In search of 'TRUTH'

[Shakthiprabha.]

Lets discuss about WHAT WE UNDERSTAND in the process of this journey towards truth.

THIS THREAD IS BEYOND religion and kindly lets refrain from religius talks, UNLESS to quote relevant thigns froM ANY RELIGION.

[Shakthiprabha.]

nant:pragna n bahishpragna nomyat:pragna n pragnandhanan n pragna napragnam |
adrushtam-vyavharyam-grahyam-lakshanyam-chintyam-vyapdeshyam-ekatmpratya-yasarn- praptrochopashamn shant-shivmdait chaturth manayante sa atma sa vigneya: || 7 ||

- Mandukya Upanishad.

So whats ur understanding!?

[Badri]

Nantah-prajnam = Not inward turned consciousness
na bahih prajnam = Not outward focussed consciousness
no'bhayatah- prajnam = Not a combination of the two
na prajnanaghanam = not the dark mass of consciousness or ignorance
na prajnam = not knowing
na-aprajnam = not not-knowing
adrishtam = unseen
avyavaharayam = indescribable
agrahyam = ungraspable or intangible
alakshanam = devoid of attributes
acintyam = unthinkable
avyapadesyam = indefinable
ekatmapratyayasaram = of the nature of its own essence
prapancopasarnam = the sublimation of Prapancha or the world
santam = peaceful
sivam = auspicous
advaitam = non-dual one
caturtham manyante = this fourth state
sa atma sa vijneyah = is the Atma to be known

[Badri]

The Mandukya is a very significant Upanishad that reveals the truth about practical Advaita.

The Mandukya Karika written by Gaudapada the Mahaguru of Adi Sankara is considered to be a beautiful exposition and commentary on the essence of the Upanishad.

Seekers of the Truth in the Advaitic tradition always hold this Upanishad in the highest regard.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Badri, :clap: looks like u are well versed with sanskrit, and hence can stand to clarify any doubts if arising.
_________-

na (न) - No/Not
antah (अन्तः) - Inside/Inner/Internal
pragyam (प्रज्ञम्) - Knowable/Acquaintable/Knowing
bahis (बहिस्) - Outside/Outward/Outer/Excluded/External
ubhayatah (उभयतः) - On both side/In both cases
pragyaan (प्रज्ञान) - Cognisance/Knowing
ghanam/ghana (घनम्/घन) - Dense/Dark/Solid/Hard
apragyam (अप्रज्ञम्) - a (अ) + pragyam (प्रज्ञम्) - Non-knowable/Non-knowing - Unknowable
adrishhtam (अदृष्टम्) - a (अ) + drishhtam (दृष्टम्) - Non-seeable/Non-viewable - Invisible
avyavahaaryam (अव्यवहार्यम्) - a (अ) + vyavahaaryam (व्यवहार्यम्) - Non-actionable/Non-interact-able.
agraahyam (अग्राह्यम्) - a (अ) + graahyam (ग्राह्यम्) - Non-grasp-able/Non-comprehensible - Imperceptible/Incomprehensible
alakshanam (अलक्षणम्) - a (अ) + lakshanam (लक्षणम्) - Non-characteristic - Not having any characteristics.
achintyam (अचिन्त्यम्) - a (अ) + chintyam (चिन्त्यम्) - Non-reflection-able/Non-thinkable - Inconceivable
avyapadeshyam (अव्यपदेश्यम्) - a (अ) + vyapadeshyam (व्यपदेश्यम्) - Non-mentionable
ekaatma (एकात्म) - eka (एक) + aatma (आत्म) - Single self
pratyaya (प्रत्यय) - Conception/Conviction/Notion/Idea
saaram (सारम्) - Substance/Quintessence
pra (प्र) - To/"used as prefix"
pancha (पञ्च) - Five
upashamam (उपशमम्) - Cessation/Abatement/Extinction/Calmness
shaantam (शान्तम्) - Peaceful
shivam (शिवम्) - Auspicious/Kind/Friendly/Gracious/Happy
advaitam (अद्वैतम्) - a (अ) + dvaitam (द्वैतम्) - Non-dual
chaturtham (चतुर्थम्) - Fourth
manyante (मन्यन्ते) - Deem/View as
sah (सः) - He
aatmaa (आत्मा) - Self/Soul/Spirit
vigyeyah (विज्ञेयः) - To be known


__

This is something I got from a website.

Shivam - explanation is given as auspicious(as said by u too), kind, gracious etc.

I have a doubt if Shiva also means STATIC?

Also,

pra (प्र) - To/"used as prefix"
pancha (पञ्च) - Five
upashamam (उपशमम्) - Cessation/Abatement/Extinction/Calmness

states CESSATION of prapancha. Since prapancha is nothing but pancha bootha in its various proportions, its nothing but CESSATION of external world :?

cessation here DOES NOT MEAN NON-EXISTING. but rightly may be comprehended as exalted in state ? :?

But then THIS TURYAM IS NOT A STATE at all!
its transcends all states too :? Its JUST BEING.

As rightly the verse says...

TRUTH cannot be KNOWN... but it is not that
IT IS NOT-KNOWN too.

It is something which KNOWN yet NOT-KNOWN (not-known is not UNKNOWN here! )

:sigh2:

[Badri]

Shivam is auspiciousness. I havent come across the other meaning of static.

Upashamam maybe rightly translated as being withdrawn into, where the notion or the idea of the world merges back into the Being from which it emerged.

The knowing-not knowing has a deeper significance. Knowing implies someone to know. Then once again we end up with the triad of knower-known-knowledge.

Not knowing implies once again a triad of knower-known-ignorance. Truth being one, therefore it cannot be subject to the Triputis or the triads.

[Rohit]

nantah-prajnam = Not inward turned consciousness (Inward of what and whose consciousness? Who says this and to whom?)

na bahis prajnam = Not outward focused consciousness (Outward of what and whose consciousness? Who says this and to whom?)

no'bhayatah-prajnam = Not a combination of the two (Combination of which two-dualism? Where and/or how are the two located and/or organised? Who says this and to whom?)

na prajnanaghanam = not a dark mass of consciousness (What is meant by dark and mass here? Where does ignorance reside? And who says this to whom?

Note: ghanam = volume or mass; therefore, na prajnanaghanam = not a volume or mass of consciousness

na prajnam = not knowing (About what is not knowing and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

na-aprajnam = not unknowing (About what is not unknowing and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

adrishtam = unseen (What is unseen and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

avyavaharayam = not describable (What is not describable and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

Note: avyavaharayam = beyond empirical dealings, not related to any worldly dealings.

agrahyam = beyond grasp or intangible (What is beyond grasp and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

alakshanam = devoid of attributes (Well, what are we all doing here anyway?)

acintyam = unthinkable (What is unthinkable and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

avyapadesyam = inexpressible (What is inexpressible and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

ekatmapratyayasaram = of the nature of its own essence (What is 'its'? Who says this and to whom?)

prapancopasarnam = Negation of all phenomena (Is it really so? I don't think so)

santam = peaceful (Is it really so? I don't think so)

sivam = auspicous (Is it really so? I don't think so)

advaitam = non-dual (Well, who is debating here and with whom? Who is contradicting whom and on what?

caturtham manyante = this fourth state (What is this fourth? What does it relate to? Who says this and to whom?)

sa atma sa vijneyah = is the Atma to be known (Who says this and to whom?)

Since Atma is already assumed, the fallacy of false dichotomy is already committed; and the whole definition becomes the fallacy of 'begging the question' or the fallacy of 'circular reference'.

I have spent enough time on this, please refer to my posts in the following threads and read what I have said and proved.

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=6821&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=4467&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=4467&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=147&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=450

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=369&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=465

Therefore, I do not think discussing this topic once more is going to bring anything new and serve any purpose.

However, the rest of you may continue. I may pay occasional visits when I have something to say.

Enjoy the discussion.

:D :) :thumbsup:

[pradheep]

here is a nice article on Einstein telling that he is not an atheist. His beautiful quaote is

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-2,00.html

[Rohit]

[tscii:106f602594]Spinoza's God was refuted by the Big Bang

First of all, Einstein’s religious beliefs had kept changing over time. From the beginning, Einstein believed in a static universe that operated under deterministic laws of physics; and therefore he rejected the belief in a Creator God. But he was impressed with Spinoza’s concept of God as described in the article, which allowed him to continue his religious beliefs as well as a determinist.

Later, Einstein applied his own field equations of general theory of relativity with the insertion of a cosmological constant to develop a static model of the universe. But Hubble’s observational evidences of redshifts of cosmic structures falsified Einstein’s belief of a static universe and proved that the universe was not static but it was expanding.

Einstein’s own field equations of general theory of relativity were used to develop the Big Bang model of an expanding universe, which remains valid for our universe.

Einstein later realised his mistake and admitted that he committed the biggest blunder of his life by introducing the cosmological constant in his field equations.

Also, the ever-mounting success of quantum theory issued even a bigger and fatal blow to Einstein’s deterministic beliefs.

With all these mounting evidences, Einstein had no choice but to admit to the beginning of the universe, which also refuted his belief in the Spinoza’s God.

Thus, with all these changes and new developments in theoretical and experimental physics, Einstein’s religious beliefs also kept changing over time.

Finally, Einstein settled his religious feelings in Buddhism; and that is how he remained for the rest of his life.

The entire collection of Einstein’s quotes in circulation, clearly shows how his religious beliefs gradually changed and drifted over the time.

There are numerous books and articles that give clear account of how new developments in physical science changed Einstein.

The following two references are just exemplary two references from the set of many, which clearly describes Einstein’s struggle in coming to terms with his beliefs.

1. "A Brief History of Time" - By Stephen Hawking

2. "The Universe Unfolding" - Edited by Hermann Bondi and Miranda Weston-Smith
:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:106f602594]

[nemesis786]

[tscii:8da34faf43]
Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory
Sean at 6:21 pm, February 4th, 2006

You’ve heard, I hope, about NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who the Bush administration tried to silence when he called for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Cosmology, as it turns out, is not exempt from the radical anti-science agenda. The New York Times, via Atrios:

In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.

…

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the “war room” of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen’s public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

It continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.”

Emphasis added. Draw your own conclusions, I’m feeling a bit of outrage fatigue at the moment.

Update: Phil Plait has extensive comments at Bad Astronomy Blog. Also Pharyngula, Balloon Juice, Stranger Fruit, Gary Farber, Mark Kleiman, World O’ Crap, and Hullabaloo.

Update again, for our new visitors: Folks, of course the Big Bang model is a theory, and of course it is also correct. It has been tested beyond reasonable doubt: our current universe expanded from a hot, dense, smooth state about 14 billion years ago. The evidence is overwhelming, and we have hard data (from primordial nucleosynthesis) that the model was correct as early as one minute after the initial singularity.

Of course the initial singularity (the “Bang” itself) is not understood, and there are plenty of other loose ends. But the basic framework — expanding from an early hot, dense, smooth state — is beyond reasonable dispute.

It’s too bad that scientific education in this country is so poor that many people don’t understand what is meant by “theory” or “model.” It doesn’t mean “just someone’s opinion.” Theories can be completely speculative, absolutely well-established, or just plain wrong; the Big Bang model is absolutely well-established.


http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04/administration-official-big-bang-is-just-a-theory/[/tscii:8da34faf43]

[pradheep]

When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." ~ Albert Einstein

This was said almost before his death. If he lived some more years may be he would have written a commentary on it too. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Rohit]

From the same article:


He and his wife were at a dinner party in Berlin when a guest expressed a belief in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition.

Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.

"I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will.

His belief in causal determinism was incompatible with the concept of human free will.

Einstein, on the other hand, believed that a person's actions were just as determined as that of a billiard ball, planet or star. "Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions.

This determinism appalled some friends such as Max Born, who thought it completely undermined the foundations of human morality. "I cannot understand how you can combine an entirely mechanistic universe with the freedom of the ethical individual," he wrote Einstein. "To me a deterministic world is quite abhorrent.

For Born, quantum uncertainty provided an escape from this dilemma.

Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism

I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.

Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."

Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a God..."

Enjoy the paradox :lol: :lol: :lol:

But don't expect to find any clues in your horoscopes.

:D :) :thumbsup:

[Shakthiprabha.]

:|

I dont know if anybody can quote

U.G.Krishnamoorthy's phil here.

He for one, was an athiest (if thats the right term to refer him)

yet, WAS AN ENLIGHTENED AND REALISED soul :?

ANYbody has idea bout him or his quotes or articles or views?

[Shakthiprabha.]

Dear all,

Sometimes I weirdly feel,

ATHIESTS are closer to TERMINOLOGY CALLED TRUTH

How many of u agree? :? :?

[Hulkster]

That depends as well.

The most rational atheists are people who only believe in what happens in front of them and what might have caused them and analyse those causes...some prominent scientists are quite close to this sort of atheism...the rest are situationally induced atheists...meaning because of something they expected GOD to do or rectify he did not and their belief is gone since then...children born retarded...tsunami disaster can be considered some of these situations.


Some are just atheists by default as in they are moderate and not really into the theory that GOD does not exist....these people are more closer agnostic followers.

Followers of truth are not necessarily atheists...if GOD is part of a truth or the theory of a supreme being is proven...then atheism is ruled out..atheism is against the theology of GOD and what he might have done or possibly inspired in the human race...the followers of truth are soaked in identifying the facts that happen in the world without any influence of theories...its just analysing whats happening in this world and at the same time applying logical thinking :D

[pradheep]

Dear SK

Athiest deny a God that the theist beleive in.

Theist beleive in a God that is "personified" and confuse with the symbolic image and the intended "Truth" .

"Enlightened" are those who realizes "Truth".

I dont think UG is a atheist. Look at his beautiful quote

The search ends with the realization that there is no such thing as enlightenment. By searching, you want to be free from the self, but whatever you are doing to free yourself from the self is the self. How can I make you understand this simple thing? There is no 'how'. If I tell you that, it will only add more momentum to that.... --U.G.

http://www.well.com/

[Shakthiprabha.]

Pradeep,

I wanna read more of UG. I would get back on this soon :)

hulk,

No time for serious reading or disc now :( . Would get back later. :)

to all,
keep posting . thanks :)

Whether we agree with each other or not, discussing this is not waste of time.

Sometime, someway, for someone DAWN would happen. I am sure. :thumbsup:

[Rohit]

[tscii:d71fa55ff2]
By the age of twenty-one U.G. had become a quasi-atheist, studying secular western philosophy and psychology at the University of Madras.

Q: If what you are saying is true, then no one has any freedom of action; for everything one does has a cause, and all causes have a final cause.

U.G.: Aha! Why do you assume that everything must have a beginning, an ultimate cause? Cause-and-effect may be just a casual thing. Events may just occur, just happen. The whole process of evolution may be just another happening, a causeless event. Why must you insist that everything must have a creator, that the whole thing must have sprung from some ultimate cause?

Q: What is your concept of God? Very often you say that God alone can help.

UG: No, that's a manner of speaking. (Laughs) Man has to be saved from God -- that is very essential because ... I don't mean God in the sense in which you use the word "God"; I mean all that 'God' stands for, not only God, but all that is associated with that concept of God -- even karma, reincarnation, rebirth, life after death, the whole thing, the whole business of what you call the "great heritage of India" all that, you see. Man has to be saved from the heritage of India. Not only the people; the country has to be saved from that heritage. (Not by revolution, not the way they have done it in the communist countries -- that's not the way. I don't know why; you see, this is a very tricky subject.) Otherwise there is no hope for the individual and no hope for the country.

How can I ever forget what he (UG) said that day!

UG: The quest for God has become such an obsessive factor in the lives of human beings, because of the impossibility of achieving pleasure without pain. That messy thing called the mind has created many destructive things. By far the most destructive of them all is God. God has become the ultimate pleasure. The variations of God-- self-realization, moksha or liberation, fashionable transformation gimmicks, the first and the last freedom and all the freedoms that come in between--are the ones that are pushing man into a manic-depressive state. Somewhere along the line of evolution, man experienced self-consciousness for the first time in contradistinction to the way consciousness is functioning in other species. It was there, in that division of consciousness, that God, along with the nuclear doctrine that is threatening the extinction of all that nature has created with such tremendous care, was born.

UG: No power on this earth, no god, no avatar, can halt this. Man is doomed. He has no freedom of action. All we can do is to wait for the end of the world--even while we talk of ways to stop a nuclear holocaust. This may sound like Jeremiah or an apocalyptic warning of a prophet of doom.

U.G. was like a raging bull; his fury was stunning. It was strangely attractive.

Q: What is the Purpose of Life?

UG: First of all this question is born out of the assumption that we know something about life. We do know about the biochemistry, the physiology, and the anatomy of life.

However, scientists have not discovered any purpose for life. Life arose spontaneously from the primordial soup, and it took ten billion years to make us.

There is neither a direction nor a purpose for life. But what we are concerned is about living not life. Living is our relationship with our fellow beings, with the life around, for material benefits.

Q: 'Do you have any special attitude toward sexuality?' I asked.

U.G. answered: God and sex spring from the same source. God is the ultimate pleasure. God has to go first before sex goes. Why should sex go?

I felt scorched. Accidentally I had touched a live wire. Walked into a field of mines. His words jolted me out of the spiritual coma I had sunk into. I was desperate. I needed a `trip' badly. It was LSD, which had initiated me into the world of meditation. It had given me an entire generation of the 'flower children' a taste of the mystical. The desire to relive this chemically induced experience drew me into by-lanes of the spiritual bazaar.

That evening, as I dimmed the lights of my room and sat down to meditate, the after-image of U.G. loomed there in the darkness. His words resonated in my head. 'Meditation is warfare,' said U.G. as I was leaving his place. For the first time in two years, since my acquaintance with Rajneesh, I panicked and found that I could not meditate. I wandered out into the streets. The street dogs, which at first sight barked, soon knew that I was one of them. I stood by a fire with strangers. The night was cold. Flames rushed up in yellow sheets. Sparks glittered in our eyes. All the men around the fire were drunk. The fire held us and comforted us all. 'Are you Mahesh Bhatt,' asked one of them. 'Yes,' I answered.

‘Wear this, Mahesh. Everything will be fine. You are doing well.' His words comforted me. He told me things I wanted to hear. Unfortunately, this feeling of well-being did not last long. I had to go back again and again to the Ashram front office, begging for one more darshan with the Bhagwan. I was like a drug addict, desperately hunting for his next fix. Rajneesh had become my crutch.

My encounter with U.G. had left me traumatized. Deep within me a wound festered. You can run, but you cannot hide. You can lie to the whole world, but you cannot lie to yourself. I knew my days with Rajneesh were numbered. The walls of paradise had begun to crack. My Bhagwan was dying within me and there was nothing I could do.

It was inevitable, I said to myself as I watched the remains of my broken mala (given to me by Rajneesh) slowly disappear down the toilet. It felt so strange to be free of the dog collar, which had kept me on a leash for almost three years. I was tired of the life I had been leading. I was tired of the man I was. The years spent in the Rajneesh Ashram had not contributed in any way toward my self-improvement.

It's a breach of trust on your part. He says he works so hard on you. If you don't do that, he says he will destroy you, Mahesh.' He looked at me as if my days on this earth were numbered. There was a heavy silence in the make-up room. I had rebelled against ‘God'. His wrath was now directed at me.

I was angry. I remembered how Rajneesh had given discourses on unconditional love and had spoken at great length about how detestable it was for man to be so possessive. It was disgusting now to see him behave just like any jilted lover, unable to swallow a rejection. He was just a wordsmith peddling half-truths, high-sounding phrases and holy concepts. And that's what people wanted, not the blunt facts. At this time U.G.'s words came to my rescue: ‘A guru is one who tells you to throw away all crutches. He would ask you to walk and if you fall, he would say that you will rise and walk.' These words gave me unimaginable courage. ‘Who is afraid of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh? Get up,' I said to myself. ‘Get up on your own two feet, no matter how shaky they are, and walk.' Once I did that, there was no looking back.

The front office of the Rajneesh Ashram had warned the sannyasis against seeing U.G. After they met U.G., many of Rajneesh's very close devotees had quit the ashram. I remember in those days, Rajneesh gave four talks against U.G. calling him all sorts of names. ‘U.G., you have not said a word in response to the repeated attacks Rajneesh has been making on you of late. Why? I have also noticed that you don't say much against any particular guru,' I asked. His reply was unusual:

UG: Gurus play a social role; so do prostitutes. Unfortunately in society what the gurus are offering is not only socially acceptable but also considered the be-all and end-all of our existence. The others are not. You choose what suits you best....

His words freed me from the search for the solution to end my phobia. I am still scared of the dark but I am not scared that I am scared of the dark!

Sujit was speechless. At this point a politician waylaid U.G. and asked:

Q: 'If humanity is to be saved from the chaos of its own making, what role can India play in restoring peace to mankind? Can the heritage of India be of any value to mankind?'

U.G.'s answer was: 'India has neither the spiritual power nor the material strength to be of any help to mankind. Sorry.'

I asked:

Q: 'Is it possible to avert the catastrophe by somehow changing or improving human nature?'

What he said to me was something I had not asked for:

UG: Man is merely a biological being. There is no spiritual side to his nature. All your virtues, principles, beliefs, ideas and spiritual values imposed on you by your culture are mere affectations. They haven't touched anything in you. Religion exploited for centuries the devoutness, pious ness and whole souled fervour of the religious man. Not in `Love thy neighbour as thyself' but in the terror that if you try to kill your neighbour you will also be destroyed along with him, lies the future of mankind. How long is anyone's guess.

http://www.well.com/~jct/[/tscii:d71fa55ff2]

[SRS]

ATHIESTS are closer to TERMINOLOGY CALLED TRUTH

We know there is an atman in each of us. An atheist is simply one who is not in touch with this atman. Nevertheless, the atman is there at all times. So what does that say about an atheist...

"Devout men (Yogins) who are intent (thereon) see this (spirit) seated in themselves; but the senseless , whose minds are unformed , see it not. "

- Gita

I don't think being senseless and having an unformed mind qualifies one as being closer to the truth.

[Rohit]

Refutation of the permanence of the soul

This acute philosopher easily perceived the insufficiency of the common argument, which attempts to prove that the soul - if one grants that it is a simple being - cannot perish by dissolution; he saw it is not impossible for it to cease to be by disappearance. He endeavoured to prove in his phaedo, that the soul cannot be annihilated, by showing that a simple being cannot cease to exist. Inasmuch as, he said, a simple existence cannot diminish, nor gradually lose portions of its being, and thus be by degrees reduced to nothing (for it possesses no parts, and therefore no multiplicity), between the moment in which it is, and the moment in which it is not, no time can be discovered - which is impossible. But this simple nature, which contains no parts external to each other, and consequently no extensive quantity, we cannot refuse to it any less than any other being, intensive quantity, that is a degree of reality in regard to all its faculties, nay, to all that constitutes its existence.

But this degree of reality can become less and less through infinite series of smaller degrees. It follows; therefore, that this supposed soul, the permanence of which is not assured in any other way, may, if not by decomposition, then by gradual loss (remission) of its powers (consequently by elanguescence, if I may employ this expression), be changed into nothing.

- Immanuel Kant

[SRS]

Kant maintains that the soul and freedom do exist, but that their existence can be neither proved nor disproved. The standard fare of metaphysics is beyond the scope of human experience and is therefore beyond the bounds of knowledge. For proof and disproof apply only to what can be sensibly experienced, and we cannot see the soul. Yet it is presumptuous to assume, because we cannot see something, that it does not exist. According to Kant, there are things that cannot be known. In fact all things, as they are in themselves and not as we reconstruct them in experience, are unknowable. We can only know things as they appear to us and are constituted in our consciousness. In this way, Kant corrects the error of both dogmatic rational metaphysics (such as in Descartes) and dogmatic scientific determinism (such as Hobbes). Kant confines knowledge to appearances and places things as they really are outside of appearances. Science is not reality; it is simply the best interpretation of reality. Beyond this interpretation is the thing in itself, an inscrutable and unknowable mystery or "X" or "?".

http://www.fred.net/tzaka/kant1.html

[Rohit]

As there are things-in-themselves, there are things-for-themselves, but both tend to annihilate each other, for it is true that the things-in-themselves are contingent to human consciousness, which in turn, is contingent to conditions. Therefore, there is no possibility of escape from the regression.

[SRS]

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous"

- Albert Einstein

[Rohit]

But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

- Stephen Hawking

Energy (E) [E= mc^2, E = hf] can be neither created nor destroyed

- The law of conservation of energy

[SRS]

But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

- Stephen Hawking

Except that it did have a beginning, a.k.a a singular energy source. Unless the origin of this singular energy source can be proven, then there remains the possibility of a Creator.

[Rohit]

The above argument is evidently self-defeating, for it is produced by entirely disregarding the stated universal law of conservation of energy.

When energy (E) [E=mc^2, E=hf] can be neither created nor destroyed, there is no possibility of creation. What place, then, for a creator?

And the direct implication of this is:


But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

- Stephen Hawking

[SRS]

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.

- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html


By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever.

- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

[Rohit]

Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

[Rohit]

[tscii:45907fd59d]
Steinhardt and Turok’s model is motivated by string theory, an approach to unify relativity and quantum mechanics in which there are extra dimensions of space beyond the three we can see. In their model, our visible universe is a 3D sheet called a membrane, or brane, floating in our four-dimensional space. Another 3D brane, with possibly very different physics, hovers nearby. The branes collide so often, making our heat up to an astronomical 10^23 Kelvin and expand, with some energy eventually condensing into matter. From our point of view, confined to our brane, it would look like a big bang- even though the universe was already there.

- New Scientist - 23 April 2007[/tscii:45907fd59d]

[SRS]

After thoroughly quoting Stephen Hawking out of context, "Rohit" is now desperately hiding behind "Big Bang" arguments.

[Rohit]

Having all his ideas and beliefs annihilated, poor SRS, as usual, has eventually taken refuge under fallacies and again trapped himself in the VSCD. How sad! :lol:

The entire series of arguments so far has proved one thing absolutely clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt that all such arguments are mutually contradicting; and therefore, negate each other.

Nonetheless,

The Truth is:
Everything is conditioned.

The Ultimate Truth is:
Nothing is unconditioned.

:D :) :thumbsup:

[Shakthiprabha.]

The entire series of arguments so far has proved one thing absolutely clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt that all such arguments are mutually contradicting; and therefore, negate each other.

Rohit,

When arguments are mutually contradicting, then ALL THE MORE IT PROOVES, that negating and accepting is ALL ONE AND THE SAME.

Infact that is TRUTH, that which negates, and also accepts, that which seems mutually contradicting, aint not?

It does not mean one is confused, it may be because, ONE HAS UNDERSTOOD that the nature of singleness is also present or runs thro the duality just as milk seems to be there in ghee or curd too. Its the basis, FUNDAMENTAL which is present even in duality. Ofcourse DUALITY IS always contradicting in nature.

Ultimately ONLY THE ROOT is non-dual. But that which is DUAL is also different forms of the same root. So WE CANT NEGATE duality as NOT-THE-TRUTH. It is NEXT-STEP or form of same truth or ORIGIN.

If u NEGATE something as NOT-THE-TRUTH, then u have to point out somehitng else and say that is truth. WE CANT DO IT.

BECAUSE everything IS TRUTH.

[Shakthiprabha.]

I am reading a book on Ramana maharishi's concept of "The-I-principle"

I wanted to share this paragraph with all of u.

______________

Both Buddhists and Vedantists agree that this "I" should be given up if you want liberation but disagree about the terminology and how belief in this "I" can be annihiliated.

Buddhists say "There is no entity at all, no 'self' or 'I", just a sequence of causatively conditioned psychic and physical process" For, the rest they do not talk about an "I". They even DISAPPROVE of talking in terms of "I", and hold onto the concept-this is a small vi ew, and it is confused, mistaken.

In contradistinction, while the teachers of advaita, vedanta , fully agree with buddhists upon the NON-EXISTENCE of the "I" entity, nevertheless they keep on talking in terms of "self" and "I" even when pointing to higher levels of reality.

In answer to the question, 'why do Advaita teachers use the term"I" as an indication for something real?" ...

It can be said it is because, "I" is so close, its the nearest thing there is. Everyone recognises it as 'oneself'. It is all about self-realisation and each of us has to see for ourself that "I" is the presence that is constantly here, and is the entrance to reality. The entrance is never elsewhere. You need not look for it. You need not go elsewhere. You are already there. "I" is already there. "I" is a door and is always open

___________

So, advaita does not say , there is NO SELF and leave u at it.

It rather GUIDES us thro showing the nearest path, WHERE LATER each sadhaka realise there is NO "I" entity present separately.

Whist buddhism talks on the nature of supreme existence, advaita, I feel, LEADS us to understand the same.

Hence both are same. One shows us the goal, other shows the goal and also helps u reach there.

[pradheep]

Dear SP,
The "I" (EGO) that all spiritual masters, including Ramana maharishi should be understood, otherwise it leads to confusion. May be this link might help the readers to understand Ego (I) vs Consciousness and Awareness.
http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/science.htm

[anbu_kathir]

Dear SP,
The "I" (EGO) that all spiritual masters, including Ramana maharishi should be understood, otherwise it leads to confusion. May be this link might help the readers to understand Ego (I) vs Consciousness and Awareness.
http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/science.htm

I think Ramana Maharshi does not refer to the " I " as the EGO. The I-ness He talks about is the Subject of all perception, the eye behind all eyes, the Singular point of Awareness being aware of itSelf.

Ramana to me is probably the culmination of Self-realisation. I read His books once, but absolutely couldn't make sense out of it. I mean, it didn't cause major transformations for me, apparently. I had a few 'kicks', like a drug, but it all used to wear down in time, and by normal human nature I also went back to sticking to the Ego, rather than the 'I' He was taking about. However, I think that is how He still guides spiritual seekers, giving the starters little kicks, and great bliss for more advanced ones :).

Being a neophyte in spirituality, I have come to see Ramana as the 'I' he speaks of himself, and apparently I would have to plough through a lot of experience to even begin to understand what He says :). Today my views, the spiritual books I read and application of spirituality has been far simplified to suit my levels of understanding, huh.. :D.

Love and Light.

[Badri]

Dear SP,
The "I" (EGO) that all spiritual masters, including Ramana maharishi should be understood, otherwise it leads to confusion. May be this link might help the readers to understand Ego (I) vs Consciousness and Awareness.
http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/science.htm

I think Ramana Maharshi does not refer to the " I " as the EGO. The I-ness He talks about is the Subject of all perception, the eye behind all eyes, the Singular point of Awareness being aware of itSelf.

Ramana to me is probably the culmination of Self-realisation. I read His books once, but absolutely couldn't make sense out of it. I mean, it didn't cause major transformations for me, apparently. I had a few 'kicks', like a drug, but it all used to wear down in time, and by normal human nature I also went back to sticking to the Ego, rather than the 'I' He was taking about. However, I think that is how He still guides spiritual seekers, giving the starters little kicks, and great bliss for more advanced ones :).

Being a neophyte in spirituality, I have come to see Ramana as the 'I' he speaks of himself, and apparently I would have to plough through a lot of experience to even begin to understand what He says :). Today my views, the spiritual books I read and application of spirituality has been far simplified to suit my levels of understanding, huh.. :D.

Love and Light.

Haha! Good one Anbu Kathir!! Simplified to suit your level of understanding???? That is true humility my dear one! Personally, I feel your "level" is not quite as simple as you make it seem, but then the whole TRUTH is itself so laughably simple. So I can well understand what you mean when you say your application of spirituality is simple. :)

[anbu_kathir]

Haha! Good one Anbu Kathir!! Simplified to suit your level of understanding???? That is true humility my dear one! Personally, I feel your "level" is not quite as simple as you make it seem, but then the whole TRUTH is itself so laughably simple. So I can well understand what you mean when you say your application of spirituality is simple. :)

I know my strengths and weaknesses Badri sir. Today I would say that a person is enlightened if he/she comes from All Love and No Fear. By that definition I am close to nothing. The capability of the 'mind' to understand spiritual 'information' is not really the criteria, is it?

It is about how much in every single moment that understanding is reflected and how it brings about personal transformation. In that fashion reading even an infinite number of books wouldn't help directly. Ram Das a spiritual Master in the west said this when asked about the message of his life.. "I help people as a way to work on myself, and I work on myself to help people... To me, that's what the emerging game is all about." I think this is a wonderful viewpoint on what it takes to bring about that transformation.

About Truth being simple, yes thats so "true" :). Just as Life, simple it is, but not easy (to get, or to just be ) , I guess :).

Love and Light. :)

[Shakthiprabha.]

:) :thumbsup:

[pradheep]

I think Ramana Maharshi does not refer to the " I " as the EGO. The I-ness He talks about is the Subject of all perception, the eye behind all eyes, the Singular point of Awareness being aware of itSelf.

Dear Ak,
In His upadesha sara he makes it clear that
Ahami naasha bhaajyaham aham tayaa
Sphurathi Hrut Svayam parama poorna sat

When I-thought or Ego is destroyed, the pure I shines forth on its own as the Supreme and perfect (full) Existence.

The Truth we are all seeking is the "Pure Awareness", which is always behind everything. But the "I" thought (Ego) over-shadows it.

[Shakthiprabha.]

I feel everybody talks the same :? yet everybody feels what they say is different than others :?

[pradheep]

Dear Sk,

feel everybody talks the same yet everybody feels what they say is different than others

What you said is correct , it is the same as the reality. We are all essentially "One" and the same awareness but feels different from "others". This is because of the fundamental problem of attachment to the body and mind.

[anbu_kathir]

I think Ramana Maharshi does not refer to the " I " as the EGO. The I-ness He talks about is the Subject of all perception, the eye behind all eyes, the Singular point of Awareness being aware of itSelf.

Dear Ak,
In His upadesha sara he makes it clear that
Ahami naasha bhaajyaham aham tayaa
Sphurathi Hrut Svayam parama poorna sat

When I-thought or Ego is destroyed, the pure I shines forth on its own as the Supreme and perfect (full) Existence.

The Truth we are all seeking is the "Pure Awareness", which is always behind everything. But the "I" thought (Ego) over-shadows it.

I agree of course, but in the paragraph that SP had quoted (to which you replied) , that 'I' was not the 'I'-thought, was it ? There I think it was indeed the Awareness 'I' that Sri Ramana was talking about.

Love and Light.

[Badri]

I feel everybody talks the same :? yet everybody feels what they say is different than others :?

Ekam Sath Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti

The Truth is One; the Wise speak of it diversely.

:)

[Shakthiprabha.]

Badri,

:)

[Punnaimaran]

What is the definition of truth ?

Does it mean the mere fact, the reality or the perception according to one's consciousness ?

Regards
Punnaimaran

[Shakthiprabha.]

Indestructible fact which is the source of everything which is said, wheter be it reality or perception.

[Punnaimaran]

In that case, given the level of our consciousness, we can only arrive at various perceptions and not a single indestructible fact.

This is strictly my opinion and not necessarilly a fact.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Missing you Rohit and Pradheep!

[pradheep]

given the level of our consciousness, we can only arrive at various perceptions and not a single indestructible fact.

Consciousness is only one. In each individual the same Cosnciousness is used by the Ego at different levels. But the Ego functions through the five sense organs and so perceptions change. When an individual transcends the Ego and is at the level of pure Cosnciousness then it is the one and the same, no contrdictions, no difference, the Univ ersal Truth.

[Shakthiprabha]

Pradeep,

Ive been searching for the answer for :oops: a weird question for past few months and not been successful.

Bhagavatham and upanishads and puranas talk about manvantaras and cyclical creations. It is said about manvantara and mahamanvantara and pralaya and mahapralaya and how the creation happened.

Where exactly "karmic" events benefit after the great deluge ( I talk about not pralaya but 'maha-pralaya' or the beginning of 'maha-manvantara') ? So the creation by design or chance (whatever it be) has to go thro from the very beginning without the differentiation of evolved and evolving and the karma they carried?


Hope I am clear with my question :oops:

[pradheep]

Dear Sp,
Your questions are brilliant and so they are compelling answers. Thanks for these nice questions, but voluminous explantions are needed to compeltely clear the doubts. Let me try with minimum words.


So the creation by design or chance
Einstein was wrong in saying God does not play Dice just from the Newtonian percpective. From Quantum level, Shiva and Parvathi are shown to play Dice, which means at quantum level there is only probabilties and it is the observer that makes a particular event manifest. For me reading Physics is similar to reading Purana (onyl difference is sanskrit words and English words). What Quantum means is about "Sankalpa". Creation is not chance, but a dice game in which but Aawareness designs to pick up one probability. It is only Sankalpa (in form of Awareness) that manifest a thought among other millions of other possible thoughts. (Law of Karma -1).

One thought gave rise of million thoughts ( subtler than electromagnetic waves) and each took a body to manifest and in due course added on to Karma powdered by individual likes and dislikes. Law of Karma-2

The thought waves can go back to its source through the practice of Sadhana, where the Ego is transcended to free the thoughts to its Source - Law of Karma -3.

Combine the 3 laws , SP, to get the answer to the question, Where exactly "karmic" events benefit after the great deluge. The answer is everything goes to the Source without the need of Sadhana.

I really want to write in simple words and use less techical words, hope it is easy to understand, if not I will try again to simplify it.

[Shakthiprabha]

So the creation by design or chance
Einstein was wrong in saying God does not play Dice just from the Newtonian percpective. From Quantum level, Shiva and Parvathi are shown to play Dice, which means at quantum level there is only probabilties and it is the observer that makes a particular event manifest. For me reading Physics is similar to reading Purana (onyl difference is sanskrit words and English words). What Quantum means is about "Sankalpa". It is only Sankalpa (in form of Awareness) that manifest a thought among other millions of other possible thoughts. (Law of Karma -1).

So be it! but why would a sankalpa assuming its gonna take a decision out of probability of chances would decide upon Vegetative of mineral state :? or even an animal state where awareness is not present :?


Creation is not chance, but a dice game in which but Aawareness designs to pick up one probability.

:( pradeep, I didn't get this ... wait... creation is NOT CHANCE, BUT a dice game? Are we not contradicting here? Dice IS a chance game aint not? or u mean to say

its a dice game with DESIGN in the form of awareness. (i.e. chance and design at different levels?)


One thought gave rise of million thoughts ( subtler than electromagnetic waves) and each took a body to manifest and in due course added on to Karma powdered by individual likes and dislikes. Law of Karma-2

aha...


The thought waves can go back to its source through the practice of Sadhana, where the Ego is transcended to free the thoughts to its Source - Law of Karma -3.

yup I got all these.


Combine the 3 laws , SP, to get the answer to the question, Where exactly "karmic" events benefit after the great deluge. The answer is everything goes to the Source without the need of Sadhana.

So....if everything goes up without need of sadhana, WHY ONLY we need to do sadhana? anyway we would go up to the source aint not? Its like ppl preparing for exam and who didn't prepare in the final term, nevertheless remain in the same joy or laya or position (wrong example...but couldn't help it) ...( i.e AND assuming there are no karmic imprints for the next cycle of creation)

btw,

how sure can one be about these cycles and deluge? It may be stories or myths just to chasten / refine and evolve mortals?

[Shakthiprabha]

Interesting I get reminded of bhagavatham


It is only Sankalpa (in form of Awareness) that manifest a thought among other millions of other possible thoughts. (Law of Karma -1).

One thought gave rise of million thoughts ( subtler than electromagnetic waves) and each took a body to manifest and in due course added on to Karma powdered by individual likes and dislikes. Law of Karma-2

"and then let me become MANY" he thought...
He then created himself from his own self.

As a kid, I remember reading similar stuffs in biblical words too.

[pradheep]

So be it! but why would a sankalpa assuming its gonna take a decision out of probability of chances would decide upon Vegetative of mineral state or even an animal state where awareness is not present.
The probabilities exists at Quantum level (micro) and not at Newtonian level (Macro). The Micro undergoes evolution to Macro, in which Mineral state and vegetative state are also intermediate steps.



Are we not contradicting here? Dice IS a chance game aint not? or u mean to say Thats the catch here. Dice games means probability, but the Awareness picks up "which" probability, this is the secret behind Shiva (Awareness) and Parvathi (Energy-Matter) playing dice, where Shiva purposely allows him to lose by the dice to fall the number which pavathi wanted. What a beauty in these Quantum-stories, the Puranas.


its a dice game with DESIGN in the form of awareness. (i.e. chance and design at different levels?) More chances at micro level which desgns the macro.


So....if everything goes up without need of sadhana, WHY ONLY we need to do sadhana? anyway we would go up to the source aint not? Its like ppl preparing for exam and who didn't prepare in the final term, nevertheless remain in the same joy or laya or position (wrong example...but couldn't help it) ...( i.e AND assuming there are no karmic imprints for the next cycle of creation)

Good questions. Firstly the "One" who complains only need Sadhana to get out of limitations. The Maha-Pralayam happens in 311 trillion years.

After pralaya all the thoughts merge to the Source and so no Individuals to enjoy the bliss. To enjoy the bliss of that "joining" Sadhana Helps. Again in Vedic tradition it is only choice, one can continue to remain as "thoughts" on and on for eons and finally before getting Awareness through Sadhana, one will be wiped off in the end. Another way with "Awareness" One can merge with the Source. it is all choices "we" make.


how sure can one be about these cycles and deluge? It may be stories or myths just to chasten / refine and evolve mortals?
Myth does not mean unreal stories. Myths are stories created to explain hard to explain "Truth". Look at the Vedic statements, look how close they are to Modern findings. Infact Vedic gives exact figures of 8.432............... many decimal exact day accuracy. Science stated with 50 billion years, then went down to 27 then to 20, then 18 then now it is 13.7....looks like they are comming close to vedic calculations. Do you call this as MYth?
(http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/itihasas-3.htm)


As a kid, I remember reading similar stuffs in biblical words too.
You are right, All religions have the Same fundamental Truth. But Religious organization does not want to expose that to get their "bussiness" strong.
The speciality of Vedic tradition is that of its Scientific temperament , which means experimentation, observation and Inference drawn and additions and subtractions of information pointing towards the Truth. No "One" person's word nor a single text book is final verdict, like other religions. Like Modern Science there is no father of Science, no father of Vedic Spiritual tradition. More information about this difference please read http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/fundamental.htm

[anbu_kathir]

[tscii:20f11fe134]

Bhagavatham and upanishads and puranas talk about manvantaras and cyclical creations. It is said about manvantara and mahamanvantara and pralaya and mahapralaya and how the creation happened.

Where exactly "karmic" events benefit after the great deluge ( I talk about not pralaya but 'maha-pralaya' or the beginning of 'maha-manvantara') ? So the creation by design or chance (whatever it be) has to go thro from the very beginning without the differentiation of evolved and evolving and the karma they carried?


Hope I am clear with my question :oops:

Let me try to answer this question on my own terms (of course borrowing from the stuff that I have accumulated in my head from various sources.)

--------------------
To the Undivided Whole, the whole idea of Karma , evolution (I prefer to call it individuation-the process of becoming individuals), involution (the process of extinguishing the division between the individual selves) is a big joke.

The Undivided Whole Is. He (just for a reference sake) Is As He Is. Where can He go? What can He do? There is no place for Him to go and there is no action that He can do because He is all that is. (I remember Krishna’s line’s here – ‘there is nothing in the 3 worlds that I have to do’).

What is Creation? Creation never happens to the Undivided Whole. The closest analogy that one can get to Creation is our dream state. In our dreams, our mind creates so many entities, and they all act in the dream. There are things too, they move and affect other things. But how much Reality would we (after waking up) associate with those dreamed entities? What is the Karma associated with there actions? Does it make any sense at all to ask these questions once one has woken up? None at all. One was sleeping, and now one is awake. That’s all there is to it.

--------------

All this, from the standpoint of the Undivided Whole, is perfectly fine. But we, the members of the dream of the Creator (the Creator as a notion that exists only in the dream) have many questions, although that’s only until we wake up. In the dream, we can utmost conjure up metaphors that point to Reality, but Reality of course remains Indescribable.

-----------
Why creation? What is happening with us really? All these questions have meaningful/logical answers only until we ‘wake up’.

It is my highest belief that Creation is an matter of Pure Choice. I believe what Pradheep said about Sankalpa (the Pure Choice of Awareness) is right.

The Undivided Whole, because of the fact that it is in fact Undivided, does not and cannot experience itself. It is Known to Itself, but experiencing is a different ball game. It seeks to have the Experience of its Knowledge (of Oneness). Actual experience can be derived only when there are two parties involved (2-kai thattinna thaan saththam :P).

Being the Undivided Whole, He cannot divide Himself into one and another that He is not. He can, however, dream the difference. Therefore, the Act of Individuation, the One becoming many, occurs in the dream of the Creator, just as in our Dream our minds create many several entities apart from a copy of our own self.
---------------

What is the reason for the Creator to choose bodies with lower Self Awareness? The answer to this question seems simple if one considers the viewpoint that the whole point of Creation is for the Creator to experience the glory of His own Being.

If one has infinite space and time to grow a garden and to experience the variety of Life in a garden, it would be boring to grow only the most beautiful flower bearing plants. True joy of experiencing the interconnections of Life in a garden can be completely experienced only when all kinds of plants are grown. The same logic applies to Creation too. The less aware have to coexist with the more aware, pleasure with pain, Darkness with Light, so that one might experience the glory of it all.

---------------

Coming back to your question, the Karma of these dream entities occurs in the Dream. This Dreamland of the Creator has its ‘rules’ like the law of Karma, which is its very nature, therefore anyone who lives in it (but has not woken up yet) is subject to it. The liberated man is no longer bothered about any of it, but still by his ‘partial’ existence as a dream entity, he ‘acts’ and therefore he like Krishna says -‘nothing to do in the 3 worlds, but yet I act’).

More than pertaining to present day scientific details and the age of the actual Universe, it is my belief that the myth involving the Creation and the Dissolution of the Universe involving Brahma is to be interpreted on a personal level. Our science is unimportant for them, because they were not much concerned about the development of an individual in the Dream. It was their intention to use such myths to nudge us awake.

To me, this Creation by Brahma begins with every moment that we forget our Truest and Highest Self as the Creator Himself (and thereby subject ourselves to Karma), and the Dissolution of Creation by Brahma is occurs at every moment where we remember our Truest Self as that of the Creator, the One who Dreams, the One who is Always Present, Ever Gracious, and filled with Love for OneSelf and OneSelf alone, because He Is All There Is. At that state, Karma no longer matters, One is back as the Undivided Whole and Free Choice devoid of all Karma invites One back into the Cycle of Experience-Knowledge, Creation-Dissolution, Dream-Reality.

Love and Light.
[/tscii:20f11fe134]

[Shakthiprabha]

[tscii:1c2c2cc553]
To me, this Creation by Brahma begins with every moment that we forget our Truest and Highest Self as the Creator Himself (and thereby subject ourselves to Karma), and the Dissolution of Creation by Brahma is occurs at every moment where we remember our Truest Self as that of the Creator, the One who Dreams, the One who is Always Present, Ever Gracious, and filled with Love for OneSelf and OneSelf alone, because He Is All There Is. At that state, Karma no longer matters, One is back as the Undivided Whole and Free Choice devoid of all Karma invites One back into the Cycle of Experience-Knowledge, Creation-Dissolution, Dream-Reality.

Precisely the words of my husband when whenever we discuss this issue.


What is Creation? Creation never happens to the Undivided Whole.



All these questions have meaningful/logical answers only until we ‘wake up’.


Does it make any sense at all to ask these questions once one has woken up? None at all. One was sleeping, and now one is awake. That’s all there is to it.



Yes. After reading some bits n pieces from various places, I think we should say as "manifestation" because, energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. (ps: pradeep, you have a wonderful website :bow: and amazing to know u have written books )

I suppose the same water example can be given. When all kinds of water joins the mighty ocean, no longer does its so called seperate individiality with or without its nature (taken as karma for lives) possibly could exist. Its just ONE AND COMPLETE without a second.


It is my highest belief that Creation is an matter of Pure Choice. I believe what Pradheep said about Sankalpa (the Pure Choice of Awareness) is right.


Einstein was wrong in saying God does not play Dice just from the Newtonian percpective. From Quantum level, Shiva and Parvathi are shown to play Dice, which means at quantum level there is only probabilties and it is the observer that makes a particular event manifest.

I get it. I wont say I am too happy to read that though :oops: (not that it alters the truth :lol2: )


The probabilities exists at Quantum level (micro) and not at Newtonian level (Macro). The Micro undergoes evolution to Macro, in which Mineral state and vegetative state are also intermediate steps.

I think this clears my doubt, thoroughly. :ty: again...


The same logic applies to Creation too. The less aware have to coexist with the more aware, pleasure with pain, Darkness with Light, so that one might experience the glory of it all.

I would call the choice of being less aware as something akin to "sacrifice unto the lord" :lol2: u know...some micro decisions chose to play or remain less aware just to entertain and keep the evolved busy and happy! Salutations.

[/tscii:1c2c2cc553]

[pradheep]

Dear Ak,
You made it clear , that the creation is like a dream . This is what symbolically represented by Ananthapadmananbha picture.
Dear Sk,
Glad to see we are having a wonderful discussion. Thanks.

[anbu_kathir]

The same logic applies to Creation too. The less aware have to coexist with the more aware, pleasure with pain, Darkness with Light, so that one might experience the glory of it all.

I would call the choice of being less aware as something akin to "sacrifice unto the lord" :lol2: u know...some micro decisions chose to play or remain less aware just to entertain and keep the evolved busy and happy! Salutations.

[/tscii]

Very true! We are all here to serve each other's soul-agenda.

Love and Light.

[Shakthiprabha]

pradeep, prasad,

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-12.html

I would like to hear ur understanding on these plz




Na karma vibhagadhithi chEt na anaadhithvaath

If it be objected that it (viz., the Lord's having regard to merit and demerit) is not possible on account of the non-distinction (of merit and demerit before creation), (we say) no, because of (the world) being without a beginning.

Na: not; Karmavibhagat: because of the non-distinction of work (before creation); Iti chet: if it be said, if it be objected in this way; Na: no, the objection cannot stand; Anaditvat: because of beginninglessness.

An objection against Sutra 34 is raised and refuted.

The Sutra consists of two parts, viz., an objection and its reply. The objective portion is 'Na karmavibhagaditi chet' and the reply portion is 'Na anaditvat'.

An objection is raised now. The Sruti says, "Being only this was in the beginning, one without a second." There was no distinction of works before creation of the world. There was only the absolutely One Real Being or Brahman. The creation at the beginning of one man as rich and of another as poor and unhappy cannot certainly depend on the respective previous good or bad deeds. The first creation must have been free from inequalities.

This objection cannot stand. The creation of the world is also without a beginning. There was never a time that may be said to be an absolute beginning. The question of first creation cannot arise. Creation and destruction of the world following each other continually by rotation is without any beginning and end. The condition of individual souls in any particular cycle of creation is predetermined by their actions in the previous cycle.

It cannot be said that there could be no Karma prior to creation, which causes the diversity of creation, because Karma is Anadi (beginningless). Creation is only the shoot from a pre-existing seed of Karma.

As the world is without a beginning, merit and inequality are like seed and sprout. There is an unending chain of the relation of cause and effect as in the case of the seed and the sprout. Therefore, there is no contradiction present in the Lord's creative activity.


Upapadyate chapyupalabhyate cha II.1.36 (170)

And (that the world - and also Karma - is without a beginning) is reasonable and is also seen (from the scriptures).

Upapadyate: is proved by reasoning, is reasonable that it should be so; Cha: and; Api: and, also, assuredly; Upalabhyate: is seen, is found in Sruti or Scriptures; Cha: also, and.

Karma is Anadi (beginningless). This is logical and is supported by scripture. By reasoning also it can be deduced that the world must be beginningless. Because, if the world did not exist in a potential or seed state, then an absolutely non-existing thing would be produced during creation. There is also the possibility of liberated persons being reborn again. Further, people would be enjoying and suffering without having done anything to deserve it. As there would exist no determining cause of the unequal dispensation of pleasure and pain, we should have to submit or assert to the doctrine of rewards and punishments being allotted without reference to previous virtues and vicious deeds. There will be effect without a cause. This is certainly absurd. When we assume effect without a cause, there could be no law at all with reference to the purpose or regularity of creation. The Sruti declares that creation is 'Anadi' (beginningless).


There are lot of other explanations (otherwise than in brahma sutra) which says karma is anaadhi or beginingless)

[pradheep]

The creation at the beginning of one man as rich and of another as poor and unhappy cannot certainly depend on the respective previous good or bad deeds. The first creation must have been free from inequalities.
Dear SP,
May be you wanted to know my views, which is a common question lots of people ask. Brahman (unconditional Consciousness) is impartial, because there are no qualities and is also Changeless. The Change is in Sakthi (Energy) which is the conditioned aspect of Consciousness which manifest as matter. Energy will have inequalities in its content, that is why, all matter at micro and macro level are different. http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/creation-cycle.htm
Look at the cosmos, all came from one Big bang , but based on conditions they are all different in their matter "content". Same with Human beings, Wealth is a kind of Energy, which is different in Human beings which classifies as rich and poor. It alll depends not only on hard work but also a factor called "Luck" or Punya which is the sum of energy activity of previous acts (births).

Punya and Papa are just physical terms of "Energy", and can be "cashed" as Wealth-Energy and be enjoyed by exhausting it. The laws governing these are called Navagrahas.
http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/navagrahas.htm

Comming back to your question, where did all this start, that is where did "Karma" start. It is beginingless, the question is why it is beginingless, because it is like a wheel (samsaara chakra). In a wheel we cannot see the begining and end. Karma drives samsaara and because Karma generates more karma, it becomes like a wheel without a begining. it can be extinguished only when the doership is given weakening the cycle of karma. This
de-clutching from the rotating wheeel of karma is possible, by enquiring "Who am I?"

[anbu_kathir]

[tscii:f334ddb003]
pradeep, prasad,

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-12.html

There are lot of other explanations (otherwise than in brahma sutra) which says karma is anaadhi or beginingless)

Karma (and Creation) is anaadhi. By anaadhi, I take it to mean “eternal” (out of the field of Time) and not everlasting (that which lasts for an infinite period of time). The physical description of the Universe gives a similar revelation. It doesn’t make any sense to say “What happened before the Big Bang? “, because Time (as we experience it) itself (‘Space-time’ to be accurate) originated at the Big Bang.

As a metaphor to the transcendence-immanence concepts of Ever Present Unchanging Reality of Now and that of Time-as-we-experience-it, I often think of an analogy I read in a book that perhaps I have mentioned before somewhere around here.

The metaphor goes like this. Imagine a grand library of sorts where there are many different books of many different types. Now suppose I go into the library planning to look for some book. But then I get involved in other books too, temporarily forgetting the one I was looking for. Every thing that I see perhaps leads to another book. Finally I come by the book that I wanted to read and then say “Aha, here it is.” Now that particular book has been there all along, but I came to it in by sequence of events. Therefore, to me, it ‘seems’ like the book came into existence just now after a while, creating the illusion of time for that book to manifest itself. But really, it is me who has changed my perspective.

This is a metaphor for the transcendence-immanence, the Now-ness of Time with our Past-Present-Future way of experiencing it. All that matters is our perspective of looking at it. If we could change our perspective to look at all books at once, time may ‘seem’ to move faster. The books are a metaphor for my lifetimes, and therefore, even though it has all happened/is happening all at once, I have the experience of going through them one at a time.

Therefore does Creation (and therefore Karma) have a ‘beginning’ and proceed through Time? The answer depends on our perspective. Under the perspective of an object of this Creation, yes it does seem to proceed through time. In this case, we are unable to answer questions like “ How could the ‘first’ birth be decided with no pre-existing karma or vaasanas? “, because with time being linear, we have to have a first birth.

If one has the perspective of an Observer of the Big-bang itself, the answer is no, Creation has no beginning. All that is happening has happened, and Time is an illusion that the Big bang creates for the occupants of the Universe. There was no beginning to anything, and there will be no end to anything because the whole field of view is now beyond the dimension of Time. The cyclical view of Time is a good metaphor for this, it is the closest we can think of to that Reality with our limited mental capabilities, which is why I believe it has been adopted.

Love and Light
[/tscii:f334ddb003]

[Shakthiprabha]

If one has the perspective of an Observer of the Big-bang itself, the answer is no, Creation has no beginning. All that is happening has happened, and Time is an illusion that the Big bang creates for the occupants of the Universe. There was no beginning to anything, and there will be no end to anything because the whole field of view is now beyond the dimension of Time.



Brahman (unconditional Consciousness) is impartial, because there are no qualities and is also Changeless. The Change is in Sakthi (Energy) which is the conditioned aspect of Consciousness which manifest as matter. Energy will have inequalities in its content, that is why, all matter at micro and macro level are different.

Beautiful! Just beautiful :bow: :bow:
How mysteriously beautiful nature is !!! :bow:

From cloudy doubts, atleast a picture is begining to shape up for me... atleast I think so. :ty:

[Shakthiprabha]

The Change is in Sakthi (Energy) which is the conditioned aspect of Consciousness which manifest as matter. Energy will have inequalities in its content, that is why, all matter at micro and macro level are different. http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/creation-cycle.htm
Look at the cosmos, all came from one Big bang , but based on conditions they are all different in their matter "content".

hehe :oops: one final question ! :oops:

So now that I think we say that it is "shakthi" which manifests itself with inequalities. (along with changleless brahman or shiva) Now those inequalities are due to karmic imprints? Would I be right if I say shakthi carries karmic imprints and projects herself as gross matters ?

quote from http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/creation-cycle.htm


These three functions aspects of the subtle-Energy (Sakthi) materializes as the gross-matter (Universe) through five laws or principles. They are known as Pancha Bhootas, the five underlying principles which bring forth material-forms (Bhoota or Bhuta).

Now, during great deluge even shakthi or energy is annihilated there remains only BRAHMAN. (the pure consciousness).
Is my understanding right?

[anbu_kathir]

[tscii:82728ceb02]


The Change is in Sakthi (Energy) which is the conditioned aspect of Consciousness which manifest as matter. Energy will have inequalities in its content, that is why, all matter at micro and macro level are different. http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/creation-cycle.htm
Look at the cosmos, all came from one Big bang , but based on conditions they are all different in their matter "content".

hehe :oops: one final question ! :oops:

So now that I think we say that it is "shakthi" which manifests itself with inequalities. (along with changleless brahman or shiva) Now those inequalities are due to karmic imprints? Would I be right if I say shakthi carries karmic imprints and projects herself as gross matters ?

quote from http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/creation-cycle.htm


These three functions aspects of the subtle-Energy (Sakthi) materializes as the gross-matter (Universe) through five laws or principles. They are known as Pancha Bhootas, the five underlying principles which bring forth material-forms (Bhoota or Bhuta).

Now, during great deluge even shakthi or energy is annihilated there remains only BRAHMAN. (the pure consciousness).
Is my understanding right?


In the manifested world, Shakthi is the “becoming” aspect of Brahman, and Brahman is the “being” aspect of Shakthi. These remain 2 sides of one coin. I no longer subscribe to the idea of present karma controlling our future births (because Time is not linear and therefore to the Atman present-past-future don’t make sense at all) so I interpret the whole idea of ‘karmic imprints’ very differently.

The great deluge, according to me, is an event in the spiritual consciousness of an individual that makes him/her realize that Being and Becoming (Creator and the Creation) are not two different things. Being and Becoming are terms given to the same Transcendent Reality viewed from different perspectives. Therefore there is no question of the ‘real’ experience of annihilation of anything at all except in our metaphorically interpretation of that event. The realized person does not and cannot say anything about this event except maybe – “All that Is, Is.” (or maybe “I am.” or even “I am not.”).

Ultimately, therefore, all that we can say about the event of realization/enlightenment is utmost a very good lie. And what really is the use of a lie? The Transcendent, as it remains truly Transcendent, is out of the reach of any intellectual capability and is best not talked about :-D.

Love and Light.
[/tscii:82728ceb02]

[pradheep]

[tscii:3c4051a2a5]
Would I be right if I say shakthi carries karmic imprints and projects herself as gross matters ? Thats correct.

Now, during great deluge even shakthi or energy is annihilated there remains only BRAHMAN. (the pure consciousness).
Is my understanding right? The word Annihilate (destruction) might be misleading because the core understanding is that there was only Brahman all the time. It is because of the "I"ness, which manifest as Senses, "perception of Energy" happens.

This is what our friend Dear AK has written "Being and Becoming (Creator and the Creation) are not two different things".


I no longer subscribe to the idea of present karma controlling our future births (because Time is not linear and therefore to the Atman present-past-future don’t make sense at all)

Here I differ from AK, because for Atman there is no birth and rebirth, it is only for the "karmic imprints (Ego)" - Energy that is undergoing all the births in a linear Time Scale. This is symbolized as Parvathi taking innumerable births to attain Shiva. [/tscii:3c4051a2a5]

[anbu_kathir]

[tscii:ba21066875]

I no longer subscribe to the idea of present karma controlling our future births (because Time is not linear and therefore to the Atman present-past-future don’t make sense at all)

Here I differ from AK, because for Atman there is no birth and rebirth, it is only for the "karmic imprints (Ego)" - Energy that is undergoing all the births in a linear Time Scale. This is symbolized as Parvathi taking innumerable births to attain Shiva. [/tscii:ba21066875]

Dear Pradheep,

Upon death, does this ego-'Shakthi' which takes birth perceive Time? (Time as we see it, I mean.) If yes, then there was the 'first' birth that the ego-Shakthi takes in this Universe, because Time originated at the big bang. That first birth, however has no reference point, so again we have that old problem.

If no, there is no question of 'future births' and 'past births', and the whole idea of Karma 'controlling' our 'next' birth is moot, is it not ?

Love and Light.

[pradheep]

Dear AK,


Upon death, does this ego-'Shakthi' which takes birth perceive Time? (Time as we see it, I mean.)
If you recollect Einstein's theory of relativity, he said, based on the speed of light time changes. This is what is portrayed in our puranic episode of Brahma searching for the head of Shiva, he tells his speed is different and so time is different than the human time on Earth. The Ego when bound in a human Body has the earth Time scale but after death has a different Time Scale. This is why Pitru Tharpanam is done once a month on every new moon day which is one day for the Pitru Time Scale.


That first birth, however has no reference point, so again we have that old problem. The first vibration is Ego that manifested as the Subtlest material energy. So Time gets a reference point from there on. Even our time now is calculated based on that (relative to that), correct?

If no, there is no question of 'future births' and 'past births', and the whole idea of Karma 'controlling' our 'next' birth is moot, is it not ?

Dear Ak, If we think we are the body , then immeidately Time (Kala) controls us. As soon as time is born simultaneously actions start. This is beautifully sybolized as Kala-Bhairava and Maha-Kali bringing forth creation, which means when Time started, action started. No action can take place without Time. All actionsa re Time Bound. Energy in action is time bound. Ego is energy related so time bound.

With Time the Ego is bound to Navagrahas (Nine Laws of Cosmic actions). With its various permutations and combinations it generates more actions in Time. Rest is History.

However, If we identify to Atma (Brahman), there is no time and hence no Time bound action. There is No Ego, no birth and Death.

[anbu_kathir]

Dear AK,


Upon death, does this ego-'Shakthi' which takes birth perceive Time? (Time as we see it, I mean.)
If you recollect Einstein's theory of relativity, he said, based on the speed of light time changes. This is what is portrayed in our puranic episode of Brahma searching for the head of Shiva, he tells his speed is different and so time is different than the human time on Earth. The Ego when bound in a human Body has the earth Time scale but after death has a different Time Scale. This is why Pitru Tharpanam is done once a month on every new moon day which is one day for the Pitru Time Scale.


Yes, all this is right, Pradheep. However, Space-time does some very interesting things. It curves and bends, and sometimes it bends over itself. Even according to the relativistic mechanics, 'wormholes' may exist in Space-time which are possible doorways to a different Space-time.


Let me try to rephrase my lines: Do you think it is possible that a being which died recently has its next birth at a time which may be called 'its past' (if we are still talking about time as linear and in the past->present->future direction) ? I mean, could one die in 2040 AD and be born in 1450 AD ?

Love and Light.

[pradheep]

It curves and bends, and sometimes it bends over itself.
Dear Ak
What Modern scienctist forget heisenberg's principle and QM, that an electron is at all possibilities of exitence, but only when the observer is there it occupies an position. At macro level the observer's power is weakened by the strong collective forces of gravity, EM etc. But at the micro level the Observer's power is strong, which ultimately manifest at the macro level. This has relevance to you very interesting question.


I mean, could one die in 2040 AD and be born in 1450 AD ?
Yes, in the sense of choices. Karma is a bundle of intensions and choices and manifestations. So if one dies in 2040 AD and is reborn in 1450 AD , it is the intensions and choices that determine the life there. If the intension is felt as going back (reversing) to 1450 AD , then naturally the karmic events before 1450 AD would dictate the events then. However, if the intension is to use the imprints from 2040 AD to a time of 1450 AD, then that dictates the events folding there.

I hope I expressed the point clear.

[anbu_kathir]

It curves and bends, and sometimes it bends over itself.
Dear Ak
What Modern scienctist forget heisenberg's principle and QM, that an electron is at all possibilities of exitence, but only when the observer is there it occupies an position. At macro level the observer's power is weakened by the strong collective forces of gravity, EM etc. But at the micro level the Observer's power is strong, which ultimately manifest at the macro level. This has relevance to you very interesting question.


I didn't quite get what you meant. What I remember is that the micro (nano and pico are more precise I think :P) level, the world is ruled by probability. In the macro level, these probabilities still exist, but because of the variables (which take the probabilities) collapsing on the singular events (which is what happens when the observation is made), the world appears deterministic.



Yes, in the sense of choices. Karma is a bundle of intensions and choices and manifestations. So if one dies in 2040 AD and is reborn in 1450 AD , it is the intensions and choices that determine the life there. If the intension is felt as going back (reversing) to 1450 AD , then naturally the karmic events before 1450 AD would dictate the events then. However, if the intension is to use the imprints from 2040 AD to a time of 1450 AD, then that dictates the events folding there.



Yes. So now you have same question as that arises in a "time machine". Irrespective of being in any time or place, we assume that the conditions in the lifetime of a person are the result of his karmic imprints in the previous lives. Every individual circumstance is due to both collective consciousness and individual consciousness.

So. if we look at the picture with respect to individual consciousness only, how are the actions (karma) of the 2040 guy related to the 1450 guy? Who influences who - "first"? For the 2040 guy, 1450 has already happened (So basically his "future" incarnation is in his "past" .. :D). For the 1450 guy, his "previous" incarnation is in his future. LOLoLOL.

Love and Light.

[pradheep]

collapsing on the singular events (which is what happens when the observation is made), the world appears deterministic.
Choices and determinism ironically goes hand in hand. There is choice at every step, and the results are determined. Example If you start driving from namakkal you have choices of four directions, if you take south you end up reaching Karur and going north reaches salem. Choices and determinism goes hand in hand.


how are the actions (karma) of the 2040 guy related to the 1450 guy? Dear Ak, Look at my previous answer. It is choice basically, either the imprints from 1450 or from 2040 would manifest in this fictional condition.


Every individual circumstance is due to both collective consciousness and individual consciousness. The individual (consciousness) is dictated by the previous karma sanchitha, prarabda (ont that is unfolding) , agama (current) etc. Not to forget the pregnancy period where a mother also contributes.

[suvai]

hello pradheep nga!
awesome awesome!!
Just wanted to personally thank u for all your postings.
regards,
suvai

[anbu_kathir]

how are the actions (karma) of the 2040 guy related to the 1450 guy? Dear Ak, Look at my previous answer. It is choice basically, either the imprints from 1450 or from 2040 would manifest in this fictional condition.

Dear Pradheep,

What do you mean by the "imprints from 1450 or from 2040"? The birth in 2040 is influenced by the birth in 1450. The birth in 1450 is influenced by the birth in 2040. It is an endless cycle, isn't it? How can the Karmic imprints of the 2040-birth affect the 1450-birth if it hasn't happened yet ? How can the 1450 birth affect the 2040 affect if the 'next' birth of the 2040-guy is the actual 1450-birth?

Neither has happened before the other, and both have happened before each other, isn't it? How is this contradiction solved?


The individual (consciousness) is dictated by the previous karma sanchitha, prarabda (ont that is unfolding) , agama (current) etc. Not to forget the pregnancy period where a mother also contributes.

Are you saying that the current situations of one's life is the result of the actions of that one in the previous birth + the actions of others (even that of parents)? How can an individual be dictated by other's karma?

This is a bit strange, because I have always heard that the circumstances one is in today is always a result of one's own karma up until now (all the 3 kinds including the whole storehouse, the one which is unfolding, and the one which is performed right now), and not anybody else's. However it can be said that all of our karma is interlinked.

Love and Light.

[pradheep]

How is this contradiction solved? This is why it is samakara chakra a cycle. But even in a cycle each point is linear. One giving to the other.


and not anybody else's. However it can be said that all of our karma is interlinked. I think you talk about the strangeness is about my words "Mother and pregnancy". A child that is in the womb has its own karmic imprints. The imprints I mean, the thought patterns it has developed in the previous birth which could be in 1450 or 2040. This means at any instant (present) all the thought patterns it has, is that karma, which is going to manifest.

A mother is considered God not just for giving breast milk and taking care but also for her free-will to influence the thought patterns of the child (karma). Let us for example say a child has developed a craving for meat in the end of the previous birth, now in pregnancy a mother decides to be a vegetarian during her pregnancy. The strength of her vegetarian thought will influence the thought pattern (craving for meat) of the child. When the child grows then there will be a conflict between its inherent meat eating desire and the mothers influence of avoiding meat. Based on the strength of the mothers thought in pregnancy the child will have more tendency to avoid meat.

However if the mother decides to preach "vegetarianism" after the child was born, then the child will go for its inherent desire to eat meat and will express it. I dont disagree that constant telling the child will not help. That will help only on the child's willingness to change to overwrite its inherent tendency. This is the called as environmental influence.

In Summary, Karma is the mental pattern that we carry in a linear scale which becomes cyclic when we continued to repeat it. However there is a way to get out of this mental patterns we develop in each birth, which is called Moksha.

This Moksha is basically the choice of the individual , which is influenced by environment and strongly by the mother in pregnancy.

[pradheep]

Dear suvai
I am glad you are enjoying our discussions.

[anbu_kathir]

This is why it is samakara chakra a cycle. But even in a cycle each point is linear. One giving to the other.


Could you expand more on what you mean by 'a point being linear'. I always thought that samsara chakra is a chakra because we are endlessly repeated the cycle of birth and death. But this does not explain the contradiction in question here, I think.


A child that is in the womb has its own karmic imprints. The imprints I mean, the thought patterns it has developed in the previous birth which could be in 1450 or 2040.

Again here the issue is present. What is the meaning of 'or' here? The child born in 1450 has the imprints upto 2040, the child born in 2040 has all the imprints upto its previous birth (which includes 1450). One lifetime has to be already over before another, isn't it? Which is over 'first', considering that such a situation is possible ?



A mother is considered God not just for giving breast milk and taking care but also for her free-will to influence the thought patterns of the child (karma).

This Moksha is basically the choice of the individual , which is influenced by environment and strongly by the mother in pregnancy.

This is something that is shocking to me. How can it be that the actions of one directly affect the another without his/her own involvement? Such a law will have crazy implications, I mean.. for no fault of one's, one could be born with a physical impairment, a mental impairment. Makes life seem so unacceptable.

Love and Light.

[pradheep]

Dear Ak
To help explain the birth rebirth concepts, let me explain the basic laws.

What caused birth. Desire only caused birth. Why human body, birth of anything is based on desire only. What made cars to be born?. Desire to travel without limitations. Nothing is being born in this universe without desire. But there is a catch in that. With expression of desire of birth comes all the packages, which a normal mind wont grasp. For example, with desire to create car, human mind did not perceive the problems of pollution etc.

The first vibration at the micro level of Energy "I", gave rise to particle with highest energy frequency, which evolved (Big bang) to galaxies and stars and with that that original vibration has multiplied to trillions of "I" vibrations. Then that lead to micro-organisms on earth, then plants, animals and human.

Human form is very unique because there is a inbuilt mechanism to get back to the Source (Brahman). In human birth is also unique that, the I ego can manifest to its extreme end or can be diminished to zero level. For all its manifestation it need energy.

The human mind then instead of decreasing the thought patterns keep increasing it. It is like going to a supermarket. You went only with a desire to buy 3 items in your list. When you saw many things there out of desire you brought 10 things. If you had money you buy with ready cash or you get it in credit card. The more you go to market the more you visits, to return it or to exchange it or to upgrade it.

Every thought we have in our mind create a

[Shakthiprabha]

I mean, could one die in 2040 AD and be born in 1450 AD ?
Yes, in the sense of choices. Karma is a bundle of intensions and choices and manifestations. So if one dies in 2040 AD and is reborn in 1450 AD , it is the intensions and choices that determine the life there. If the intension is felt as going back (reversing) to 1450 AD , then naturally the karmic events before 1450 AD would dictate the events then. However, if the intension is to use the imprints from 2040 AD to a time of 1450 AD, then that dictates the events folding there.

I hope I expressed the point clear.

How is this possible pradheep? unless until we subscribe to the parellel universe concept :? not necessarily time machine !

if 2040 can impact 1450, then 1450 then (or now) wont have the 1450 replay again. Things change and events change (to a particular molecular being) as the karmic impressions has changed. :? so 1450 is not 1450 but "1450 with 2040's effect" ????

[Shakthiprabha]

It curves and bends, and sometimes it bends over itself.
Dear Ak
What Modern scienctist forget heisenberg's principle and QM, that an electron is at all possibilities of exitence, but only when the observer is there it occupies an position. At macro level the observer's power is weakened by the strong collective forces of gravity, EM etc. But at the micro level the Observer's power is strong, which ultimately manifest at the macro level. This has relevance to you very interesting question.


Please explain in "lay-man's" words :( I could not understand ANYTHING.

[Shakthiprabha]

Dear Ak
To help explain the birth rebirth concepts, let me explain the basic laws.

What caused birth. Desire only caused birth. Why human body, birth of anything is based on desire only. What made cars to be born?. Desire to travel without limitations. Nothing is being born in this universe without desire. But there is a catch in that. With expression of desire of birth comes all the packages, which a normal mind wont grasp. For example, with desire to create car, human mind did not perceive the problems of pollution etc.

good.


The first vibration at the micro level of Energy "I", gave rise to particle with highest energy frequency, which evolved (Big bang) to galaxies and stars and with that that original vibration has multiplied to trillions of "I" vibrations. Then that lead to micro-organisms on earth, then plants, animals and human.

before "big bang" wasn't therez any "FIRST" event at all :? there was big bang...and then there were things BEFORE bigbang....and before...and after... and ALL THESE makes no sense when therez no "first" to anything :? so where does "first vibration" COME? Like prasad said, its beyond us to understand the secrets of nature?

This is like "chicken-n-egg" story. First vibs came from previous vibs (assuming) but where did previous come.... I supp we may remember vishnu and brahma trying to "find the source and finality" of shiva and FAILED :? so the terim "first-vibration" "first big bang" :?...

"TIME (as we call it now) is... beginningless" is it not?

[Shakthiprabha]

Human form is very unique because there is a inbuilt mechanism to get back to the Source (Brahman). In human birth is also unique that, the I ego can manifest to its extreme end or can be diminished to zero level. For all its manifestation it need energy.

So beautifully put :clap:


The human mind then instead of decreasing the thought patterns keep increasing it. It is like going to a supermarket. You went only with a desire to buy 3 items in your list. When you saw many things there out of desire you brought 10 things. If you had money you buy with ready cash or you get it in credit card. The more you go to market the more you visits, to return it or to exchange it or to upgrade it.

:clap: perfect :)

[anbu_kathir]

What caused birth. Desire only caused birth.


Yes.. I guess so. But's its rather interesting to think about the first microorganism(s) that came into being. On that level, chemistry, physics is all that mattered. 'Desire' seems to be a natural thing, at least for the micro-orgs, where it is seemingly manifested to a large extent as purely scientific phenomena.. molecules attracting molecules for stability.



Human form is very unique because there is a inbuilt mechanism to get back to the Source (Brahman). In human birth is also unique that, the I ego can manifest to its extreme end or can be diminished to zero level.


So many religious and spiritual people have said humans are the only one to have this ability, but I refuse to accept it. IMHO we cannot make any opinion about the enlightenment (or ability to be enlightened) of another human being, let alone animals and plants. Plants and animals are unique for their own reasons, but the superiority (for lack of a better word) associated with humans is uncalled for. Who knows.. we might be the only species on earth that is not yet 'enlightened' ? I don't believe anyone can say anything about this for sure.

Love and Light.

[pradheep]

Dear Sk

How is this possible pradheep?
I will come to the 1450 and 2040 explanation later because understanding other facts would nail it down easily.

Please explain in "lay-man's" words
When atom was split and found to have electrons, the scientists put the model that electrons were spinning around nucleus in orbits like Earth around Sun. Then Quantum mechainics proved it was wrong. Electron did not go around, but the electrons could exists in many probabilities around the nucleus. The probability is influenced by the observer, which when heisenbergy said, scientists could not beleive. But look at the most recent one
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

So when the matter (electron) is at micro level, observer effect seems to be more pronounced, that the observer effect influencing at macro bodies like a star. This is why effects of thoughts affect other thoughts (micro) more than thoughts affecting body (macro).

Do I need to simplify further?


so where does "first vibration" COME?

The first thought "I" from the most subtlest energy, which we call as Aadhi-Paraa-sakthi. That is not a lady with a red color sari as people think, it is the symbolic of the most subtlest energy vibration, which we call as a thought (subtlest thought vibration which is not a thought like that produced in a brain).

TIME (as we call it now) is... beginningless" is it not?
When there are two objects (forms) time and Space come into picture and not in singularity.

Dear AK

manifested to a large extent as purely scientific phenomena why only Micro-org's, even our body phenomena is also physical bio-chemistry.


about the enlightenment Can you please explain what you mean by enlightenment .

[anbu_kathir]

why only Micro-org's, even our body phenomena is also physical bio-chemistry.


What I meant was that 'scientific' structure of Life is a bit more evident in micro-organisms than in the human body. They do not 'seem' to have complicated emotions and all those additional desires over the most basic... so they are a bit more closer to machines than a human, although surely not 100% so.


Can you please explain what you mean by enlightenment .

I don't think I know or can explain what it means, but I think of it as 'That (state) which cannot be explained by concepts', because I think this is a fair pointer to reality.

Love and Light.

[pradheep]

because I think this is a fair pointer to reality.
Dear AK
Thats correct it cannot be explained. But it can be pointed that it is the state of the source of all manifestations. In reality we are all enligtened, but we dont know it because of the curtain of Ego in front of us. Once the curtain is removed we become aware of our awareness. In plants animals and micro-organisms, the Curtain is thin, but still there, but they dont have the means or knwledge to remove it. In Human we know the problems and means to overcome it.

[anbu_kathir]

because I think this is a fair pointer to reality.
Dear AK
Thats correct it cannot be explained. But it can be pointed that it is the state of the source of all manifestations. In reality we are all enligtened, but we dont know it because of the curtain of Ego in front of us. Once the curtain is removed we become aware of our awareness. In plants animals and micro-organisms, the Curtain is thin, but still there, but they dont have the means or knwledge to remove it. In Human we know the problems and means to overcome it.

My point was that we cannot make such a statement about them. How can one say for sure?

Love and Light.

[pradheep]

How can one say for sure?
Dear AK
It could be an indirect guessing only based on Evolutionary theory both at Physical sciences and in spiritual level. Based on Evolution the lower one's would not have an ability that the higher one have developed. Same with Spiritual evolution. With this thought only one can say they will not have it. However exception are there. Hope you have heard of Guruvayoor Kesavan an elephant. Though there were 100's of elephants , only his behavior was different. All elephants bend down all four legs all times for human to get on its back. Kesavan would bend only all four legs when the Lord's statue was there, otherwise it will only bend its hind legs only.
http://www.guruvayurdevaswom.org/kesavan.shtmlKesavan would stay calm only when he was given the bananas from the Lord. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guruvayur_Keshavan

These show that an animal had a spiritual inclination. I said the generalized picture based on spiritual and material evolution point of view.