is non existant but for conciousness.


Manas are mind is the reflection of the Consciosuness-awareness, which arises with contact with matter. with matter the consciousness-awareness is expressed as thoughts or "vrithi". flow of vrithi or thoughts is mind.
With matter ?, how did the matter come here more like a seperate entity ? expressed as ... to who ? to itself ?


Buddhi is the ability to discriminate the reality (Consciousness , awareness and mind).
This is the best digression, how come buddhi which is nothing but the manifestation of Consciousness can discriminate itself ? you clearly said earlier that Consciousness is not any think that you can think of. So is Buddhi different from the conciousness ?



I explained the above with sun light reflection by a mirror, but to make it crisp and clear.......sunlight is every where , but through a mirror it is reflected. saying consciousness arises from brain is like saying sunlight arises from mirror. But without the brain consciousness cannot be reflected , like without a mirror light cannot be reflected. each brain is different , like different mirrors reflecting the same light of sun in different intensities. Hope this may make you more clear.

Though this analogy is appealing it supports dwaitham rather than advaitham, sun and the mirror are 2 distinct entities and not one. More in tune with the creator and the creator, observed and the observers, in this analogy Sun is the observed and the mirror is the observer and you and me are the witnessors(another entity, observers of the observed being observed by the observer). Mirror is just one may of observing the presence of sun there are many more and sun is not the only thing being observed there are many more.


I clearly asked you: If you have never tasted a chocolate before do you know the tatse of it?
And you answer: Yes. A chocolate will taste when some one put into the mouth first time What are you trying to be?

Hi Mr Karuvadu, when you put the choclate in your mouth for the fisrt time and you are told that it is karuvadu, then that taste would be registered in you as the taste of karuvadu, then what is the taste of real choclate here ? It is all just semantics. This aspect of uncertainities in our perception is streched beyond a limit to say that everthing is one and same, if you cannot really discern just call it the same. The PARAMATHMAN of our buddy Pradheep[/tscii:59c9c8852f]

[karuvaadu]

Hi Mr Karuvadu, [b]when you put the choclate in your mouth for the fisrt time and you are told that it is karuvadu, then that taste would be registered in you as the taste of karuvadu, then what is the taste of real choclate here ?[7b] It is all just semantics. This aspect of uncertainities in our perception is streched beyond a limit to say that everthing is one and same, if you cannot really discern just call it the same. The PARAMATHMAN of our buddy Pradheep
:thumbsup: :rotfl:

I only wonder if our Pradheep knows the taste of a karuvaadu! Isn't he a vegitarian? chutta karuvaadu, poricha karuvaadu, karuvaadu cothi, kuzambu,.... hmmm lovely!

Pradheep, karuvaadu looks like a piece of pale chocholate but tastes a million times better! When you have the opportunity please try a piece of karuvaadu but don't smell it. :lol:

[pradheep]

My Dear karuvadu
I am now a vegetarian (after comming to usa). While I was in India, my favorites were karuvadu kuzambu, chutta crab, prawn-pickels and chicken-fry. Now I enjoy eating organic figs, organic mejdool dates, organic parsimon etc. These flesh foods never attracts me. Its all the game of the mind.

Mahadevan I will get back to you soon.

[pradheep]

In that case should we not call that as unknown.

Unknown for the mind......but our real nature is not the mind and the body.


are you saying that conciousness creates matter and reflects on matter, and these reflections create an illusion that is inturn perceived/misunderstood by the conciousness ? if so the confusion is just with the conciousness/paramathma and not on the matter which in itself is non existant but for conciousness.

This is the fun here. The Consciousness does not create anything. The mind projects the consciousness as matter. To give a simple example, on a movie screen in reality there is no movements. Individual Frames are projected on the screen at aconstant speed. Because of the nature of the eye and brain , the time taken for the eye to process the images does not synchronize with the frames in the screen, it looks as though there is some one running and dancing.

The same with consciousness and the mind. The nature of the mind operates through the senses and so takes the consciousness as matter. There is only "Consciousness". The perception of "Matter" comes because of the mis-identification. This is maya.


So is Buddhi different from the conciousness ?


when we deal with the aspect of mind, then we bring all these differences, the enquiring mind, buddhi, awareness , ego etc. A simple example is your own dream in which you were chasd by a tiger and fell from bed. Then you analyze was it real or a dream. Here it is the same mind that dreamt, it is the same mind that got scared, it is the same mind that woke up, it is the same mind that asked the question was it a dream or real, it is the same mind that inquired and came to a conclusion. It is all mind, but for sake of explaning you divide the various aspects of mind.


Though this analogy is appealing it supports dwaitham rather than advaitham

Then take the example of the dream, were the creator, creation and created were one and the same.


that everthing is one and same, if you cannot really discern just call it the same.

To call everything as same is escapism. Vedanta is not escapism or "mood making" or make theories and fool your mind. My dear friend this is the notion of 99.9999999999% about vedanta.

One cannot understand this unless one purifies the mind and declutch from its own trap. This is not a theology....it is a practical effort and understanding.

[karuvaadu]

My Dear karuvadu
I am now a vegetarian (after comming to usa). While I was in India, my favorites were karuvadu kuzambu, chutta crab, prawn-pickels and chicken-fry. Now I enjoy eating organic figs, organic mejdool dates, organic parsimon etc. These flesh foods never attracts me. Its all the game of the mind.


It is good that you prefer being a vegitarian. There is something called wild rice, but it is not rice. And there is organic wild rice from Canada. It growing on its own not cultivated (organic) and harvested only.

Is it the animal farming that made you to turn vegitarian?

[pradheep]

Dear karuvadu
Type of food that we eat is very important for mind purification in the initial stages. I tried to control my mind to avoid non-veg but failed many times. But one day in a very brief moment I had my "transcendence" and from that day, the urge naturally went away. I then did not have to struggle to control my mind...There is no need for control....just being in the awareness state helps....... In Past eight years I never took non-veg.

I am also concerned about the cruelty towards animals. But that is an external reason. But the real reason was to get over the control of mind....free myself...to know my real self.

[karuvaadu]

It is good that you find your wayatlast. But looking at me I eat that I want to at the moment. I also eat once a day only but when my little "I" says "karuvaadu" today you need three portions then I give him that. I eat less and everything but slow and not in haste. I am hot tempered according to others. From my point of view they can't withstand my arguments :lol: My brother hates vegitables and eat more flesh; more flesh than rice but he is very calm and can control himself. I am the dog that barks and bites and he won't bark at all but bites now and then.

It only matters whether you accept yourself as you are or don't. I know that others can't hurt me as I could to them, so I am not scared. This only shows that there is a huge diversity how to see things and how they are seen. It is because the people are all different. It does not depend only on food.

[mahadevan]

Foods relation to one psyche is extended to an ludicrouos extent. Our forefather who composed the vedas were all beef eaters, does that mean their work product is inferior or reflects their lack of mind control ?
Most of what we have in science and technology are the work of meat eaters.
Nutrition content wise a good meal (easy to make) should comprise both veggies and meat. (though there are enough veggies products that can match the protein/iron of meat, it is time consuming ro prepare for many)

Infact Swami Vivekananda advocated meat eating.

Vegetarianism is a personal belief and personal choice like religion.
Having said that, I am a veggie and I am it because I belive that animals have a right to live and just because we have one more sense(6th) we cannot play god to them, I know it hurts the animal so I would not be a reason for it. That is just my PERSONAL belief. Other have their right to have one and it is civilized nature to accept that. :-)

[Idiappam]

I am also concerned about the cruelty towards animals.

Do you know that the chicken would have gone extinct if man did not eat it.. It is a defenceless bird. Only man breeds it and eats it! The chicken exists now because of man's 'cruelty'!


But that is an external reason. But the real reason was to get over the control of mind.

There is an animal in you?

[pradheep]

It does not depend only on food.
Dear Karu
Yes. But the calminess you are talking about about personality calmness. But I am talking about calming the wave thoughts. if you try to watch your mind you would find that not a single moment it stays quiet. Like waves in ocean it keeps comming on and on. To reduce this thought waves type of food you eat helps a lot. Anyway this is not the subject matter here.


I know it hurts the animal so I would not be a reason for it.
Dear Mahavedan, that compassion we have is our own basic nature , that stems from "one-ness'. If not why do we bother about other humans animals hurt feelings?.

Any way , we have gone off the track. let us be back to our discussion.


Dear Iddiappam

It is a defenceless bird.!
good excuse....then we should eat all defenless birds, animals and so we can save them. what a great idea idiappam.


There is an animal in you?
Of course i was once an microbe, evolved to mammals and man, then human and finally to Self realized being.

[karuvaadu]

There is an animal in you?
Of course i was once an microbe, evolved to mammals and man, then human and finally to Self realized being.

No, bird? How did you come to US? :roll: By swimming? But you did not mention that you had been a fish too.

You say evolved to mammals and man, then human!

I don't get you, Pradeep. Isn't a man a mammal? Is not a human a mammal? What is the difference between man and human? I mean except the h and u in human :lol:

[pradheep]

Dear karuvadu
please read this link
http://sakthifoundation.org/powerintellect.htm

[Shakthiprabha.]

pradeep,

do u think, a person can understand the nature of consciousness by just reading books?

Should he sit and meditate upon it?

Enlighten me, what u think is NATURE OF consciousness?

will u agree, that

GOD = SPACE (comprising of all within)
GOD = CONSCIOUSNESS (comprising of various forms)

and nothing beyond it ?

[Shakthiprabha.]

also,

http://sakthifoundation.org/error.htm

uve partitioned it as external and internal stage. (u claim AWARENESS is present in pure consciousness state)

When we go to meditation level, (the state we are in are scientifically I read is divided as alpha state, beta state etc)

in medication level the 0-3 level of agitation or delta state is perceived. That is AKIN TO COMA state.

Can u say, WE WERE AWARE OF coma state (though consciousness prevail)

Are we not travelling to somethign which is NON-EXISTANT (not aware) as plain as COMA state?

[Lambretta]

Reg. consciousness, I believe there r 3 states-
Fully conscious
Unconscious
Sub-conscious, which I was told, is also known as SAMADHI??
When Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa went into deep meditation abt God, he was known to go into this state of Samadhi......he wud look conscious but in a sort of trance where he'd be unaware of wats was going on in the 'real' world around him......
So cud neone throw more light on this state of Sub-consciousness??
Also, wud Coma come under Sub-conscious state?? Wudn't it be more like a form of prolonged unconsciousness??

[Shakthiprabha.]

hmm. welcome lambretta.

Sit on the same bench with me. WE learn. :)

Also, THE STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS once a person leaves the body and attains (supreme birthless state) is akin to coma?

Cause at this stage,

neighther the SENSES OR SENSE ORGANS
nor..... mind and intellect WORK........ :?

[Lambretta]

hmm. welcome lambretta.

Sit on the same bench with me. WE learn. :)
:lol:


Also, THE STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS once a person leaves the body and attains (supreme birthless state) is akin to coma?
Cause at this stage, neighther the SENSES OR SENSE ORGANS
nor..... mind and intellect WORK........ :?
Um....no, in coma breathing of the person continues! :D

[Shakthiprabha.]

looks like there are no teachers lambretta. :(

[Lambretta]

looks like there are no teachers lambretta. :(
Aaah yes.....quite disappointing indeed! :(
was expecting sum of our well-versed friends here to reply......!

[pradheep]

dear friends
i will get back to you soon.

[Shakthiprabha.]

yes pradeep.

We were waiting for u :)

please get back soon. thanks :)

[Shakthiprabha.]

Pradeep, rohit, others

Some Interesting links. (P.S : rohit does not seem to come often to disagree int his thread anymore!!) :(......


http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050808_human_consciousness.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4271018.stm

[pradheep]

Dear Shakthiprabha
I am back. where shall we begin, with Old questions or with new questions?

[Shakthiprabha.]

I AM sooooooo happy pradeep :) :) words cant say how happy i am :)

welcome back.

plz begin with any question. I would pick up and ask questions from there. Hope u wont get bugged of me, if i keep repeating questions or ask silly questions.

SO...... JUST CHOSE some question and start.

[pradheep]

Dear SP
I wont be bugged to answer. should we discuss on consciousness or about "I"?

[Shakthiprabha.]

Consciousness.

What is consciousness?
How is it different from awareness?
Are those both same?
What is the STATE of consciousness AT ULTIMATE LEVEL, WITHTOUT INDRIYAS?
is consciousness brahman?
is consciousness god?
is consciousness 'i'?

[pradheep]

What is consciousness?

It is undefinable because it is the real nature of every one of us. It is foundation of all living and non living objects.


How is it different from awareness?
Awareness is the conditioned consciousness which comes into action when the different regions of the brain interacts with the sensory signals it receives through the nervous system that is connected to the other organs of the body. However, without the Unconditioned Pure Consciousness, the whole body cannot exist because it is the source of the awareness (conditioned consciousness). And yet, this Unconditioned Consciousness is not in the brain or any particular location in the universe. It is every where and there is no region where it is not present. Both the individuals who accepts it and denies it are in-fact the very manifestation of that un-conditioned consciousness.

Are those both same?

Yes and No, based on how you view it.

What is the STATE of consciousness AT ULTIMATE LEVEL, WITHTOUT INDRIYAS?
Consciousness undergoes no change of state.



is consciousness brahman?

The Unconditioned Consciousness is known as "Brahman" in Sanskrit.


is consciousness god?
The layman, religious name of |Consciosuness is GOD.


is consciousness 'i'?
The "I" thinks it is the source of everything, but it is only a reflection of the Consciousness.

Read more in http://sakthifoundation.org/river-2.htm

[Shakthiprabha.]

What is consciousness?

It is undefinable because it is the real nature of every one of us. It is foundation of all living and non living objects.

Can I say its like CELL PRESENT IN EVERYTHING.
So consciousness is there in NONLIVING THINGS TOO. Right.
I always thought so too. :roll:

'Just that NONLIVING THINGS is not aware of the consiousness.'

When I say this am i right?



How is it different from awareness?
Awareness is the conditioned consciousness which comes into action when the different regions of the brain interacts with the sensory signals it receives through the nervous system that is connected to the other organs of the body. However, without the Unconditioned Pure Consciousness, the whole body cannot exist because it is the source of the awareness (conditioned consciousness). And yet, this Unconditioned Consciousness is not in the brain or any particular location in the universe. It is every where and there is no region where it is not present. Both the individuals who accepts it and denies it are in-fact the very manifestation of that un-conditioned consciousness.

hmm.... so, a dead man's consciousness is LIKE A DEAD THING, with just conditioned consiousness and WITHOUT AWARENESS AS their is no sensory signals?!!



Are those both same?

Yes and No, based on how you view it.

No, I FEEL Consciousness without awareness is INERTIA.

WRONG? OR RIGHT? :?



What is the STATE of consciousness AT ULTIMATE LEVEL, WITHTOUT INDRIYAS?
Consciousness undergoes no change of state.

HMM.. so only awreness undergoes the change. AT THAT STATE
THERE IS NO AWARENESS AT ALL!!!!!! Just like non-living things???




is consciousness brahman?

The Unconditioned Consciousness is known as "Brahman" in Sanskrit.

okei.



is consciousness god?
The layman, religious name of |Consciosuness is GOD.

RIGHT. I agree.



is consciousness 'i'?
The "I" thinks it is the source of everything, but it is only a reflection of the Consciousness.

'I' = consciousness + awareness

Brahman = consciousness - awareness

:? I still feel something is wrong here.



Read more in [url]http://sakthifoundation.org/river-2.htm

i shall try to reawd and get back.

Sorry pradeep, I FEEL SO DUMB, I MIGHT BE THE MOST dumb student u ever come accoss :oops:

plz bear with me.

[Shakthiprabha.]

A hubbers view on

'Consciousness and death' thread in MISCELLANEOUS SECTION.

ANY COMMENTS ?
*****

Consciousness, Self, Mind all these have been so mystic because of lack of human understanding of his own brain.

Now Neurologists are increasingly attributing consciousness and self to neuron activity within Brain. It is widely accepted now in the scientific community that Mind and Identity is only the result of a enormous collection of neuron activities within some specific parts of the Brain.

Well research is still on; science is increasingly questioning even the basics of various believes including "free will".

[pradheep]

I FEEL SO DUMB, I MIGHT BE THE MOST dumb student u ever come across
Dear SP
I myself was once like you a dumb student, we are merely at different milestones in the road of evolution. so dont feel bad. |Just keep going with this enquiring mind.


Now Neurologists are increasingly attributing consciousness and self to neuron activity within Brain.

Neurologists are "Re-searching" whatever that has been understood.

If everything is destined by the neuronal activity, where is the question of free will?. Can you understnad this serious flaw?. It looks like neorologists favor strongly on destiny and attribute no free will.


'Just that NONLIVING THINGS is not aware of the consiousness.'
There is no medium for awareness. I have given earlier example of a polished stone reflecting sun light. Other stones does notreflect merely because their surfaceisnot polished. same way living and non-living have consciousnes but they cannot express because they dont have themedioum to express it.


No, I FEEL Consciousness without awareness is INERTIA.

what do you mean by inertia.?.

THERE IS NO AWARENESS AT ALL!!!!!! Just like non-living things???
|Here you have to understand one thing. Awareness is a limited feeling, because of the body connection. Consciousness is unconditioned, unlimited. So in that state one is unconditioned and unlimited. There is a subtle difference here. It is not being "dead". This has to be self experienced.


'I' = consciousness + awareness

This is not completely correct. The "I" has always a limited feeling. It always fears end and begining (birth and death). Consciousness isnot bound by death and birth.

This is why your equation is not correct.
The "I" is the hinderance for realizing the Consciousness and that is why we are all here being born and dead.

All rituals and practices are meant only to get rid of this "I". In fact the very purpose of life is also for that.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Ill get back.

I am thinking and re thinking. gimme 2 days time. :(

[anbu_kathir]

Hi ...
I am a new member here, interested in philosophy.

I think you got a great discussion running here, 3 cheers.... Thou Art That !


Love to all.

[happyindian]

A huge THANKYOU to you and your entire team for the wonderful work.

[Shakthiprabha.]

:roll:

[pradheep]

Dear Happyindian
Water therpay removes toxins and to certain extent prevent hariloss and greying.But youhave de-stress yourself and also take balanced food. For immediate relief I suggest o use palmanthaka thailam from kottakkal arya vaidyasala. When i suggested to some friends they say itworks good.

Since 6-7 years, there has been no time for yoga or meditation.

It is ironical when many people gives this above statment. I aks them to inquire, if you cant have time for you, then whom are you spending time for?. Ifyou find an answerfor this you will find time too.

How can I help myself in a practical way

Themost practical person was krishna who taught gita. Please read sakthi Gita in sakthifoundation web page and will help you a lot.
Many of our problem is represented by Arjuna,who did not want to get back his kingdom but didnot want to kill his relatives.

Krishna had to make him understand through gita. In a nutshell, we keep our emotional mind in front in actions and the intellectual mind at the back. Krishna says the emotional mind should be held by the intellectual mind.

If you understand this and practice in dailylife you will get immense benefits, including understanding this "I" of this thread.

Through out Sakthifoundation web pageyou would see that this is the path way (mind drawn in by intellect to the awareness state) thatis explained not only for healing diseases but also for the Self relaization. There is no other way. This is the only way which all great mahatmas in the world have attained, which our vedic wisdom and sanatana dharma has been advocating for centuries.