The Universal Truth of "God Supreme" [Archive]

virarajendra

15th April 2008, 11:21 PM

Author - Virarajendra

"The Universal Truth of "God Supreme"

The "God Supreme" of the religions that sprung from India and of the other world religions - "is none but one"

In India the "God Supreme" of no specific form or name was given many different 'forms' and 'names' by various "Hindu Religious Beliefs" - as God Siva (Shiva) in Saivaism, as God Vishnu in Vaishnavaism, Goddess Sakthi in Saktham, God Kanapathi in Kanapathiyam, God Skanda in Kaumaram, and as God Agni in Vedism - (collectively known as "Hinduism") - and was worshiped by Hindus from the time immemorial.

The above God Forms never took birth in this world in human forms. Hence they were called by the prefix title (the) "God"

However in Vaishnavaism it was further considered that God Vishnu took ten incarnations in this world, among which are the incarnations as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna.

The Jainism and Buddhism preached by Lord Mahaveer and Lord Buddha - being two other religions of India, upheld the principle of non-existance of God. Sikism recognised "God Supreme" as the Guru (Preacher) to the mankind.

Among the world religions - the Islamic religion referred to the "God Supreme" of no specific form or name as "Allah", and Prophet Mohammad as the Messenger of the "God Supreme".

The Christian religion referred to Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of the "God Supreme" of no specific form or name. The Judaism too recognised the existance of the "God Supreme" of no specific form or name.

Hence it should be understood that - "no Religion in this World is superior to the other," as all these Religions worship finally to the 'One and only' Ultimate - the "God Supreme"

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

"Mahakavi Subramaniya Bharathiyaar" refutes at Religious Disputes among the people of Tamil Nadu as follows:

"தெய்வம் பலபல சொல்லிப் - பகைத்
தீயை வளர்ப்பவர் மூடர்;
உய்வ தனைத்திலும் ஒன்றாய் - எங்கும்
ஓர்பொருளானது தெய்வம்

தீயினைக் கும்பிடும் பார்ப்பார், - நித்தம்
திக்கை வணங்கும் துருக்கர்,
கோவிற் சிலுவையின் முன்னே - நின்று
கும்பிடும் யேசு மதத்தார்.

யாரும் பணிந்திடும் தெய்வம் - பொருள்
யாவினும் நின்றிடும் தெய்வம்,
பாருக்குள்ளே தெய்வம் ஒன்று; - இதில்
பற்பல சண்டைகள் வேண்டாம்"

The Video at the following URL too pin-points the weakness of the Tamils and the Indians as a whole, is their wasting of time on Caste & Religious disputes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thwptizIKls=player_detailpage

anbu_kathir

16th April 2008, 09:58 AM

Saying this itself is a blasphemy for some.

All in all, these points have been raised before. I don't see many people changing their minds because of these. Its far more complicated, you know.

Love and Light.

Hence it should be understood that no Religion in this World is superior to the other, as all these Religions worship finally to the 'One and only' Ultimate - the "God Supreme"

thamizhvaanan

16th April 2008, 10:11 AM

Anbu,

neenga enga ponaalum "its far more complicated"nu solreenga :lol2: I guess ungala madhiri post panradhu mattum thaan romba simple :lol2:

anbu_kathir

16th April 2008, 10:25 AM

Haha.. yes of course.

Point is that questions of religion, spiritual experience, the science of the universe etc (i post only in such topics ) are not like quite like 1+1 = 2. Its always misleading to simpify truths in these areas to such an extent.

Of course, the paths to the truths may be simplified so, but never the truths. Those are better left untalked and unsaid, until realisation dawns. Stressing this is my only aim :D.

As the proverb goes, kattrathu kai man alavu, kallaalathathu ulagalavu illaya? That too in spiritual, religious issues, where 'information' is of no use.

Love and Light.

Anbu,

neenga enga ponaalum "its far more complicated"nu solreenga :lol2: I guess ungala madhiri post panradhu mattum thaan romba simple :lol2:

Devar Magan

19th April 2008, 03:04 PM

Haha.. yes of course.

Point is that questions of religion, spiritual experience, the science of the universe etc (i post only in such topics ) are not like quite like 1+1 = 2. Its always misleading to simpify truths in these areas to such an extent.

then.. when will u explain?? any DVDs to explain?? how will we ordinary souls get to understand god and religion.. dont u feel responsibility to enlighthen us???

As the proverb goes, kattrathu kai man alavu, kallaalathathu ulagalavu illaya? That too in spiritual, religious issues, where 'information' is of no use.

Love and Light.

:notthatway:
kattrathu kai alavu,
kallaalathathu KAMAL alavu .. :yes:

anbu_kathir

19th April 2008, 03:24 PM

NO!

I am not responsible for giving explanations to anyone. Why should I care about you or anyone other than myself ? I share what I have learnt and experienced with people only when it is joyful for me to do it, and when I do it that way, the joy of sharing is enough for me and hence I don't care a damn about whether the message gets through to them or what they think about it.

It is best for each of us to find our own truth, not to merely imitate another's ideas. For getting to our own truth, there are simple methods which have been advocated ( see here: http://mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=11396, the last post of mine) , and they are everyone's property. If you want to find your own truth, practice them, they don't cost anything other than a few hours a week and some sincerity. If you don't care about them and look for people to explain spirituality, then I am afraid I can't help you, and no one can. This is a journey where people can only remind you of the way , but the journey is ultimately personal and must be traversed alone.

And by the way, Believing is Seeing, rather than the contrary. If you believe anyone is an 'ordinary' soul who doesn't understand these things, or that I or anyone is somehow 'higher' because I or that someone does understand, so it will be, for you! I don't care about these anyway, there is no such thing as ordinary, higher, lower etc..in my world. Anyway for that matter, I happen to think you are just pulling my leg here.. LOL.

Kallaathathu Kamal Alavu.. LOL :lol: .

Love and Light.

Haha.. yes of course.

Point is that questions of religion, spiritual experience, the science of the universe etc (i post only in such topics ) are not like quite like 1+1 = 2. Its always misleading to simpify truths in these areas to such an extent.

then.. when will u explain?? any DVDs to explain?? how will we ordinary souls get to understand god and religion.. dont u feel responsibility to enlighthen us???

As the proverb goes, kattrathu kai man alavu, kallaalathathu ulagalavu illaya? That too in spiritual, religious issues, where 'information' is of no use.

Love and Light.

:notthatway:
kattrathu kai alavu,
kallaalathathu KAMAL alavu .. :yes:

pizzalot

4th May 2008, 09:55 PM

You know what I like in discussions like this ? Nobody fails. Nobody is wrong. So feel free to say anything you like. If you never said anything in all your life, this is the topic you can try and practice telling something and still walk out that you were never wrong.
You will see responses ranging from approval to agrression.
(:))

anbu_kathir

5th May 2008, 10:53 AM

Is there a 'discussion' here? The thread starter said something and left. That was the end of it, I guess.

Love and Light.

You know what I like in discussions like this ? Nobody fails. Nobody is wrong. So feel free to say anything you like. If you never said anything in all your life, this is the topic you can try and practice telling something and still walk out that you were never wrong.
You will see responses ranging from approval to agrression.
(:))

pizzalot

5th May 2008, 07:55 PM

Is there a 'discussion' here? The thread starter said something and left. That was the end of it, I guess.

Love and Light.

How can you say that ? Vijay has just laid table. Cant you hear the bulls are rubbing the floor outside the room ? Wait till they join us.

Meanwhile ..

Vijay ..who are these "Hindus" ?

anbu_kathir

5th May 2008, 08:04 PM

That was done a month ago and I don't see people responding.

Love and Light.

Is there a 'discussion' here? The thread starter said something and left. That was the end of it, I guess.

Love and Light.

How can you say that ? Vijay has just laid table. Cant you hear the bulls are rubbing the floor outside the room ? Wait till they join us.

Shakthiprabha.

5th May 2008, 08:15 PM

If you believe anyone is an 'ordinary' soul who doesn't understand these things, or that I or anyone is somehow 'higher' because I or that someone does understand, so it will be, for you! I don't care about these anyway, there is no such thing as ordinary, higher, lower etc..in my world.

:)

joe

5th May 2008, 09:38 PM

'One and only' Ultimate - the "God Supreme"

All will accept this ..but everybody will argue that the one they worship is the real GOD supreme.

pizzalot

5th May 2008, 11:54 PM

So many religions.. but why is there always Master-Servant rhetoric ? Why is the Supreme .. Almighty stuff ? Why is "worship" instead of "homeage" or "respect" or "just hello .. or a bye" , even assuming that there is "One" ? Does "The Supreme Being" expect that I worship him ?

Could He or She actually was a creature from more advanced Culture that was alien to the society ? What if "God the Supreme" is already lost along with that culture, leaving behind only "knowledge" ? (Like Veda, Genesis, Scriptures etc)

Why so many "He" and very few 'shes" in the religions mentioned ? Is that because of too much testosterone in the religion ? Is it a proof that "The Supreme" is in man's imagination only ?

And not to mention "The Supreme Being" are realized by those who lived in the past and some belief is always needed .. cannot be seen and can only be realized .. rhetorics.

Even assuming he is for real and he is found out .. (just like some people claiming to have discovered anti-matter,black hole etc) what happens next ? Does our relationship with him change ? Will we still revere him ?

Shakthiprabha.

7th May 2008, 12:09 PM

HI pizzalot, I shall try to share my opinion based on how little I know.

Anbuk kathir and others who are much more wiser can guide me wherever I am wrong.

So many religions.. but why is there always Master-Servant rhetoric ? Why is the Supreme .. Almighty stuff ?

Because one is complete or realised and other is not so!
The master servant theory is for ppl in different steps of realisation.

Why is "worship" instead of "homeage" or "respect" or "just hello .. or a bye" , even assuming that there is "One" ? Does "The Supreme Being" expect that I worship him ?

No you need not worship. You can just say hello or hi or talk to the
so called supreme thing. There is nothing like 'something is supreme and other is not'. Definitely it does not EXPECT you to worship :).

suppose,

human + knowlege = wise person
human - knowledge = Ignorant person

human however REMAINS the same and IS THE SAME with or without knowledge.

So, the supreme being and the ordinary beings are ESSENTIALLY the same. Application of knowledge is limited or lacks in the ordinary beings.

Could He or She actually was a creature from more advanced Culture that was alien to the society ? What if "God the Supreme" is already lost along with that culture, leaving behind only "knowledge" ? (Like Veda, Genesis, Scriptures etc)

There is NOTHING SEPERATELY called GOD, which u can term as HE OR SHE or a creature.

GOD is plain EXISTENCE.

Why so many "He" and very few 'shes" in the religions mentioned ? Is that because of too much testosterone in the religion ? Is it a proof that "The Supreme" is in man's imagination only ?

God is NATURE. Most hes and shes are PERSONIFICATIONS of nature.

And not to mention "The Supreme Being" are realized by those who lived in the past and some belief is always needed ..

Right here, in this world, in current era, THERE ARE REALISED souls. They just dont say it out or talk about it (because it cannot be explained theoritically it has to experienced)

cannot be seen and can only be realized .. rhetorics.

yes. Its ITS AN EXPERIENCE, not an entity

Even assuming he is for real and he is found out .. (just like some people claiming to have discovered anti-matter,black hole etc) what happens next ? Does our relationship with him change ? Will we still revere him ?

We become THAT. Where is the question of revering something when EVERYTHING around is just THE SAME THING :?

pizzalot

9th May 2008, 02:09 AM

Thanks Shakthi. Actually I know there is no correct answer. The ideas was to see how differently you see things based on your experience.

Now another question. God= Existance. God=Me. So I always existed, correct ?

So did I exist before birth ? As what ?

anbu_kathir

9th May 2008, 10:02 AM

So did I exist before birth ? As what ?

Answers may be given. But how do we know if it is true or false? What logic would one apply to it?

Love and Light.

Shakthiprabha.

10th October 2008, 08:27 PM

Found this interesting!

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_7/Conversations_And_Dialogues/VI

anbu_kathir

11th October 2008, 09:46 AM

Found this interesting!

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_7/Conversations_And_Dialogues/VI

" The case of ordinary Jivas is like that of the salt - doll which attempting to sound the depths of the ocean melted into it. Do you see? The sum and substance of it is -- you have only got to know that you are Eternal Brahman. "

Aaha...only Masters can put it so eloquently.

Love and Light.

virarajendra

10th March 2009, 11:56 PM

Brought Forward

anbu_kathir

11th March 2009, 04:59 PM

Brought Forward

Its kind of sad that the "Universal truth of God-Supreme" should be 'brought forward' now and then

Just kidding.. thanks virarajendra. :)

Love and light.

pradheep

24th March 2009, 02:58 AM

So did I exist before birth ? As what ?
Even now "I" exist as thoughts (thinking machine). Before birth also the same. This continues until a thoughtless state, the Source , the witness of all thoughts.

virarajendra

9th January 2010, 11:31 PM

Brought forward

pradheep

12th January 2010, 12:12 AM

May be the new movie avatar could shed light on this Topic and related topics in this section. The movie name and title is from the vedic tradition and primitive soceities of the world.

http://matrixjourney.com/avatar.htm

Aghori

12th January 2010, 07:02 PM

The universal truth is simple

aham Bhramasmi Ayam Bhramasmi Jai Bholenath!

pradheep

13th January 2010, 03:59 AM

Bholenath!

Words like the above without meaning , just denoting a image, makes the Universal Truth complicated in discussions.

PARAMASHIVAN

18th January 2010, 06:36 PM

Bholenath!

Words like the above without meaning , just denoting a image, makes the Universal Truth complicated in discussions.

Hi

Bholenath is sanskrit word for Lird Shiva, Bhole (Universe) Nath(god) , implying God of universe

pradheep

18th January 2010, 10:29 PM

Bholenath is sanskrit word for Lird Shiva, Bhole (Universe) Nath(god) , implying God of universe

You are right, in Sanskrit Bhole (Universe) Nath(god) , implying God of universe. But Shiva devotees used that word to denote Shiva.

Another word Jaganath, in sanskrit means Jag (universe) nath (god or king), implying god or king of universe. But Vishnu devotees used that word to denote Vishnu.

Vishnu and Shiva and Brahma are three names denoting three functions of Cosmic Energy. They are "not" three different individuals. Lack of this understanding creates wars and hinders the progess of Bhakthi.

PARAMASHIVAN

18th January 2010, 10:44 PM

Another word Jaganath, in sanskrit means Jag (universe) nath (god or king), implying god or king of universe. But Vishnu devotees used that word to denote Vishnu.

Yes , you are right. But Jagadesha denotes lord Shiva, If you listen to the Gayathri Mantra , it goes like this

Om Jai Jagadesha hara Swami Jai jagadesha hara

The word Isha (Isa in Christianity, Islam) also denotes Supreme truth,...I believe the culture known as 'Hinduism' actually orginated from middle east, not from today's India

what are your thoughts on this?

PARAMASHIVAN

18th January 2010, 10:52 PM

Vishnu and Shiva and Brahma are three names denoting three functions of Cosmic Energy. They are "not" three different individuals. Lack of this understanding creates wars and hinders the progess of Bhakthi.

Correct, this was deployed by scholars to educate us about the different stages of a life perishable body goes through... Hindusim is a practical reality of life rather than a religion (re align with God).

If you take Hinduism for eg.. we have saraswathi (education), Lakshmi (finance) , Durga (defence) . This is like MP's in a Parliment.

Some fight over ruling partY (Shivaites, Vaishnavites) vs Oppositin party (Shivaites, Vaishnavites) :lol:

pradheep

18th January 2010, 11:09 PM

Correct, this was deployed by scholars to educate us

If that is true , the names Bholenath and Jaganath represents both Shiva and Vishnu depending on the individual who identifies with a particular name and form for represrnting "God (Consciousness)".

pradheep

18th January 2010, 11:15 PM

He is the Impersonal Absolute Brahman.

"He" .......... "Impersonal" - !!!! He He He ....

anbu_kathir

19th January 2010, 09:59 AM

Bholenath is sanskrit word for Lird Shiva, Bhole (Universe) Nath(god) , implying God of universe

You are right, in Sanskrit Bhole (Universe) Nath(god) , implying God of universe. But Shiva devotees used that word to denote Shiva.

AFAIK, Bole-naath = Innocent Lord, because of Shiva's attitude towards giving boons to one and all ;). Bole-nna universennu artham irukka?

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

19th January 2010, 05:06 PM

PARAMASHIVAN

19th January 2010, 05:07 PM

Bholenath is sanskrit word for Lird Shiva, Bhole (Universe) Nath(god) , implying God of universe

You are right, in Sanskrit Bhole (Universe) Nath(god) , implying God of universe. But Shiva devotees used that word to denote Shiva.

AFAIK, Bole-naath = Innocent Lord, because of Shiva's attitude towards giving boons to one and all ;). Bole-nna universennu artham irukka?

Love and Light.

Yes Anbu, Bole na universennu artham irukku, remember one name has many meanings, it is called polymorphism

anbu_kathir

20th January 2010, 09:45 AM

AFAIK, Bole-naath = Innocent Lord, because of Shiva's attitude towards giving boons to one and all ;). Bole-nna universennu artham irukka?

Love and Light.

Yes Anbu, Bole na universennu artham irukku, remember one name has many meanings, it is called polymorphism

That property is called polysemy or homonymy it seems.

http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/3039/

Never found a valid reference for Bole meaning universe... thats why I said what I said. On the other hand, bole meaning innocent is well known.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

21st January 2010, 03:13 PM

virarajendra

19th June 2010, 09:22 AM

Brought forward

Sudhaama

25th June 2010, 08:45 PM

.

Dear Vira-rajendra,

Thanks for opening up a good subject of HUMAN-VALUES by Spiritualistic outlook.

Why should we MANKIND think on GOD.?--

-- and try to understand HIM / HER / IT--

--an UNKNOWN MATTER.?

---as GOD SUPREME.?

.

PARAMASHIVAN

28th June 2010, 09:30 PM

[tscii:064c98b7a1]The word religion simply means ' Re aligning your self with GOD'.

The General perception of GOD, I say 99.999% is wrong against the laws of nature (GOD ???)

From Generation to Generation 'GOD' is seen as an Entity whose purpose is to 'Fulfil' its attributes (Living things esp. Human beings). But this has 'never' been happening and will 'never' happen, why? Because of our understanding of the creator. GOD/ Creator / Destroyer's function was to create/destroy this cosmos and it 's attributes (humans, Animals, trees, ocean fire, anything and everything you can associate with the cosmos) This is the Law of Nature hence the law of the creator.

we have created all the sufferings in the world, no body else, so crying out to GOD will not solve anything, it is just we feel little comfort after pouring out all the worries this is just a human feeling.

Most of us think about GOD 'only' when we need something which is beyond our 'human' abilities, is it not? When you are cold and hungry, you say Siva Siva, when you are in a happy mood, you sing your favourite ‘Bollywood’ tune. What kind of non sense it is. Human feelings are just like ‘passing clouds’ it is a variable, it does not remain for ever.

When you have ‘material bondage’ you can not and will not understand GOD!

We created , religions, cultures and various beliefs systems in accordance with what we know , which we all know has a severe limitation,, based on what we grasped using our five sense.

To be continued… :P
[/tscii:064c98b7a1]

bis_mala

29th June 2010, 04:51 AM

.

Why should we MANKIND think on GOD.?--

--an UNKNOWN MATTER.?

.

Is God a matter?

PARAMASHIVAN

29th June 2010, 07:40 PM

.

Why should we MANKIND think on GOD.?--

--an UNKNOWN MATTER.?

.

Is God a matter?

I think Sudhama sir meant 'an unknown issue'.

virarajendra

7th January 2011, 09:24 PM

brought forward

PARAMASHIVAN

7th January 2011, 11:43 PM

will continue here later ...

virarajendra

2nd May 2011, 09:07 PM

Brought forward

virarajendra

16th May 2011, 08:16 AM

brought forward

SoftSword

16th May 2011, 04:16 PM

virarajendra, seems like ur bringing it forward again and again :)
is it cos u have doubts on god and want to get it clarified by fellow hubbers here?
or with a worry that people have started ignoring such topics?

PARAMASHIVAN

16th May 2011, 04:27 PM

or with a worry that people have started ignoring such topics?

I think it is ignoring factor,I also do the same thing in this section of the hub.

What does the word 'GOD' mean to you ?

SoftSword

16th May 2011, 04:33 PM

yaara enna kaekkareengala?

PARAMASHIVAN

16th May 2011, 04:47 PM

yaara enna kaekkareengala?

Yes , I am asking you :)

SoftSword

16th May 2011, 05:03 PM

for me the word "GOD" is more of a role than a designation or personnel.

anbu_kathir

21st May 2011, 03:01 PM

for me the word "GOD" is more of a role than a designation or personnel.

As usual I barge into the discussion, with apologies. "Role" performing what, if I may so ask, SS?

SoftSword

23rd May 2011, 05:27 AM

As usual I barge into the discussion, with apologies. "Role" performing what, if I may so ask, SS?

Role of helping the needy....
vellatthil iruppavarai karaiyetrum role.... pallatthil iruppavarai maedaettrum role...

PARAMASHIVAN

23rd May 2011, 03:42 PM

Role of helping the needy....
vellatthil iruppavarai karaiyetrum role.... pallatthil iruppavarai maedaettrum role...

So in you view, GOD is some one who helps man in his day to day problems ?

SoftSword

23rd May 2011, 03:45 PM

So in you view, GOD is some one who helps man in his day to day problems ?

no. its the other way. the man who helps the needy is god in my view.
not day to day problems like washing dishes, cleaning the car as u smartly lay a trap :)

anbu_kathir

24th May 2011, 10:41 AM

no. its the other way. the man who helps the needy is god in my view.
not day to day problems like washing dishes, cleaning the car as u smartly lay a trap :)

If and only if you are interested in indulging in a slightly more deeper analysis, what do you mean by "needy" here? Is such a situation possible in our world where this "neediness" and thereby "godliness" has disappeared? Also, what is "help" ? Is it an action or is it a response arising from an attitude? If it is action, what is the measure of its "helpability" (i.e., greater, smaller)? How "help-y" must a person be to be a God in your pov (I guess this would imply a "godliness" through which people can go on and off ) ?

SoftSword

24th May 2011, 02:52 PM

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 02:58 PM

If and only if you are interested in indulging in a slightly more deeper analysis, what do you mean by "needy" here? Is such a situation possible in our world where this "neediness" and thereby "godliness" has disappeared? Also, what is "help" ? Is it an action or is it a response arising from an attitude? If it is action, what is the measure of its "helpability" (i.e., greater, smaller)? How "help-y" must a person be to be a God in your pov (I guess this would imply a "godliness" through which people can go on and off ) ?

Kathir

Dont Confuse the Guy :lol2:

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 02:59 PM

no. its the other way. the man who helps the needy is god in my view.
not day to day problems like washing dishes, cleaning the car as u smartly lay a trap :)

Wow Excellent "Logical Answer" :lol2:

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 03:00 PM

Kathir

I will come back to you question shortly, A bit busy at work :)

anbu_kathir

24th May 2011, 04:51 PM

satthiyamaa neenga kaekkuradhu enakku puriyala... romba complicated... simple questionsa kelungalaen...
namma logic simple... for example, soatthukku vazhi illaama setthukittu irukkavan needy... avanoda kastattha unarndhu soru podravan goddy...
rattham kedakkama setthuttu irukkavan needy... avanukku rattham kudukkuravan goddy... etc.,
chinna help periya help'nu ellaam illai... sariyana timela help panravanga... size vechu measure panni kadasiyaa mark'a poda poraanga. :)

SS,

I didn't mean to confuse you, I only wanted to go to the root of your definition of God (adhukku dhaan "if you are interested"nnu kEttEn :D, innum kekarEn :D). Let me first try to give my model :D, and then you can get a clearer picture of where I am coming from.

Whatever you have mentioned comes under food-clothing-shelter (i.e. physical security). In Hinduism, this is called Artha. Artha is one of the four "Purushaartha"s of Hinduism, the other three being Kaama (Comfort), Dharma (loosely translated as duty i.e. the "proper means" by which Artha and Kaama is to be pursued), and Moksha (Liberation). Dharma, Artha, Kaama are the same as Aram, PoruL, Inbam of ThirukkuraL. Moksha, Liberation (from what -ngarthukku apparam varuvOm) is considered to be the ultimate goal of all beings and this Moksha is considered to be non-different from God/Self. This is roughly the same as my model for God, and hence I try to reconcile any new information with these. Now, let me elaborate my issues with this particular model of yours.

#1: According to your model, the one who provides Artha is God (or God-like), and the one who receives it is needy, and I am assuming that a "seeke"r is one who wishes to be God-like all the time. But to a common person, whose motivations are not unselfish in general, why should he be such a "seeker"?

#2 Your model seems a simple enough idea and works (as a nice thumb-rule) at times (as in your second example where a person requires blood and another donates it). But it doesn't really work in all possible practical variations of the scenario in your first example, as with the beggar (how to make an accurate judgment in this case?, remembering the quote - “Give someone a fish and you feed him for a day; Teach someone to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”). This is clearly not just a hypothetical situation and is infact very real. IMHO, I also see that most of our everyday issues are this way. No one is really desperately needy most of the time, and it is a tricky issue how much to "give". Also, our "needs" keep changing from time to time, in general as our civilization advances in satisfying a certain quantum of Artha, Kaama (comfort) needs start getting classified as "Artha".

#3. In some ways, a counter-problem to the previous one. The model presumes that the "giver" is somehow at a higher state (Artha-wise, i.e., in terms of current physical security) than the "taker", but does not take into consideration the attitude possessed by the giver. A psychologist knows that "serial-helpers" are also existent in the society just as serial-killers are :P, and such "givers" operate from a unhealthy attitude of self-superiority. In other words, there is a difference between "charity" and "service". Charity puts the giver above the receiver psychologically, but service means the opposite of this. Considering that there is no difference as such in the actions of "charitable" or "service minded" people, how does this variation in attitude fit into your model?

#4. Assume for a moment that all the people in the world are compassionate and there are no people who suffer prolongedly due to lack of human intervention. Would that be the end of the need for a concept of God? To rephrase, the usual God of any religion involves mystery (in Hinduism, this mystery aspect is reflected in Moksha and to an extent in Dharma) and compassion together. With perfect compassion, would the mystery aspect of God also vanish?

---

If you have read through all this, you know how twisted I am :P. I no longer feel that simple answers are applicable to my problems, so I am forced to have to search and research to find one which "fits".

Love and Light.

SoftSword

24th May 2011, 05:11 PM

anbu,
a bit busy in office....
and too many things to understand from ur points before i could reply...
will do it later.

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 06:04 PM

Role of helping the needy....
vellatthil iruppavarai karaiyetrum role.... pallatthil iruppavarai maedaettrum role...

Softie

What do you mean by Needy? Physical need as in food, shelter, clothing, money etc or mental need like emotional need?

Don't you think these needs, worries, anxiety, ego everything you relate to are to do with the physical body you are in and it has no reflexion on your 'True being' as to what so ever! . I am taking about the Atma alias soul here. The minute you let go of your physical bondage, you will be free from this suffering!

Human mind is a collection of information received from five sensory organs + imagination based on the information received from these sensory organs. These sensory organs are outbound this is why we suffer as we relate our mind to illusion made by the mind.

If these five sensory organs are shut down, nothing exists in your mind, it is like you are in a coma! To understand GOD , we must direct our thoughts inwards away from the outbound information received from the sensory organs. This is called inner engineering ! 

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 06:18 PM

Moksha, Liberation (from what -ngarthukku apparam varuvOm) is considered to be the ultimate goal of all beings and this Moksha is considered to be non-different from God/Self. This is roughly the same as my model for God! .

Yes , Exactly my point !

SoftSword

24th May 2011, 06:19 PM

Softie

What do you mean by Needy? Physical need as in food, shelter, clothing, money etc or mental need like emotional need?

Don't you think these needs, worries, anxiety, ego everything you relate to are to do with the physical body you are in and it has no reflexion on your 'True being' as to what so ever! . I am taking about the Atma alias soul here. The minute you let go of your physical bondage, you will be free from this suffering!

param, i only worry for asthma, not atma...
i am a person who wants to enjoy the game and do the right thing when i am in the crease, and not worry about how i will react or justify or enjoy the success/failure while i sit in the pavilion after i get out.
and by needs i mean, oruttharukku migavum atthiyaavasiya, uyir kaakkakkoodiya, oruvaradhu vaazhkkai pokkaiyae matrakkoodiya thevaigal... oralavukku purinjukkuveenganu nenakkiren... ennalaa edhu edhu nu list ellaam poda mudiyaadhu... :)

Human mind is a collection of information received from five sensory organs + imagination based on the information received from these sensory organs. These sensory organs are outbound this is why we suffer as we relate our mind to illusion made by the mind.

If these five sensory organs are shut down, nothing exists in your mind, it is like you are in a coma! To understand GOD , we must direct our thoughts inwards away from the outbound information received from the sensory organs. This is called inner engineering ! 

thevaippadavillai. :)

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 06:28 PM

Kathir

Unfortunately, most(90%) peoples' perception of GOD is that 'GOD is some one who will help us in need' unfortunately they keep on believing in this irrational aspect, and they have developed various practices known as Religion (which is supposed to mean Re Align your self with the supreme) to fulfil their 'Selfish' needs. and these 'Irrational' people only cry to their GOD when they are in need of something, if they have every thing they want or in a happy mood, the thought of this 'Generous giver' does not come in their mind!
Where is the Logic in this??

Sadguru gave an example on this, (quite funny) . when his disciple Shankaran pillai was feeling cold, he started saying 'Shiva Shiva' , but when he was in jubilant mood, he was thinking of Sharmila Tagore and singing 'Roopu tera mastana piyaru mera dheewana' ! :lol:

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 09:00 PM

thevaippadavillai. :)

See this is the problem ! Ignorant Of the Truth, This is the problem most people. They either run away from the reality or are ignorant of it :(

SoftSword

24th May 2011, 09:11 PM

See this is the problem ! Ignorant Of the Truth, This is the problem most people. They either run away from the reality or are ignorant of it :(

Paramu, ungalukku thamizh theriyumnu nenachen...
unga mother tongue ennanu sollunga... 'thevaippadavillai'ya translate panni solren.

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 09:19 PM

Paramu, ungalukku thamizh theriyumnu nenachen...
unga mother tongue ennanu sollunga... 'thevaippadavillai'ya translate panni solren.

There is no need to be sarcastic in serious discussions, What I meant was many adopt your policy
"எனக்கு தேவைபடல அதனால் தெரிஞ்சு கொள்ள தோனல " ungala personal ah sollala , pothuva sonnen :)

SoftSword

24th May 2011, 09:27 PM

There is no need to be sarcastic in serious discussions, What I meant was many adopt your policy
"எனக்கு தேவைபடல அதனால் தெரிஞ்சு கொள்ள தோனல " ungala personal ah sollala , pothuva sonnen :)

ennattha sarcastic...
thevaippadala'nra vaartthaila irundhu neenga epdi 'either run away from the reality or are ignorant of it' apdinu implication kondu vandheenga...?
modhal'la idhukku badhil solunga...

naane vandi oattikkuven... enakku driver thevaippadala'nu naan solren... to be more clear to u.
neenga, 'illa, u r running away from drivers or ignorant of driver union' apdinu solringa...
apram unga kitta epdi serious discussion panradhu....

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 09:30 PM

:sigh2: Carry On

PARAMASHIVAN

24th May 2011, 09:32 PM

Kathir

Where are the likes of Predeep, Rohit and Sudhama sir , have not seen their posts in years, esp Rohit's one! Many felt offended by Rohit posts but he did have some valid points on offer :)

SoftSword

24th May 2011, 09:32 PM

thevaippadala'nra vaartthaila irundhu neenga epdi 'either run away from the reality or are ignorant of it' apdinu implication kondu vandheenga...?
modhal'la idhukku badhil solunga...

u said this... and u hav to justify.
..........

SoftSword

25th May 2011, 02:37 AM

anbu,
first of all thanks for ur time and ur patience in writing such a long post.
normally i dismiss such discussions as waste of time but seeing that you are patient and open enough to discuss this with me i am really humbled, which is why i wanted to read ur post properly when i am not busy before i can reply.

SS,
I didn't mean to confuse you, I only wanted to go to the root of your definition of God (adhukku dhaan "if you are interested"nnu kEttEn :D, innum kekarEn :D). Let me first try to give my model :D, and then you can get a clearer picture of where I am coming from.

Whatever you have mentioned comes under food-clothing-shelter (i.e. physical security). In Hinduism, this is called Artha. Artha is one of the four "Purushaartha"s of Hinduism, the other three being Kaama (Comfort), Dharma (loosely translated as duty i.e. the "proper means" by which Artha and Kaama is to be pursued), and Moksha (Liberation). Dharma, Artha, Kaama are the same as Aram, PoruL, Inbam of ThirukkuraL. Moksha, Liberation (from what -ngarthukku apparam varuvOm) is considered to be the ultimate goal of all beings and this Moksha is considered to be non-different from God/Self. This is roughly the same as my model for God, and hence I try to reconcile any new information with these. Now, let me elaborate my issues with this particular model of yours.

that is really informative, though i have already known in bits and pieces about those 4 concepts as aram, porul, inbam and veeduperu. and ur relating of the first three concepts with the three 'paal's of thirukkural is brilliant. valluvar is really a genius to have put in all under one book. (i always have a doubt if it was written by more than one and there could be some missing parts also which were not documented. we dont know really as it is reported to be written 2000 yrs back)

#1: According to your model, the one who provides Artha is God (or God-like), and the one who receives it is needy, and I am assuming that a "seeke"r is one who wishes to be God-like all the time. But to a common person, whose motivations are not unselfish in general, why should he be such a "seeker"?

he need not be a seeker. the only thing we need to seek is peace, happiness and humanity around the world. this is what i believe not assume.

and if u take the point of being selfish... each and everybody is selfish... even the so called Karnan was selfish in the aspect that he gave it all for the happiness and satisfaction he gets.. so he does it for getting 'something'... and in general too the vallals who were famous for helping people did it all believing that 'dharmam thalai kaakkum' or 'punniyam kedaikkum' which were also getting/expecting something...

#2 Your model seems a simple enough idea and works (as a nice thumb-rule) at times (as in your second example where a person requires blood and another donates it). But it doesn't really work in all possible practical variations of the scenario in your first example, as with the beggar (how to make an accurate judgment in this case?, remembering the quote - “Give someone a fish and you feed him for a day; Teach someone to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”). This is clearly not just a hypothetical situation and is infact very real. IMHO, I also see that most of our everyday issues are this way. No one is really desperately needy most of the time, and it is a tricky issue how much to "give". Also, our "needs" keep changing from time to time, in general as our civilization advances in satisfying a certain quantum of Artha, Kaama (comfort) needs start getting classified as "Artha".

again to reiterate, the needy i mean is, the person who is really in 'need'... not someone like senthil in the movie boys. chinna udhaviyo periya udhaviyo, 'nalla neratthula kadavul maadhiri vandhu udhavuna' apdinu solrom illayaa... neenga kadavul maadhiri udhavinan'reenga naan avan dhaan kadavul'nae solren. never gave a thought like if this is my model and if it is valid enough or not. this is what i believe and i dont have any confusion about this.

#3. In some ways, a counter-problem to the previous one. The model presumes that the "giver" is somehow at a higher state (Artha-wise, i.e., in terms of current physical security) than the "taker", but does not take into consideration the attitude possessed by the giver. A psychologist knows that "serial-helpers" are also existent in the society just as serial-killers are :P, and such "givers" operate from a unhealthy attitude of self-superiority. In other words, there is a difference between "charity" and "service". Charity puts the giver above the receiver psychologically, but service means the opposite of this. Considering that there is no difference as such in the actions of "charitable" or "service minded" people, how does this variation in attitude fit into your model?

i am seeing the help in the receivers point of view... how useful it is for him and what would happen if there is nobody to help... and ur seeing it from the givers point of view... i am not much worried about the giver... as i only mean 'kastapadravangalukku udhavi kedaikkanum'... keela irukkura pic'la irukkura maadhiri...
http://i52.tinypic.com/w2gmcz.jpg

#4. Assume for a moment that all the people in the world are compassionate and there are no people who suffer prolongedly due to lack of human intervention. Would that be the end of the need for a concept of God? To rephrase, the usual God of any religion involves mystery (in Hinduism, this mystery aspect is reflected in Moksha and to an extent in Dharma) and compassion together. With perfect compassion, would the mystery aspect of God also vanish?

i am not yet convinced if there is any need for a concept called God.
i only worry for the humanity to persist and don mind if any other concept evolve or vanish...

If you have read through all this, you know how twisted I am :P. I no longer feel that simple answers are applicable to my problems, so I am forced to have to search and research to find one which "fits".
Love and Light.

neither did i try to give any answer for your problems... i would say they cannot be seen as problems. its just the theories and beliefs u were taught since when u were a kid who cannot analyse but only believe whats been taught by the parents and the society. same with me as i was also taught similar concepts, taken to temples, told stories, shown movies which support those theories. and when i started thinking i understood the main idea behind feeding in all those faith was to teach morality that we should always do good and not do any bad deeds.

my intention is not to hurt any sentiments here and pardon me if i have spoken anything inappropriate.
and once again thanks for ur time.

anbu_kathir

26th May 2011, 10:09 AM

Dear SS,

Delightful read! I don't have much to differ from you, but I do have lots to add! Will be back later with my post.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 03:46 PM

SS

Your statement regarding 'Karnan' is absurd! He gave everything to who ever asked anything, without expecting anything in return! And he did not feel any joy in doing that, He thought that was his duty to do that! There is nothing self fish in that. His actions were always "self less".

Do you think any one selfish would cut off his Kavasa Kundala, something which is born with your body to donate it to some one, that too knowing it was his staunch enemy(partha)'s father (indira) who was in disguise !! Another example is 'Ekalayva' when his acharya(drona) asked Ekalava to cut thumb as Gurudakshana, Ekalava still donated it knowing that by doing that he will not be able to use the hand to shoot arrow, now where is selfishness coming here in Ekalava?? It was Drona who wanted his Favourite disciple Arjuna (Partha) to be best Archer in the world, he knew that Ekalava was better than Arjuna hence he used his cunning tactics disable Ekalava

Whether the above story (Mahabharata) was true or not is another Debate!

Humanity is different Ceation is different!

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 04:01 PM

SS

For further discussion on Mahabharath , visit my thread http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?1625-The-Greatest-Indian-Epic-Mahabharath

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 04:08 PM

naane vandi oattikkuven... enakku driver thevaippadala'nu naan solren... to be more clear to u.
neenga, 'illa, u r running away from drivers or ignorant of driver union' apdinu solringa...
apram unga kitta epdi serious discussion panradhu....

So your point is You can drive so you dont need a driver ! Sorry I dont understand what you are trying to say comapred to what I said about people are ignorant of their true being!

SoftSword

26th May 2011, 04:13 PM

Karnan 'gets' a self-satisfaction. dont think that all the give and takes are only material.

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 04:23 PM

Karnan 'gets' a self-satisfaction. dont think that all the give and takes are only material.

These are 'Stories' written by humans to show moral values in Life!. Answer by Question above till further discussion.

SoftSword

26th May 2011, 04:23 PM

So your point is You can drive so you dont need a driver ! Sorry I dont understand what you are trying to say comapred to what I said about people are ignorant of their true being!

naan thevaippadavillainu solraen...
which means that 'not necessary'.
how can 'not necessary' become 'ignorant'?

SoftSword

26th May 2011, 04:25 PM

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 04:37 PM

OK let me clarify.

You can drive , so you dont need a Driver or you do not need to know anything about the driver. so similarly you are living / alive so you do not need to know anything about the Entity behind the Creation. You are absolutley right, you don't need to know anything about the Creation, but you are still ignorant of the creation !

Another example, I can see well, my eyes are perfectly well. so I dont really need to know or worry about my eyes right. but I am still ignorant about all the activities /functions going within my eyes

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 04:39 PM

SoftSword

26th May 2011, 04:58 PM

You can drive , so you dont need a Driver or you do not need to know anything about the driver.
I know how my car works and I know to drive. i am my driver. i dont understand what u ask with the above bolded text.

you are living / alive so you do not need to know anything about the Entity behind the Creation. You are absolutley right, you don't need to know anything about the Creation, but you are still ignorant of the creation !

The entity behind my creation is my parents. they gave me birth.
i know how my body works. i know how my heart pumps blood and gives power to all the organs of my body. i know how my brain sends signals to control and operate all the organs of my body. I know there are a few other important organs of my body which do different duties to keep my body working and healthy. and when there is a major problem with any of the organs, the heart would struggle pumping blood and blood flow to the brain and brain dead will bring my life to an end and for decomposing purposes my lifeless body will be burnt to ashes. after there will be no 'i'.

so i know how to take care of my body to preserve me life as long as i can. what else do i 'need' to know.

Another example, I can see well, my eyes are perfectly well. so I dont really need to know or worry about my eyes right. but I am still ignorant about all the activities /functions going within my eyes

what? did i say that i dont really need to know or worry about my eyes?
or u wanna say that u know each and every detail about how your eyes work adn how vision is created in ur retina? are u an opthalmist?

SoftSword

26th May 2011, 05:00 PM

No I am not at all confused, I was only giving an example, cos you gave me an example with a story that's all. I am not at all confused in this matter. I only told you to go there if you wanted to discuss more about the Mahabratham.

I will go thru that sometime params. i am always interested in historical stories and always fascinated about ramayanam and mahabhaaratham. right now finished 70% of bhimsen and going on. very interesting read.

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 05:08 PM

what? did i say that i dont really need to know or worry about my eyes?
or u wanna say that u know each and every detail about how your eyes work adn how vision is created in ur retina? are u an opthalmist? sabbaa You completley misunderstood, what I was trying to say :lol: leave it

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 05:09 PM

I will go thru that sometime params. i am always interested in historical stories and always fascinated about ramayanam and mahabhaaratham. right now finished 70% of bhimsen and going on. very interesting read.

I have started similar topics on Ramayanam, 63 Gynanmargal, Lord 12 Jyortilinga , go through them when you have time :)

SoftSword

26th May 2011, 05:13 PM

sabbaa You completley misunderstood, what I was trying to say :lol: leave it

no i did not. what i understood was based on what u expressed in ur words.
u pls communicate properly so that i can understand properly.

SoftSword

26th May 2011, 05:17 PM

I have started similar topics on Ramayanam, 63 Gynanmargal, Lord 12 Jyortilinga , go through them when you have time :)

paramu, edho doordarshanla ramayanam/mahaabharatham stories telecast panni chinna vayasula interest create panninaanga... i loved them more for the array of arrows flying from left and right... fire from one side.. water from other side... clashing....
adhanaala for time pass and revisit i am reading bhimsen and its very interesting. its a practical version and in this version Krishna is just a person and not celebrated as god. no kankattivitthais.

adhukkaga jothi, nayar patthi ellam padikkira alavu naan vettiyaa irukkaenu nenachutteengalaa... :(

PARAMASHIVAN

26th May 2011, 05:23 PM

adhukkaga jothi, nayar patthi ellam padikkira alavu naan vettiyaa irukkaenu nenachutteengalaa... :(

Ithu Yaaru :roll:

What I meant was Lord's 12 Jyothilingam thread! http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?7153-The-Lord-s-12-Jyotirlingas

SoftSword

26th May 2011, 05:37 PM

thanks for the links anyway paramu.

and i am awaiting ur reply.

anbu_kathir

27th May 2011, 10:30 AM

anbu_kathir

27th May 2011, 10:35 AM

Kathir

Where are the likes of Predeep, Rohit and Sudhama sir , have not seen their posts in years, esp Rohit's one! Many felt offended by Rohit posts but he did have some valid points on offer :)

:D . Forum-la illai endraalum, avanga avanga velaigaLa correct-a pannittu aanmeegathulayum munnEri varravanga niraiya irukkaanga Paramashivan :).

anbu_kathir

28th May 2011, 02:04 PM

SS,

My turn! :D.

that is really informative, though i have already known in bits and pieces about those 4 concepts as aram, porul, inbam and veeduperu. and ur relating of the first three concepts with the three 'paal's of thirukkural is brilliant. valluvar is really a genius to have put in all under one book. (i always have a doubt if it was written by more than one and there could be some missing parts also which were not documented. we dont know really as it is reported to be written 2000 yrs back)

Thanks! The connection to ThirukkuraL was notified to me by a friend of mine, so the credit is his :D. I myself have read only a few of the ThirukkuraL. My knowledge of the Tamil spiritual traditions/treatises is very meager. Kathukka vEndiyadhu niraiya irukku!

he need not be a seeker. the only thing we need to seek is peace, happiness and humanity around the world. this is what i believe not assume.

Not sure what you mean by "believe and not assume". I can understand that you are not interested in much more than the above. But does that also mean that you think that this is what is true and most accurate about the world and nothing else can be true or more accurate than this for you and the rest of the world?

and if u take the point of being selfish... each and everybody is selfish... even the so called Karnan was selfish in the aspect that he gave it all for the happiness and satisfaction he gets.. so he does it for getting 'something'... and in general too the vallals who were famous for helping people did it all believing that 'dharmam thalai kaakkum' or 'punniyam kedaikkum' which were also getting/expecting something...

In most people, what you say is true. In an extremely miniscule percentage, this is not quite so (paraphrasing Paramashivan). Hinduism and Buddhism constantly speak of going beyond sin/virtue (paavam-punyam) and the very characteristic of a liberated man (one who "has attained" Moksha) is the lack of motivation to acquire either of the two. "Work for the sake of work" apdinnu solluvaanga, not for personal satisfaction, not for punyam, not even for the world development. This is a weird state, many literary works (including the Bhagavad Gita) attempt to describe this, but it is near impossible to be convinced of such a state of mind. Certain people, by their very life, offer glimpses of this state. Ramana Maharishi is one such person.

again to reiterate, the needy i mean is, the person who is really in 'need'... not someone like senthil in the movie boys. chinna udhaviyo periya udhaviyo, 'nalla neratthula kadavul maadhiri vandhu udhavuna' apdinu solrom illayaa... neenga kadavul maadhiri udhavinan'reenga naan avan dhaan kadavul'nae solren. never gave a thought like if this is my model and if it is valid enough or not. this is what i believe and i dont have any confusion about this.

My definition for a "model" is a belief which approximates reality and is maintained because it is useful to the possessor of the model in some way. If one is dedicated to understanding reality, models are generally changed according to one's personal experience of reality.

i am seeing the help in the receivers point of view... how useful it is for him and what would happen if there is nobody to help... and ur seeing it from the givers point of view... i am not much worried about the giver... as i only mean 'kastapadravangalukku udhavi kedaikkanum'... keela irukkura pic'la irukkura maadhiri...
http://i52.tinypic.com/w2gmcz.jpg

am not yet convinced if there is any need for a concept called God.

Nice pic :). Because Hinduism seeks to give a working model for one and all, it has to consider the giver and his state of mind too. There is always scope for improvement within Hinduism, irrespective of the Artha one has, irrespective of the Dharma one has done till now. What you mention is a very basic tenet of all religions, truly.

If I am not wrong, your statement that you don't see the need for "God" comes because of the opinion that a concept of God is something external to oneself. Of course, when one says "he who is compassionate is God", then one can personally do away with "God" totally; and if at all the word is used, it needs to be used to conform to the expectations of people who ask questions like "What is your definition for God ? ", when they themselves have some definition in their minds. I see that was the problem in our discussion too :P.

There is nothing wrong about this (of course, about any belief of anyone whatsoever .. they can only be or not be agreeable to oneself personally, no absolute judgment can be made about one's beliefs by another). The "need" for a concept of God is not neccesarily to be imposed on everyone. I use my personal concept of God to inspire myself, to develop compassion etc etc. There is absolutely no problem if one need not require such a concept to develop oneself in that way, or to see the usefulness of compassion in our common livelihood.

[Philosophy rant!]
But, the "reality" of the source of my own life/consciousness, the so-called "I"-ness (irrespective when it began), which informs me of all that I know and don't know, believe and don't believe, this I feel to be more fundamental than the concepts of God, religion, morality, virtue, inspiration, in short any concept that one might have. Because the very same "reality" is shared by all living things, I believe that True compassion can come not out of any legal (i.e. external), ethical or even moral (i.e. internal psychological) compulsion but only out of true freedom, which is nothing but abiding in this all-encompassing sense of "I"-ness ("veedu" - Home ;) - now I see why this terminology is as it is! ). When I speak of God or mystery, I mean this, and not anything external to us. Valluvar alludes to this mystery too (this information is new to me too), though he has apparently not written about Veedu as a complete subtreatise.
--------
"Piravi Perung Kadal Ninduvaar Neendhaar
Iraivan AdiSera Thaar" (10) - Although not directly relating to what I said above, still the question comes, what is it that goes through the so called ocean of life without reaching the feet of God (what does this mean anyway?)?
----------
Many other similar interesting kurals seem to be found here - http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?514-THIRUKKURALH/page31 - haven't read the entire discussion though.
[End Philosophy rant!]

i only worry for the humanity to persist and don mind if any other concept evolve or vanish...

By humanity, you probably mean the art of being humane. But interestingly, some other thoughts too cross my mind. "Humanity" (as the "art of being human") as such is not just about compassion or kindness or being humane. Being humane is but a part of being human, which includes being violent, being angry and mad and inhumane, being awed by nature and indeed by its secrets, and ultimately by the nature of his/her own self. In a previous post, you mention that you know about the workings of the brain and that once one is "dead" the "I" ceases to exist. I remember a strange conundrum of logic mentioned by a friend of mine which goes as follows -
--------
Axiom 1: A complex system can be completely understood only by a more complex system.

Axiom 2: "I" am in my brain

Contradiction: if "I" am truly complex enough to understand my brain, then I am more complex than my brain. This in conjunction with (Axiom 2) is a contradiction
-------

its just the theories and beliefs u were taught since when u were a kid who cannot analyse but only believe whats been taught by the parents and the society. same with me as i was also taught similar concepts, taken to temples, told stories, shown movies which support those theories. and when i started thinking i understood the main idea behind feeding in all those faith was to teach morality that we should always do good and not do any bad deeds.

Moral and Ethical behaviour is infact only step 1 of Hinduism/Buddhism. A man who is not good cannot look beyond good, apdinnu irandumE solludhu. Therefore, as I mentioned before, I have nothing much against what you have said, just that my prime focus has shifted from being "good" to trying to simply be the mystery that I am (God is). What springs forth from that place can only be called compassion, perfect and pure, without any need for even self-satisfaction or concerns for world-development.

Love and Light.

virarajendra

2nd September 2011, 06:24 PM

brought forward

pradheep

8th September 2011, 05:24 PM

The problem is when people perceive God only in one aspect and not in whole.

http://uni5.co/index.php/uni5-self-awareness-energy/five-men-and-elephant

PARAMASHIVAN

5th October 2011, 02:32 AM

The problem is when people perceive God only in one aspect and not in whole.

http://uni5.co/index.php/en/five-men-and-elephant

The Problem is when people start to imagine God according to the data they have received from their 5 physical senses, it just becomes hallucination, and this will contradict with reality! When we call the creator as God and we (humans, mammals, plants, and the cosmos) being part of the creation, we are also part of that Cosmic Energy (God). So there is no point in seeking the creator (God) outside, because when you seek outside, you are bound to use your 5 physical senses, these sense Organs are meant for your physical survival only, they will not make you realise your true nature (Brahman)!

pradheep

5th October 2011, 08:54 AM

Can you please correct the link.
Thanks.

http://uni5.co/index.php/uni5-self-awareness-energy/five-men-and-elephant

You are correct, through sensual information, the knowledge is limited.

Sunil_M88

13th November 2011, 12:20 AM

Brought forward.

Does darkness exist?

anbu_kathir

13th November 2011, 12:34 PM

Brought forward.

Does darkness exist?

Yes, If there is someone who experiences it. Otherwise there is no way to know.

Sunil_M88

13th November 2011, 05:58 PM

Otherwise there is no way to know.

Have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9CvtMjGjNE

What are your thoughts about this?

anbu_kathir

14th November 2011, 02:13 PM

Have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9CvtMjGjNE

What are your thoughts about this?

Perhaps the teacher was silent because of the cuteness of the child who gave such an answer.

First issue is that the child merely redefines evil/darkness. Evil/Darkness does exist, as the absence of Good/Light. Then there are worse problems with the child's supposition. Consider the God who provides the Choice to either have God's Love or not have God's Love , and further punishes the evil ones (that don't have Love): such a God is perhaps more sadistic than a purely evil God.

Anyway, if God = Good reasoning is accepted, one invariably runs into logical inconsistencies :P.

Least of all, I doubt that the incident has anything to do with Einstein.

Love and Light!

Sunil_M88

14th November 2011, 05:25 PM

anbu_kathir

15th November 2011, 12:09 PM

Yes, the child is blunt about evil being the absence of good. Otoh evil is too extreme of a word but it's undeniable that as long as there is a good there will always be bad, it's just a basic principle of harmony and for this reason I don't find the 4 yuga theory logical at times.

Thanks for reply, The comments made by some viewers of this video state this was a manipulation act of theists.

Is there any logic behind the statement that "if there is good there should be bad"? It simply comes from the intuitive understanding that there is something as right approach (right in the sense of achieving desired purpose, I think this is a better choice of words than good/evil) and wrong (not achieving it, shortcutting etc.) in this world, and "every" human has the choice to do what is right or what is wrong at all times. This choice is not biased, but this doesn't mean that the number of people who do right things good should be equalled by the number of people who are bad. Those Yugas which were tipped in favour of Rightness of conduct are just those in which many people chose to do right things than those who do wrong things. Perfectly logical, and plausible, is it not?

Love and Light.

Sunil_M88

16th November 2011, 06:50 AM

Those Yugas which were tipped in favour of Rightness of conduct are just those in which many people chose to do right things than those who do wrong things. Perfectly logical, and plausible, is it not?

If in those ages people favoured righteousness more than favouring it now in the present kali yuga then what is the reasoning behind god finding the need to incarnate on to earth to get rid of the wrong doers in those ages as opposed to now?

anbu_kathir

16th November 2011, 10:36 AM

If in those ages people favoured righteousness more than favouring it now in the present kali yuga then what is the reasoning behind god finding the need to incarnate on to earth to get rid of the wrong doers in those ages as opposed to now?

I guess the interpretation is that in the previous Yugas people favoured righteousness on an average. As far as I know, according to scripture, Kali lasts for 432000 years. Dwaapara lasts twice is, i.e., 864000, Treta is thrice, and Sat (krita yuga) is quadruple, thus making one maha yuga = 4,320,000 years.

The period of Krishna avatara in Dwaapara probably lasted not more than 200 years (it varies a bit according to source and interpretation I think). 200 years of more Adharma, out of 864000, is a small blip, though with high peak, I would say. Same goes for Sri Raama in the Treta Yuga.

And btw, we are only 5000 years into Kali according to the Puraanas, so a l-l-ong way to go to see Kalki, I guess, if you believe in such avataaras (and not in Marmadesam :P).

In any case, all this is of no real consequence of an average man's life, I think!

Love and Light.

Sunil_M88

16th November 2011, 05:10 PM

In any case, all this is of no real consequence of an average man's life, I think!

Thanks got my answer wrt Hinduism :)

Anyways, I'm a believer and would like to defend all religions where possible. Hence, I think in a debate it's vital to have a valid reasoning behind generic faults/loopholes/contradictions that can be applied to all religions when being confronted by a non-believer who disables a believer from counteracting.

anbu_kathir

16th November 2011, 06:37 PM

Thanks got my answer wrt Hinduism :)

Anyways, I'm a believer and would like to defend all religions where possible. Hence, I think in a debate it's vital to have a valid reasoning behind generic faults/loopholes/contradictions that can be applied to all religions when being confronted by a non-believer who disables a believer from counteracting.

What I meant was that stories are less important than the actual morals and ethics they enable us to imbibe, and the window to Truth they provide. This is my opinion of course, I am no authority in anything. With reference to the believers/disbelievers, again, there is no way to prove that the stories that religion gives us are all real, also there is meagre evidence to their occurrence. But again those are unimportant to me personally.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

24th January 2012, 10:34 PM

Anyways, I'm a believer and would like to defend all religions where possible.

Hi Sunil

Beleifs and Reality has No Relations, Beleif systems are based on one's individual Imagination based on one's limited information based on the information gathered from the five outward sensory organs. Every one is exposed to different cultures and environment, this is the reason why there is no one Religion alias beleif system.

Beleifs tend to have no rationality at all, rather it gives one's motivation to go through life and it's emotions, which has nothing to do with spirituality .

I think in a debate it's vital to have a valid reasoning behind generic faults/loopholes/contradictions that can be applied to all religions

This is bound to happen as it is man made!

:)

anbu_kathir

25th January 2012, 11:02 AM

Beleifs tend to have no rationality at all, rather it gives one's motivation to go through life and it's emotions, which has nothing to do with spirituality .

Life and its emotions have nothing to do with spirituality? Why not?

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

25th January 2012, 03:12 PM

Life and its emotions have nothing to do with spirituality? Why not?

Love and Light.

Emotions and Life as in this body are Physical, it has nothing to do with the Cosmic Energy alias, spirit alias atma within you :)

Sunil_M88

25th January 2012, 05:11 PM

Emotions and Life as in this body are Physical, it has nothing to do with the Cosmic Energy alias, spirit alias atma within you :)Isn't it your emotions that contribute to your Karma, hence deciding when your spirit (atma) will attain Moksha (awakening of the spiritual body)?

PARAMASHIVAN

25th January 2012, 10:33 PM

Isn't it your emotions that contribute to your Karma, hence deciding when your spirit (atma) will attain Moksha (awakening of the spiritual body)?

Not entirely, Karma is all actions done by you consioulsy and unconsiously

anbu_kathir

27th January 2012, 04:28 PM

Emotions and Life as in this body are Physical, it has nothing to do with the Cosmic Energy alias, spirit alias atma within you :)

This was not really the answer to my question, which was not about the Self but about Spirituality as such. Rephrasing Sri Sunil's question, do you mean to say that a moral/ethical life has nothing to do with spirituality?

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

27th January 2012, 05:06 PM

This was not really the answer to my question, which was not about the Self but about Spirituality as such. Rephrasing Sri Sunil's question, do you mean to say that a moral/ethical life has nothing to do with spirituality?

Love and Light.

When you say spirituality , what exactly do you mean? I am talking about the Cosmic energy within you :)

anbu_kathir

27th January 2012, 05:11 PM

When you say spirituality , what exactly do you mean? I am talking about the Cosmic energy within you :)

I mean the process of discovering that you are that cosmic energy and not the body-mind complex, and so is everyone else.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

27th January 2012, 05:18 PM

I mean the process of discovering that you are that cosmic energy and not the body-mind complex, and so is everyone else.

Love and Light.

Ok, but I dont understand what Ethics/ Morals values created in man made society has anything to do with the Cosmic energy within you :confused2:

anbu_kathir

27th January 2012, 05:23 PM

Ok, but I dont understand what Ethics/ Morals values created in man made society has anything to do with the Cosmic energy within you :confused2:

Well, so it is a problem. In the first place how did you arrive at the conclusion that ethics/moral values are all man made? Can we get to the root of this? What is the basis of any ethical or moral value? Is that basis man-made ?

If that is clearly seen, then alone we can proceed further here. The next question will be - What are the necessary qualifications for Self-Knowledge (aka Atma-jnaana) ? Are there any qualifications at all?

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

27th January 2012, 05:28 PM

Well, so it is a problem. In the first place how did you arrive at the conclusion that ethics/moral values are all man made? Can we get to the root of this? What is the basis of any ethical or moral value? Is that basis man-made ?

If that is clearly seen, then alone we can proceed further here. The next question will be - What are the necessary qualifications for Self-Knowledge (aka Atma-jnaana) ? Are there any qualifications at all?

Love and Light.

Kathir,

Is there a "universal" platform for ethics/morals. Dont they vary from individuals to individuals? cultures to cultures? environments to environments ?

PARAMASHIVAN

27th January 2012, 07:29 PM

If that is clearly seen, then alone we can proceed further here.Love and Light.

Yes this is where I get confused ! I try my best to understand it, but fail! :(

anbu_kathir

27th January 2012, 09:44 PM

Kathir,

Is there a "universal" platform for ethics/morals. Dont they vary from individuals to individuals? cultures to cultures? environments to environments ?

Outwardly of course the ethics and morals are hugely varied. But there is a single fundamental guideline by which all morals and ethics are defined. It is not very difficult to figure out what it is. Think of some ethics/morals of our civilization only, and try to generalize it to the most fundamental ethic, which is not man-made at all. I implore you to do it, because it will be a nice exercise in the first place and a very good starting point for Atma vichaara. My gurus have all told me the same, so this is not anything against our Sanatana Dharma but is infact most important to it.

Love and light,
Prasad.

PARAMASHIVAN

27th January 2012, 09:55 PM

But there is a single fundamental guideline by which all morals and ethics are defined.

What is this single Fundamental guideline ?

I implore you to do it, because it will be a nice exercise in the first place and a very good starting point for Atma vichaara.

Are you talking about deep meditation and self realisation? I have tried it , but I am not able maintain in that state for a long time, I have never learnt any of these techniques prioperly, I just do these base on my limited knowedge and observation!

anbu_kathir

27th January 2012, 10:08 PM

What is this single Fundamental guideline ?

First can you state some morals or ethical guidelines followed in the world ? Then it is easy to see the generalisation. I am purposefully not giving the answer not because I want to play games here, but I want you to think for yourself. Please forgive me if you think it is my arrogance.

Are you talking about deep meditation and self realisation? I have tried it , but I am not able maintain in that state for a long time, I have never learnt any of these techniques prioperly, I just do these base on my limited knowedge and observation!

One of the main misconceptions about Atma-vichaara is that one has to sit and meditate on something to gain it. It is not that at all. Any thought process which involves coming to clarity about what one's place is in the world, what the world is, what is one's real nature, what is the nature of God, etc. is Atma Vichara. It is a progressive, slow, painful journey that includes listening to the Guru expounding on Shaastra/Veda/Reality/Atman/(Or whatever you want to call it), understanding certain basic facts about our immediate world, fine tuning our experience based on our understanding, and doing all these repeatedly until one comes to the complete and full experiential understanding of oneself, not through books or scriptures but in one's direct experience. While a physical Guru is imperative for this, one has to put in all the possible efforts from one's side according to the guidelines laid by Shaastra/Veda.

Love and Light.

Sunil_M88

27th January 2012, 10:17 PM

This was not really the answer to my question, which was not about the Self but about Spirituality as such. Rephrasing Sri Sunil's question, do you mean to say that a moral/ethical life has nothing to do with spirituality?

Love and Light.

Haha never been addressed that but hey I guess there's a first time for everything. Feels great (in a modest way) :grin:

PARAMASHIVAN

27th January 2012, 10:22 PM

Kathir

I think, I understand my true nature. Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev has been a highly influential person in my life. But I am unable to contain my emotions. This is where I fail

anbu_kathir

27th January 2012, 10:28 PM

@Sunil: LOL!

Kathir

I think, I understand my true nature. Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev has been a highly influential person in my life. But I am unable to contain my emotions. This is where I fail

The very fact that you are unable to contain your emotions indicate that you don't really understand, or it is only on an intellectual level. I don't either, :P, btw. But as each of us, I am also in the journey. Can we get back to the question at hand, if you do see the importance of it (or perhaps even if you don't, out of merely a sense of curiousity)? If you are not interested I will stop here, because there is no point in me going ahead with a display of what I think I know.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

27th January 2012, 10:38 PM

or it is only on an intellectual level.

On an intellectual level, but I am not able to apply it practically :(

Can we get back to the question at hand,.

About the Ethics/Moral stuff ?? It is such a big subject, I will post later. I am going home now. ennaku pasikuthu :lol:

pradheep

1st February 2012, 12:16 AM

I dont know whether you have read about what is right and wrong and is there an universal standard for it.

http://uni5.co/index.php/forum/15-right-and-wrong/9-choice-of-right-and-wrong

anbu_kathir

1st February 2012, 09:05 AM

I dont know whether you have read about what is right and wrong and is there an universal standard for it.

http://uni5.co/index.php/forum/15-right-and-wrong/9-choice-of-right-and-wrong

If one action Universally brings happiness to all at all times, then it is also Dharmic action. Dharmic actions are prompted from the Self-Awareness and not from the personal likes and dislikes of the person.

Dear Shri Pradeep,

The stuff in the link you posted takes one step closer. But in my humble opinion it is still not nailing it. Furthermore, it is not clear about what "intellectual,awareness,consciousness levels" are. More complicated words implies more confusion. Moreover, why should one bother about happiness of another? Why should one do only Dharmic actions to achieve happiness? Such questions remain.

What I am interested now is not more words but the absolute axiom on which Morality is founded. Or in other words , the answer to the question "Why should I bother to be moral?". And if this question is answered, then the question (the original question in this thread) arises as to how it is connected to Self-Knowledge.

Love and Light.

pradheep

1st February 2012, 03:18 PM

Pranams to my dear Anbu Kathir for giving me an opportunity to write here by invoking such a powerful question. You have chiseled out the Golden question ""Why should I bother to be moral?". As you rightly said, this alone will connect all of us to the Absolute.

I am trying to answer this through Uni5 which is based on Sankhya philosophy given by Kapila Maharishi. When his mother Devahuti requested him to give the Absolute Knowledge in the most simplistic form, he gave this Sankhya Thathva. He said though this "reality" is only One, for sake of easy understanding let me classify it into five. He said, our perception of the reality is at five levels. (Body is only one, but we classify into body parts).

In one level, we perceive the Energy as a solid, least or slowly changing aspect called the Body. In the second level we perceive the same Energy as a quickly changing aspect called the "Mind". The third level is to perceive the energy functionality to be organizing and driving changes in a particular order or pattern. This is intelligence. (Intelligence is the bottle neck of one directional flow).

Hope there is no problem in understanding these three levels. Now the fourth level is to "Self" perceive (Witnessing) the Energy as the body or as the mind or as intelligence. This Self-perceiving (witnessing) is called Self-Awareness, which tries to see everything as individual "I's". When the "I" instead of Self-Witnessing, "I" as one, then it is Consciousness (No more Energy).

Kapilacharya says, at all four levels, the Energy has the quality of Self-bound laws of action and reaction or cause and effect (Karma). All the I's has the freedom to perceive at one or more of the four levels (usually acquire through evolution). At all the four Energy levels, always Karma law of action and reaction is indispensable.

Having said this, What is Morality?.

Can we say Morality is a certain order or pattern?. Then guess, in which domain will it come under?.
Certainly not under constantly changing mind. Morality will come under the domain of Intelligence. (here does not "only" mean the IQ-intelligence, but the Universal intelligence of order and pattern.

So when the "I" perception is only at the body and mind level, there is no morality, simply because it does not belong to that domain.

What drives the "I" towards Morality?.

Mind's quality is always of likes and dislikes. It likes happiness and not suffering. But when the "I" is sick of short-time happiness and long term suffering with the "Energy dealings", it tries to seek freedom from it by evolving following intelligence pattern.

The interesting fact is that continuous uni-directional bottle neck intelligence (morality) flow helps the "I" to relish the long term happiness in the Self-witnessing domain of Awareness. At this stage there is a choice to move from the fourth Awareness to fifth Consciousness state. This cannot happen until the individual "I"-ness goes away. Only way is to do Energy action involving happiness of everyone. In this process, "everything merges as the one "I"- Self or Moksha.

The freedom here is that, there is no compulsion for any "I" to take Morality domain. However the law is strict that, there will be cause and effect for immoral actions. If the individual gets a choice - short term happiness and long term suffering or better go for long term happiness and very little suffering.

Intelligence is the bottle neck of one directional flow - where one gets "out of the bottle" to the vastness of Self-Knowledge.

I hope I made it simple. If not we can go in detail.

PARAMASHIVAN

1st February 2012, 03:27 PM

I dont know whether you have read about what is right and wrong and is there an universal standard for it.

Dear Pradheep

There can never ever be a” universal" standard as to what is right and what is wrong, it is all one's individual perceptions based on situational circumstances and one's view based on one's knowledge based on the info received from the sensory organs and imagination

:)

pradheep

1st February 2012, 07:48 PM

Dear Raghu
Right and wrong ......and Universal Standards?. I feel certain things are Universal and certain is by their own perceptions. Example, every living being feels that needs to survive and anyone threatening its survival is wrong. Whereas belief of a super power or not cannot be Universal. What are your views. Do you there exists nothing Universal right and wrongs. No exceptions?

anbu_kathir

2nd February 2012, 10:14 AM

However the law is strict that, there will be cause and effect for immoral actions. If the individual gets a choice - short term happiness and long term suffering or better go for long term happiness and very little suffering.

IMHO, you have nailed it here now. This was all that I was looking for. All our morals and ethics are based on the law of cause and effect alone. No philosophy is need for this, neither Sankhya nor Vedantha nor any religion.

Dear Pradheep

There can never ever be a” universal" standard as to what is right and what is wrong, it is all one's individual perceptions based on situational circumstances and one's view based on one's knowledge based on the info received from the sensory organs and imagination

Paramashivan,

Following up with Shri Pradeep's idea, anyone can easily take the following two as a "general" universal morality. Everything other ethic of humanity is just these two in different form, which is why I asked you once or twice to post some of these ethics and generalise from there.

1. Truth
2. Non-injury.

Of course, in the course of upholding these two, one may have to lie or cause injury to a minority to prevent cheating/injury of majority. That is OK. Similarly once has to balance the short-term lie/injury with long-term truth/non-injury dilemma. These two are the only issues which cause complexity in the implementation of Truth/Non-injury and therefore in all of Morality itself. There is no problem with the foundational principle therefore, which is absolutely clear. The devil is only in the details.

Love and Light.

lydayaxobia616

5th February 2012, 07:20 AM

Dear Pradheep

There can never ever be a” universal" standard as to what is right and what is wrong, it is all one's individual perceptions based on situational circumstances and one's view based on one's knowledge based on the info received from the sensory organs and imagination

:)

You are right.

In my opinion, Right or wrong judgement by individuals are influenced by various countless factors, everybody in the world think that what they are doing is right.
1. What is being practiced over a period of time in that Country/Region/State/District/Town/Village/House - The group of people in that area will think that what they are practicing is right but it may or may not be acceptable by the others outside (can not be universal)
2. What is being taught from the Childhood influences the judgment of Right or Wrong
3. The individual beliefs being practiced will influence the judgment of Right or Wrong
4. The individual's knowledge/experience/wisdom/common sense (ARivu, Puthi, Gnanam, Pagutharivu) will influence the judgment of Right or Wrong
5. Right or wrong judgement on others are done primarily by comparison

There is no hard and fast rule for Right or wrong judgement as it is driven by whatever knowledge/experience/wisdom/common sense (ARivu, Puthi, Gnanam, Pagutharivu) they are downloading into their mind/memory from the world/universe over a period of time...Hence, it is a time bound and depends on the Age groups it differs

pradheep

6th February 2012, 08:21 PM

Dear Samraj
Yes, individual concepts of right and wrong as you said are based on what we are taught by others. They are belief's of the mind.
At the same time if one neglects Dharma "Universal Right and wrong", then one is caught in the death and birth cycles.

PARAMASHIVAN

6th February 2012, 09:08 PM

At the same time if one neglects Dharma "Universal Right and wrong", then one is caught in the death and birth cycles.

Dear Pradheep

Pls pardon me if I am wrong , but what in your view is a "Universal right and wrong" ? how does one understand it? Please explain with a scenario?
Regarding Dharma , again it varies (In my opinion). Let's take the Mahabhartha war for example.

From the story it was told the Kauravas were adharmic towards the pandavas , but during the war it was Krishna and the Pandavas who were alleged of war crimes or war ethics, esp towards Karna, then followed by beeshma , then Dronacharya and finally Duriyodhana.

So in order to Maintain Dharma, all adharmic ways were deployed, so where is the dharma in this act?

Sunil_M88

7th February 2012, 02:02 AM

Pardon my ignorance, I might be getting the complete wrong end of the stick here but as far as I'm concerned, the Kauravas were the ones greedy for power and position and sent the Pandavas into exile after they won the dice game (by cheating) and hence the kingdom. When Pandavas returned, they demanded their kingdom back but Kauravas rejected them thus they both went to war. So it's clear the Kauravas were being immoral.

During the war both sides might of broken the rules of warfare, the Pandavas too lost a lot of their army. This is where Lord Krishna intervened and taught them Dharma. From where I stand, the moral I learn is if one is prone to injustice then one should not step back and be taken for granted. They should fight for their right. Param, if I've missed your POV then I'm sorry but I don't think there's nothing adharmic about what you wrote.

PARAMASHIVAN

7th February 2012, 03:26 PM

Sunil

There is no need to be sorry for anything, none of us either right or wrong :)

Pardon my ignorance, I might be getting the complete wrong end of the stick here but as far as I'm concerned, the Kauravas were the ones greedy for power and position and sent the Pandavas into exile after they won the dice game (by cheating) and hence the kingdom. When Pandavas returned, they demanded their kingdom back but Kauravas rejected them thus they both went to war. So it's clear the Kauravas were being immoral.

Yes of course Kauravas were immoral towards the pandavas, there is absolutely no question in that! My question was in order maintain dharma, can one follow the adharma path to maintain dharma?

Reg.Mahabharatha. Yes war crimes have been committed by both sides, but it was higher from pandava side, here are the examples

Kuarava war crime!

1) Killing an unarmed Abhimanyu that too by many warriors at the same time, including the great Karna, (this is probably the "Only" crime he may commited in his entire life).

Pandavas

1) They have used six methods of adharmic way against Karna knowing he was impossible to defeat
2) Defeating beeshma by bringing shikandi (half man/half women) do to fight him, bheeshma had already made an oath
That he would fight such person (half man and half women), Krishna knew this hence he deceived bheeshma into it
3) Dronarcharya - telling Yudishtar to lie that Aswathama (Dron's son) has been killed,
4) Hitting Duriyodhana on the thigh, which is prohibited in the Katha Yutha?

anbu_kathir

7th February 2012, 04:16 PM

My question was in order maintain dharma, can one follow the adharma path to maintain dharma?

Bhagavan Himself says to Arjuna in the Gita that even the wise are confused as to what is Dharma and what is Adharma. Of course then He goes on to say that Shaastra alone is the recourse for knowing what Dharma and Adharma is. General rules are there, of course. Short-term minority sacrifice of Dharma (Truth/Non-injury) for majority-long-term upholding of Dharma is always OK if there is no other choice. To prevent a gangrene from spreading it is better to operate it. If one says it cannot be operated for that would amount to violence, imagine what would happen to the body itself.

1) Killing an unarmed Abhimanyu that too by many warriors at the same time, including the great Karna, (this is probably the "Only" crime he may commited in his entire life).

Karna commits a far graver sin than this. Bhagavaan Krishna himself comes to Karna before the war, tells the facts, and asks him to join the Pandavas for Dharma is on that side only. Karna, blinded by his affection towards Duryodhana, refuses to do so. Naturally he pays.

1) They have used six methods of adharmic way against Karna knowing he was impossible to defeat
2) Defeating beeshma by bringing shikandi (half man/half women) do to fight him, bheeshma had already made an oath
That he would fight such person (half man and half women), Krishna knew this hence he deceived bheeshma into it
3) Dronarcharya - telling Yudishtar to lie that Aswathama (Dron's son) has been killed,
4) Hitting Duriyodhana on the thigh, which is prohibited in the Katha Yutha?
In each of the instances I bet there are some intricacies which we don't get by reading the popular english versions of Mahabharata. For example, Bheeshma had already wronged Shikhandi in his previous incarnation as Amba. Drona himself was the key behind plotting Abhimanyu's killing. Duryodhana, well, kEkavE vEnaam! Some of these reasons would definitely be explicitly mentioned in the Sanskrit original. Considering all these along with the Dharma corresponding to that age, it was not against Dharma to do anything, especially under the watch of the Lord !

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

7th February 2012, 08:29 PM

Kathir

The question here is "In order to maintain dharma is it ok use adharma as a tool obtain it ? ". It is like saying it is Ok to lie if your ultimate goal is good.

SoftSword

7th February 2012, 09:03 PM

Kathir

The question here is "In order to maintain dharma is it ok use adharma as a tool obtain it ? ". It is like saying it is Ok to lie if your ultimate goal is good.

illanu solluveenga pola.

PARAMASHIVAN

7th February 2012, 09:19 PM

Karna commits a far graver sin than this. Bhagavaan Krishna himself comes to Karna before the war, tells the facts, and asks him to join the Pandavas for Dharma is on that side only. Karna, blinded by his affection towards Duryodhana, refuses to do so. Naturally he pays.

Aha. Now according to Karna his dharma is to serve his freind who made him a king(Angaraj) and removed his "anathai" status than the mother who dumped him and never taken care of him! Though he knew Duriyodhana was wrong he stood by him, to him that is his dharma!

Let me ask one thing (though we may go off the topic) where was Pandavas dharma, when they insulted Karna to the core prior to him becoming a king ? ESP in the Archery exhibition? Including Draupadai. Where is the dharma gone when one women sleeps with five brothers ? (totally contradicting to Rama / seeta concept, as in One man for one women).

This is why In my opinion, dharma, adharma, right, wrong , justice/ injustice varies according to individual circumstances and situations

pradheep

8th February 2012, 12:20 AM

anbu_kathir

8th February 2012, 10:08 AM

Kathir

The question here is "In order to maintain dharma is it ok use adharma as a tool obtain it ? ". It is like saying it is Ok to lie if your ultimate goal is good.

I believe I have already given my answer. So, this is a repost.

Short-term minority sacrifice of Dharma (Truth/Non-injury) for majority-long-term upholding of Dharma is always OK if there is no other choice. To prevent a gangrene from spreading it is better to operate it. If one says it cannot be operated for that would amount to violence, imagine what would happen to the body itself.

If this is not followed, then one will be perpetually confused as to what one's Dharma is at any given time. One can then never exercise to keep oneself fit (because exercise is a form of short-term violence), a diabetic patient can never abstain from sweets (abstinence here is a form of short-term violence with respect to the tongue at least :P) to keep himself from having further consequences, we can never take the pain of schooling to land in a good enough job. All these are accepted as common sense only because we have an intuitive understanding of what Dharma is and how to sacrifice in the short-term for long-term benefits.

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir

8th February 2012, 10:27 AM

Aha. Now according to Karna his dharma is to serve his freind who made him a king(Angaraj) and removed his "anathai" status than the mother who dumped him and never taken care of him! Though he knew Duriyodhana was wrong he stood by him, to him that is his dharma!

Dharma means Truth-Non-violence in the long run and for the majority. It has got nothing to do with personal relations or one's attachments to the world. In the situation Karna should really have chosen Pandavas NOT because they were his brothers, but because Dharma was on their side alone and not on Duryodhana's side. Having gratitude towards Duryodhana was indeed necessary for Karna, but that alone is not sufficient for siding with him in his totally adharmic stance against the Pandavas. What he was doing is similar to helping someone commit murder just because he was a friend. In the very least he should have walked out of the war itself. But that was not to be, because he was clouded by his personal attachment towards Duryodhana.

Let me ask one thing (though we may go off the topic) where was Pandavas dharma, when they insulted Karna to the core prior to him becoming a king ? ESP in the Archery exhibition? Including Draupadai. Where is the dharma gone when one women sleeps with five brothers ? (totally contradicting to Rama / seeta concept, as in One man for one women).

Pandavas as a whole cannot be considered to be icons of Dharma in the Mahabharata. Yudhistira alone was the epitome of Dharma among the Pandavas, all others were lesser examples (although better than Duryodhana). Even Yudhistira can be questioned in 2 or 3 places. But then one would have to read the Sanskrit original to really understand where he stood in those particular situations, and why he did what he did.

As for Draupadi and the Pandavas, the message of that whole routine is NOT THAT one can have many wives/husbands, but that one follows father's/mother's commands to the letter as long as it does not violate Dharma (can you please tell me what is immoral in having multiple wives or husbands?). Bhagavaan Rama demonstrates that message in the Ramayana in one way, here we see the Pandavas and Draupadi demonstrating it in another.

This is why In my opinion, dharma, adharma, right, wrong , justice/ injustice varies according to individual circumstances and situations
My opinion is that there are very clear general universal principles. The complexities arise in the implementation of those principles. But as one puts effort in the maintenance of those principles, one becomes more and more Dharmic. 100% Dharma however is possibly only for the avatars of Bhagavan.

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir

8th February 2012, 10:34 AM

Dear friends
all our questions will be answered if we answer the fundamental question "what will not vary according to individual circumstances and situations". If this is understood, Dharma is understood. Please all of you give your thoughts and so collectively we will understand it better.

Good. Here are my two paise.

The law of Karma does not vary according to individual circumstances and situations. What one sows, one reaps.

The principle of Dharma is axiomatic. The fundamental axiom is Satya (Truth) and Ahimsa (Non-injury). These two again do not vary with time or place.

In practice, one has to always keep the big picture in mind. That means, if there is no choice (which is a very important clause), using lies and injuring others for the upholding of truth and peace in the long-run and for the majority is always OK. Again, it has to be stressed that this will hold only if there is no other choice.

Being Dharmic 100% is not possible for any human being. But that does not mean one should stop trying.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

8th February 2012, 09:32 PM

PARAMASHIVAN

8th February 2012, 09:38 PM

Short-term minority sacrifice of Dharma (Truth/Non-injury) for majority-long-term upholding of Dharma is always OK if there is no other choice. To prevent a gangrene from spreading it is better to operate it. If one says it cannot be operated for that would amount to violence, imagine what would happen to the body itself.

Dear Kathir,

I understand what you mean? I know it said like that in "Gita". But then doesn't this dharma adharma you commit is accumulated in karma? Doesn't your karma continue in the vicious cycle of birth, death and re-birth?

PARAMASHIVAN

8th February 2012, 09:48 PM

The law of Karma does not vary according to individual circumstances and situations. What one sows, one reaps.

Exactly!

Here is a question which has been bothering me for a while. How does a 2 - 3 year old know what is dharma and adharma? I heard some where a 3 year old kid pulled the trigger off the gun and killed some one. Obviously he did not know what he was doing? how is this act included in that soul's act?

pradheep

9th February 2012, 03:41 AM

From these two answers, we can understand clearly.

The fundamental axiom is Satya (Truth) and Ahimsa (Non-injury). These two again do not vary with time or place.
Cosmic energy from which this cosmos Manifested " does not change , everything else in evolving as in variable mode.

So what is important (Dharma or Sathya) the changing or the changeless?.

Doesn't your karma continue in the vicious cycle of birth, death and re-birth?
how is this act included in that soul's act?

To the above questions, the following may give light.

When will the karma stop?. Karma is there only where there is a kartha (doer). So karma stops when there is no doership. What will happen when the doership goes away?. why is it important?

A connected thought from the link - Is dying the tragedy of life?

http://uni5.co/index.php/forum/12-source-of-happiness/381-tragedy-of-life#384

anbu_kathir

9th February 2012, 10:28 AM

Dear Kathir,

I understand what you mean? I know it said like that in "Gita". But then doesn't this dharma adharma you commit is accumulated in karma? Doesn't your karma continue in the vicious cycle of birth, death and re-birth?

It is indeed accumulated if it is done with a sense of doership, as Pradeep correctly put it. To relieve oneself of this doership, Karma Yoga is suggested. Karma Yoga involves two attitudes of mind.

1. Ishwara arpana buddhi : The dedication of all actions to Ishwara (God).
2. Ishwara prasaada buddhi : The acceptance of all life experiences as gifts from Ishwara (God).

With these two attitudes firmly placed in our minds, we can relieve ourselves of the doership that is associated with the performance of Karma. A perfect Karma Yogi, after having gone about his duties in life as loving service to a higher power, gets the qualification necessary to gain Self-Knowledge by treading the path of Jnaana Yoga.

The logical progression of a spiritual life is therefore as follows.

1. First, there is the gaining of Punya by the performance of Dharma with doership.
2. Having enjoyed life much because of Punya, and being unsatisfied with it, one performs Karma Yoga (Dharma as loving service to God) to slowly relieve oneself of the doership. This generates the necessary purity of mind for the path of Self-Knowledge.
3. Having gained the purity of mind, and with the help of a Guru, one attains Self-Knowledge and becomes one with the Supreme Truth.

According to Shaastra, everybody goes through this order without exception (when considered across janmas).

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir

9th February 2012, 10:30 AM

Exactly!

Here is a question which has been bothering me for a while. How does a 2 - 3 year old know what is dharma and adharma? I heard some where a 3 year old kid pulled the trigger off the gun and killed some one. Obviously he did not know what he was doing? how is this act included in that soul's act?

A child, having no sense of doership, does not accumulate the effects of his karma.

Love and Light.

pradheep

12th February 2012, 07:24 PM

anbu_kathir

13th February 2012, 01:45 PM

pradheep

13th February 2012, 09:52 PM

Birth itself accumulates karma. It is because of doership, we take birth. As soon as the child feels "I" karma accumulates.

Through knowledge, then the same birth can be used to declutch from doership. Like a car with gas/petrol allowed to run the engine but declutched from wheels and so do not move. But would exhaust all the fuel over time. Same way only way to exhaust the fuel of karma is to declutch from doership. Being born, we cannot avoid actions. Actions bring karma. But giving up doership, we do not accumulate kARMA, but exhaust previously accumulated karma. This is what Vedas and great achrayas like Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi tell us.

PARAMASHIVAN

14th February 2012, 06:04 PM

A child, having no sense of doership, does not accumulate the effects of his karma.

We cannot say the child has no doership. It has doership, but is only ignorant. The child has karmic effects but to a lesser extant. In Mahabharatha this is why Yudhisthra gave maximum punishment for a Brahmin and lowest for a Sudra based on the knowledge.

Dear Pradheep

This is exactly what I had in mind!
My next question is
1) Are all the actions done by an individual unconsciously accumulated in your Karma? Say for example while in deep sleep or in a coma, if you say kill in insect unknowingly is it accumulated in your karma?

(I think yes, but to a lesser extent like you mention regarding a child)

PARAMASHIVAN

14th February 2012, 06:11 PM

It is indeed accumulated if it is done with a sense of doership, as Pradeep correctly put it. To relieve oneself of this doership, Karma Yoga is suggested. Karma Yoga involves two attitudes of mind.

Dear Kadhir

I think in order to liberate one from the cycle of birth and deathis to apply four types of yoga simultaneously, doing one of them alone itself is not enough

These are Karma(actions) yoga, Bakthi(devotion to the supreme) yoga, Kriya(life energies) yoga and Gnana(intellect) yoga

pradheep

14th February 2012, 11:32 PM

I think yes, but to a lesser extent like you mention regarding a child.

You answered it.

apply four types of yoga

For a student to succeed in exam, he or she should

1. Karma (body) Yoga- devote most of the time in studies and also in exercise and also rest to keep the body fit.
2. Bhakthi (mind) Yoga - interest in the process of study.
3. Gana (intelligence) Yoga- understand the subjects studying.
4. life energy (Awareness) - be aware of the objective of studying.

anbu_kathir

15th February 2012, 02:03 PM

Dear Kadhir

I think in order to liberate one from the cycle of birth and deathis to apply four types of yoga simultaneously, doing one of them alone itself is not enough

These are Karma(actions) yoga, Bakthi(devotion to the supreme) yoga, Kriya(life energies) yoga and Gnana(intellect) yoga

I go by the traditional Vedanthic route, which involves only two stages really. (1) Karma Yoga as a preparation for Self-Knowledge. (2) Jnaana Yoga which is to be done under a Guru and is the direct cause for Self-Knowledge. Karma Yoga in itself involves what you call as Bhakthi and Kriya, therefore these are redundant terms. In fact different sub-traditions claim so many different "Yogas" for Self-enlightenment. All of them can be grouped under these two. Following any one properly will give benefits.

Love and Light.

SoftSword

15th February 2012, 05:14 PM

Birth itself accumulates karma. It is because of doership, we take birth.

hav a doubt.
everyone says that because of our sins we take birth as humans.
if nobody wants to be born as humans, wat else do they all want? moksham? apdina? saadharana manusanukku puriyara madhiri sollunga.

pls, avoid if my question sounds irrelevant or silly.

pradheep

15th February 2012, 11:44 PM

Dear Ak
You are right. Infact there is only one route, but for deep understanding we classify into 2, or 4 or 5.

Dear Softsword
Your question is not irrelevant or silly. You are right, that these things should be conveyed in a way so that for common man it should make sense.
What is Moksham?
Moksham means fullness, free from wants?.

Everyone should ask "what one needs?. Plus, also find that whoever has that, are they content.

Does this make sense?.

SoftSword

16th February 2012, 05:24 AM

what one needs?
ok what i need?
peace in life for my dad/mom, family, friends and people around me...
then what is that peace i mean.. a healthy life with material to feed the basic needs...

anbu_kathir

16th February 2012, 10:51 AM

hav a doubt.
everyone says that because of our sins we take birth as humans.
if nobody wants to be born as humans, wat else do they all want? moksham? apdina? saadharana manusanukku puriyara madhiri sollunga.

pls, avoid if my question sounds irrelevant or silly.

SS,

First a small but most important point to be clarified. Nowhere does the Veda say that one is born as a human being because of one's sins. In fact, throughout the Hindu Scriptural Canon, a human birth is regarded as the greatest boon ever, something that is acquired after much difficulty, something that even the Devas aspire for. This idea is resounded over and over and over throughout the scriptures. About other religions, I refuse to comment.

The human birth is the "only" (more-or-less) birth which enables the performance of Karma. Every other birth either on earth, or Swargam or Narakam , all are only for enjoyment or suffering due to the Karma committed by oneself when one was a human being (if I am not wrong). This Karma alone enables one to climb up or down the spiritual ladder. Therefore one must realize the preciousness of this birth.

While it is great to remember all these, keep these ideas in mind, it is not essential IMHO, if one does not accept the Hindu Canon at all. Take the human birth for what it is, and investigate. Find out what it means to be a human being, to have desires, to seek their fulfilment, to be bounded by desires, and to be free. Sincerity is required in this investigation, even if sincerity is not there in Hinduism as a religion.

While Pradeep is clarifying your other questions, I also would like to pitch in. However, what you are asking is something not easily written down in forum posts. I had written a set of four articles (not big) as a primer to Hinduism (Vedaantha in particular) for some of my friends some time back, answering the questions you are asking. If you do wish to read it, please PM your email to me. I will be most happy to forward them to you. I do not want this in the public domain as yet, and hence the trouble.

Love and Light.

SoftSword

16th February 2012, 04:01 PM

thanks kadhir,

i do not ask this question in the perspective of hinduism...
just that the ultimatum for all the deeds and sins are driven towards moksham as discussed here, i just wanted to know what is moksham, why one should strive towards that instead of enjoying the life at hand in a good way by being happy and keeping others around happy as well...

PARAMASHIVAN

16th February 2012, 05:19 PM

Dear Ak
You are right. Infact there is only one route, but for deep understanding we classify into 2, or 4 or 5.

Yes, like I mentioned before, all these 4 yogas are needed for Self Realisation. Sadguru Jaggiv Vasudev gave a beautiful example for this, I vaguely remember it fully, here is the story!

Four Yogis ventured in to a deep forest and they were lost!
The Gynana (Intellect) yogi thought with his intelligence he can find the way out.
The bhakthi (devotion) yogi thought by pure devotion (Chanting Shiva Shiva) he can find the way out. The karma (Action) yogi thought he can use his physical actions to find the way out, and finally, the Kriya (Life Energy) yogi thought that using life energies and instincts he can find the way out.

All of a sudden there was a thunder storm, by coincidence all four got united and took shelter under a roof and were sitting on a stone, without realising, it was a Shivalinga.

Suddenly there was divine voice said "Oh fools I was waiting for this day for all 4 you to be united".

Moral of the story - You need all elements of these 4 types of yogis to attain Self realisation leading to Moksha!

PARAMASHIVAN

16th February 2012, 05:26 PM

I feel the discussion is leading somewhere else now :sigh2:

pradheep

17th February 2012, 07:33 AM

Dear SS
Very nice to see here that Ak, PS are answering your queries in a different angle.

Your question is a very nailing question - "why one should strive towards that instead of enjoying the life "

Very well asked. You also expressed very correctly that basically we all want "a healthy life with material to feed the basic needs".

But our Ego is not satisfied, we want more for mainly to feel that we are better than others. Then we get into a loop of suffering.

This leads us to be born again and again. It is good that in rebirth if we are born with basic needs. What if we are not?. why some are born handicapped, diseased right from birth, poor, starving, unloved, tortured, stressed, not cared?. Why?. Why? Why?, When we are sick of this cycle of ups and downs, we naturally feel moksha. The best is to think of Moksha when we are having a good life, instead of thinking in suffering.

pradheep

17th February 2012, 07:34 AM

Dear PS,
dont worry, we are cycling on one basic question only.

anbu_kathir

17th February 2012, 10:30 AM

thanks kadhir,

Mailed.

Please do read it.

why one should strive towards that instead of enjoying the life at hand in a good way by being happy and keeping others around happy as well...

Hehe, that is a billion dollar question is it not ? Pradeep has given an answer, but it has to be really felt. If it is not, no problem in not going for Moksha and living a grand life here and now. In fact although everyone is indeed on the path to Moksha, the path of Self-Knowledge (which is the immediate cause for Moksha) is not for everybody. In fact it is only for a miniscule %. But the path of Rightful Action , Dharma, Aram, etc., is for everybody. Following that alone is a happy life with enough world-stuff is possible (all adjectives are important). As Pradeep said, when one is tired of that, then alone Moksha becomes important.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

17th February 2012, 03:17 PM

but it has to be really felt. . Exactly!

PARAMASHIVAN

17th February 2012, 03:28 PM

When we are sick of this cycle of ups and downs, we naturally feel moksha. The best is to think of Moksha when we are having a good life, instead of thinking in suffering.

Dear Pradheep

This is very true! when on indulges him self in material fantasy, by default the mind is so much occupied in worldly pleasures and is ignorant of one's true nature (Brahman)! It is mainly when one suffers these kind of Moksha seeking ideas rise within oneself!

SoftSword

17th February 2012, 04:01 PM

The best is to think of Moksha when we are having a good life, instead of thinking in suffering.

pradheep,

out of all that u have said, i believe this is the imp point u would like to endorse.
you maybe right and you might have realized the importance of moksha through some spiritual experience or borrowed experiences from your guru...
sounds more like,'kettadhu nadakkurappo dhaan kadavula nenakkirom... adhanaaladhaan', but not exactly that.

see, my way of life is very simple...
live every moment..
thats, instead of thinking about something else and wasting your time in hand, try to enjoy the moment..
and what is enjoyment... anything which makes us feel good... and positive and doesn allow any form of negative thinking or fear to occupy my head... i have been very successful for the past few years by distracting myself from any fear or negative thinking...
i always believe, watever happens happens for good...
also, do anything unless it does hurt/harm others are make anybody feel bad... if it doesn cause any bad, even a murder is not a mistake for me... (hope u understand wat i mean)
do watever to keep people happy around u...

this is exactly what i ve been doing...
and this positive thinking and living the moment style has come after many tougher situations and a few important sacrifices...

but i would not claim that i am a good or perfect person...
i do mistakes and what a society considers as a sin at times... but i make sure, nobody is hurt...

just like anybody say, religion is a way of life.. this is been my way of life... now should i really think about moksha? why? what am i missing?

anbu, thanks for ur mail...
pls remove my mailid from ur post...

Shakthiprabha

18th February 2012, 02:17 PM

hi ss,

Recently I feel I personally have discovered, most of these discussions guide us only to a reasonable extent. Answers to all these are found in "self discovery" and search within our own selves rather than outside discussions. If there is a renowned guru, seek his guidance. Otherwise most of ur queries are answered in scriptures, epics, upnishads, vedas, puranas etc, if we have patience to search for answers. May be "URGE OR INCLINATION" to search.

and what is enjoyment... anything which makes us feel good... and positive and doesn allow any form of negative thinking or fear to occupy my head... i have been very successful for the past few years by distracting myself from any fear or negative thinking... i always believe, watever happens happens for good... also, do anything unless it does hurt/harm others are make anybody feel bad...
Good! A happy, motivated person. :cheers:

even a murder is not a mistake for me...

well, Depends on the situation, need, crisis and motive behind the act. However 'cause and effect' would inflict even for the NOBLEST reason any hurt is caused to anyone.

just like anybody say, religion is a way of life.. this is been my way of life... now should i really think about moksha? why? what am i missing?

You are missing NOTHING. I can try and explain u with a small example.

A child is crying, wailing and feels so de motivated and put off. A small icecream or choclate peps the child, and brings back the lost smile. Its HAPPY. Happiness is EXPERIENCED here by the child.

Child grows up into a handsome young man, gets his dream job, marries a woman who has been his 'dream woman'. Life is well settled, cute family, lovely, perfect life one could ask for. Nothing to crave. The man experiences happiness. Shall we say peace? Here too happiness or peace is experienced by the same child who is now the MAN.

Both experience happpiness, we cannot QUANTIFY, however , the EXPANSION of happiness is different. self is EXPANDED to experience an expanded, broader happiness.

That is the difference between, our material happiness and the peace experienced during "singularity" or moksha. Self in question is EXPANDED in cosmic level to experience a VERY DIFFERENT broader peace.

Now its up to us, to choose where we are and what we want. Everything is happiness. NO QUANTIFICATION. Just EXTENT AND EXPANSION.

This is otherwise explained as "sitrinbam and perinbam" the smaller material happiness and bigger cosmic peace.

:cheers:

SoftSword

18th February 2012, 04:37 PM

atthanai thunbatthukkum kaaranamae aasaidhaanu solringa...
ippo perinbatthukku aasaippadunu solringa...
enaku irukkura vaazhkaiya thrupthiyaa vaazhravan naan...

SoftSword

18th February 2012, 06:54 PM

atthanai thunbatthukkum kaaranamae aasaidhaanu solringa...
ippo perinbatthukku aasaippadunu solringa...
enaku irukkura vaazhkaiya thrupthiyaa vaazhravan naan...

anbu_kathir

19th February 2012, 12:16 PM

Well, I have some questions and I have some koans as answers (partially because I am tired of logical (and therefore long) answers and partially because you already have my logical answers with you :D) .

A kōan is a fundamental part of the history and lore of Zen Buddhism. It consists of a story, dialogue, question, or statement, the meaning of which cannot be understood by rational thinking but may be accessible through intuition or lateral thinking.

see, my way of life is very simple...
live every moment..
thats, instead of thinking about something else and wasting your time in hand, try to enjoy the moment..

Fine. Not that you should care about what I say or anything.

and what is enjoyment... anything which makes us feel good... and positive and doesn allow any form of negative thinking or fear to occupy my head... i have been very successful for the past few years by distracting myself from any fear or negative thinking...

How small is a moment? Does it always mean "here and now"? Are you enjoying the moment "here and now" or are you trying to ? If you are not enjoying the moment here and now, and you only try to enjoy it, then this moment has already passed and you have not enjoyed it.

do watever to keep people happy around u...

If everyone around me has to be happy then I have to be a schizophrenic. Define the boundaries first. How big is the circle around you? Your family and friends I suppose. The rest of the society, perhaps, if you have time left?.

just like anybody say, religion is a way of life..

I never understood this "religion is a way of life" clearly. What does it mean to say such a thing? Let us take a step back and try to look at things more clearly (which is another way of saying "Here I go again").

First I recognize that I exist. Then there is the rest of the world, which begins with my parents, my family, my friends, and then the inanimate things I like and I don't like, and then the rest of the world (all these in some order of importance and chronology). Then there are those superimpositions which my society gives me, which cannot be verified, like "a country", "humanity", "God", "Life", etc. These are words, they mean something, but they are concepts without any actual physical existence.

By saying "religion is a way of life", I assume what you mean is "Religion is a way of establishing a relationship between "me" and "the rest in the above paragraph" ". Religions establish this relationship by telling stories about it. On the other hand, you don't want to tell the stories which religions tell. You want to tell your own stories that help you relate to the rest of the world. Am I right, am I wrong, or am I boring?

now should i really think about moksha? why? what am i missing?

Here come the Koans.
_______________
KOAN 1.

#1. I am happy because I have a nice wife/husband. I am happy because I have a good place to live. I am happy because I am respected in society. I am happy because I have a good degree and a job. I am happy because I went to this place for my vacation. I am happy because I am in good health. I am happy because I have enough money in my pocket/banks. I am happy because I am not sad. I am happy because I am a Tamil/Indian. I am happy because I am a human being. I am happy because I am the son of so-and-so. I am happy because I am a cricket lover and I can watch cricket. Take any of these adjectives (the clauses after because) away and I lose my happiness (some quantum of it at least).

#2 [what you are missing]. I am happy because I am. I never am not. Therefore I am always happy. You therefore are not really missing anything. Only you have added so many unnecessary things that seem to have complicated your life.
_______________

KOAN 2.

In 1939, at age 21, U.G. Krishnamurti met with Ramana Maharshi. U.G. related that he asked Ramana, "This thing called moksha, can you give it to me?" - to which Ramana Maharshi purportedly replied, "I can give it, but can you take it?". This answer completely altered U.G.'s perceptions of the "spiritual path" and its practitioners, and he never again sought the counsel of "those religious people". Later U.G. would say that Maharshi's answer - which he had originally perceived as "arrogant" - put him "back on track". "That Ramana was a real McCoy," said U.G Krishnamurti.

_________________

KOAN 3.

Zen disciple: What is the difference between enlightenment and suffering (non-enlightenment)?
Zen master: Before enlightenment I was depressed. After enlightenment, I am depressed.
____________

Love and Light.

SoftSword

19th February 2012, 01:28 PM

anbu_kathir

19th February 2012, 07:41 PM

How small is a moment? Does it always mean "here and now"? Are you enjoying the moment "here and now" or are you trying to ? If you are not enjoying the moment here and now, and you only try to enjoy it, then this moment has already passed and you have not enjoyed it.

--word play? u don hav to read between the lines... its simple... i enjoy every moment of my life... not that i try, with a stop watch, and measure if i have enjoyed... ur seeing a thing in a complex way which just happens simply with me...

If everyone around me has to be happy then I have to be a schizophrenic. Define the boundaries first. How big is the circle around you? Your family and friends I suppose. The rest of the society, perhaps, if you have time left?.

--yes, family and friends, for now thats enough for me.... if i keep this small circle happy and make some difference in their lives, that would make me feel good...
would try to stretch it as i grow bigger...

I never understood this "religion is a way of life" clearly. What does it mean to say such a thing? Let us take a step back and try to look at things more clearly (which is another way of saying "Here I go again").

--i din say that, note that i said 'as somebody says'... even i don understand that and never tried to.

pls don try to read between my lines... can u understand what i mean as a whole?
if not, i would write back to you the day when i feel i have become more expressive of my thoughts...

and many thanks again for putting so many things to explain me...

:D.. sorry for hurting your mind. I like to go deeper and deeper all the time, that is my way. The superficial levels are chaos always (or deceptively simple). The answers to the kind of questions you are asking are never to be found there. When life throws something at me, I have noticed that I am astounded by it because I look at the superficial levels only. Every time I have gone deeper, I have only found stabler truths, and therefore that attitude has become my fundamental shock-absorber. And hence my inherent crazy habit of dissecting what people say, like a psychologist.

This is a personal game, remember. No need to bother about anyone's opinions. However, the disclaimer is that all actions have consequences, even if they are performed because of ignorance.

Did you get the answer to your question "what am I missing?"? The whole point of my previous post was that and that alone.

Also watch if you have time (its worth it, if you are still interested in this moksha deal ) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q57cFQkbBJQ . I don't believe anyone could present it more elegantly for the modern audience.

Love and Light.

SoftSword

19th February 2012, 09:41 PM

:D.. sorry for hurting your mind.
-- dont be. no hurt as such...

I like to go deeper and deeper all the time, that is my way. The superficial levels are chaos always (or deceptively simple). The answers to the kind of questions you are asking are never to be found there. When life throws something at me, I have noticed that I am astounded by it because I look at the superficial levels only. Every time I have gone deeper, I have only found stabler truths, and therefore that attitude has become my fundamental shock-absorber. And hence my inherent crazy habit of dissecting what people say, like a psychologist.
-- i just want to keep my mind as little messy as i can... so dont like to think too deep into something and confuse myself...

This is a personal game, remember. No need to bother about anyone's opinions. However, the disclaimer is that all actions have consequences, even if they are performed because of ignorance.
-- i did not ask any opinion... its not just me.. i just asked it in the name of ppl who think like me... to say that, i dont think i miss anything now...

Did you get the answer to your question "what am I missing?"? The whole point of my previous post was that and that alone.
-- no, and if the answer is gonna be so complex, then i am happy without knowing it...

Also watch if you have time (its worth it, if you are still interested in this moksha deal ) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q57cFQkbBJQ . I don't believe anyone could present it more elegantly for the modern audience.
-- yes when i am in a relaxed state of mind...

anbu_kathir

19th February 2012, 09:50 PM

Did you get the answer to your question "what am I missing?"? The whole point of my previous post was that and that alone.
-- no, and if the answer is gonna be so complex, then i am happy without knowing it...

There is no complexity fundamentally. The Free-Man (one who has achieved Moksha so to speak) is happy for no reason. Nothing can add to or take away that happiness. That's all there is to it. This is what you are missing.

Also watch if you have time (its worth it, if you are still interested in this moksha deal ) . I don't believe anyone could present it more elegantly for the modern audience.
-- yes when i am in a relaxed state of mind...
Well, at one end you say are enjoying all moments, at other end you are saying "when I am in a relaxed state of mind". Muranbaadaa irukkE. Perhaps you mean "when I am more interested".
Seri vidunga. If you are tired of it, let it go and continue on with your journey.

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir

19th February 2012, 11:30 PM

atthanai thunbatthukkum kaaranamae aasaidhaanu solringa...
ippo perinbatthukku aasaippadunu solringa...

Desire/Aasai matter-la konjam confusion reduce pannanumna idha paarunga - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSQgw1y7IKU&NR=1. 10 minutes.

Love and Light.

SoftSword

19th February 2012, 11:45 PM

There is no complexity fundamentally. The Free-Man (one who has achieved Moksha so to speak) is happy for no reason. Nothing can add to or take away that happiness. That's all there is to it. This is what you are missing.

Well, at one end you say are enjoying all moments, at other end you are saying "when I am in a relaxed state of mind". Muranbaadaa irukkE. Perhaps you mean "when I am more interested".
Seri vidunga. If you are tired of it, let it go and continue on with your journey.

Love and Light.
relaxed i mean, when i get time...
konjam busy... and already rendu books print out edutthu innum padichu mudikkalai...
not like not interested and all... atleast for the pain u hav taken to tell me this, i would take sometime to go thru...

anbu_kathir

20th February 2012, 10:00 AM

relaxed i mean, when i get time...
konjam busy... and already rendu books print out edutthu innum padichu mudikkalai...
not like not interested and all... atleast for the pain u hav taken to tell me this, i would take sometime to go thru...

Seri seri. Enakku endha kashtamum illa.. I love every bit of sharing what has been shared with me, irrespective of whether there is receiving of it or not.

Love and Light.

Shakthiprabha

20th February 2012, 01:56 PM

thansk for the video prasad, nichayama parkaren.

vadivel,

atthanai thunbatthukkum kaaranamae aasaidhaanu solringa...
ippo perinbatthukku aasaippadunu solringa...
enaku irukkura vaazhkaiya thrupthiyaa vaazhravan naan...

nobody says asai patte aaganam. it all depends on what we seek. if u find ur life is clear cool and with living "in the present every moment" then thats all everything is about. mukthi or moksha adainja piragum, ithe manasoda vazhnthavanga irukaanga. mukthi is a "MANA NILAI" nothing more. IF u think, u have it already, then there is nothing to desire :)

Each of us have different aspirations, likes, dislikes , the same applies here. Someday when u may feel u are incomplete (not incomplete in any worldly sense) u may question, the very existence of life. Otherhand, if you are going to be completely sated with balanced emotions, contented existence and living every moment in the present, then that is all there is to seek :cheers:

Ithuvum oru suvai, athuvum oru suvai, this is fine too, that is fine too, its what each one picks. Try to maintain a balanced, peaceful mental frame, moment by moment, under any circumstance, situation and in every occasion in future. :) . If u do, u already are a muktha :)

PARAMASHIVAN

20th February 2012, 03:24 PM

SoftSword

20th February 2012, 03:44 PM

thansk for the video prasad, nichayama parkaren.

vadivel,

nobody says asai patte aaganam. it all depends on what we seek. if u find ur life is clear cool and with living "in the present every moment" then thats all everything is about. mukthi or moksha adainja piragum, ithe manasoda vazhnthavanga irukaanga. mukthi is a "MANA NILAI" nothing more. IF u think, u have it already, then there is nothing to desire :)

Each of us have different aspirations, likes, dislikes , the same applies here. Someday when u may feel u are incomplete (not incomplete in any worldly sense) u may question, the very existence of life. Otherhand, if you are going to be completely sated with balanced emotions, contented existence and living every moment in the present, then that is all there is to seek :cheers:

Ithuvum oru suvai, athuvum oru suvai, this is fine too, that is fine too, its what each one picks. Try to maintain a balanced, peaceful mental frame, moment by moment, under any circumstance, situation and in every occasion in future. :) . If u do, u already are a muktha :)

thanks shakthi...
that sounds sensible too...

SoftSword

20th February 2012, 03:49 PM

There are certain aspects of life which "must" be experienced to understand rather than by just hearing it!

SS,

What you call happiness is just like passing cloud, today you are happy, tomorrow you sad, day after you are angry! These are such emotions derived by "outwardly based" sensory organs (seeing, hearing, touching) these kind of happiness based on external stimulant is NOT real happiness. The real happiness is "self realisation", once you have understood this, you in eternal bliss. Nothing else in life would make you happier than this!

param,
how do u say the happiness i enjoy now is passing cloud?
i am finding happiness is what i have now... but ur in long pursuit of that happiness and i am sure u would not have yet attained that level... or did u already? i want to be happy as a human being with humans around, and you want to attain that eternal happiness with eternal beings...
in noway i am trying to underestimate the one you respect and strive for... my point is do i need that... and u used 'must' :)

SoftSword

20th February 2012, 03:51 PM

Seri seri. Enakku endha kashtamum illa.. I love every bit of sharing what has been shared with me, irrespective of whether there is receiving of it or not.

Love and Light.

its received already but not yet consumed. :)
veetla oru ketta kaaryam so cannot apply mind in such things which is why i meant i am not in a relaxed state of mind.

pradheep

22nd February 2012, 06:08 AM

my point is do i need that... and u used 'must'
Dear SS
Your words are very sharp and enjoyable to read. You are right, there is no need at present. But since we have a personality, which has a future, for that "Personality" there might be a need. Finding that personality in us will give the answer. The "must" is not for anyone but for our own self.

I see similar patterns of questions else where. When I told my son, you "must study" your school lessons, he asked similarly "do i need that... the one you emphasized 'must'.

It was hilarious. I said, you dont need to, you can enjoy what you are doing now, but can you accept the future as you are now?. Which means whatever situations you may confront in future, will you be happy as you are. Then my dear boy, there is no need or must.

Just because life is comfortable now, we will forget our basic nature. If we know our basic nature, at all times we will be happy. That knowing ourself is Moksha, which will make eternally happy. Is that a need or a must?

19thmay

22nd February 2012, 02:31 PM

If I am going to kill someone (Say I am not Sathryan, in this era consider I am not Cop or Armyman ), am I answering my Karma or I am continuing my Karma by this act?

Btw Pradheep / AK - Your birthdate is 7 or Sum of DD+MM+YYYY is 7? Just curious.

19thmay

22nd February 2012, 03:17 PM

Why what happened Raghu?

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd February 2012, 03:19 PM

It was hilarious. I said, you dont need to, you can enjoy what you are doing now, but can you accept the future as you are now?. Which means whatever situations you may confront in future, will you be happy as you are. Then my dear boy, there is no need or must.

Just because life is comfortable now, we will forget our basic nature. If we know our basic nature, at all times we will be happy. That knowing ourself is Moksha, which will make eternally happy. Is that a need or a must?

Yes exactly. The happiness SS feels is situational and it is not permanent. He fails to understand these emotions are temporary and is influenced by his current circumstances. Emotions, feelings, circumstances; environments all vary and are never in a constant mode!

But the Universal truth remains the same. Once this is understood, one will neither feel happy or sad. One will be in a still mode!

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd February 2012, 03:21 PM

Why what happened Raghu?

I just felt this discussion was leading some where , nothing else :)

19thmay

22nd February 2012, 03:33 PM

No, this question is in my mind for long time and it is relevant. If I am doing something good(not based on Karmayoha) or bad is it based on my Karma or am I seeding my next birth?

If you have any problem or if you still feel that this question derails your topic please let me know.

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd February 2012, 04:30 PM

Just because life is comfortable now, we will forget our basic nature. If we know our basic nature, at all times we will be happy. That knowing ourself is Moksha, which will make eternally happy. Is that a need or a must?

This is exactly What I have been saying all these times!

SoftSword

22nd February 2012, 04:32 PM

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd February 2012, 04:39 PM

If I am going to kill someone (Say I am not Sathryan, in this era consider I am not Cop or Armyman ), am I answering my Karma or I am continuing my Karma by this act?

Sridhar

I thing you are confused over Karma Vs Dharma (pardon me If I am wrong). Karma means all action taken by you regardless of dharma or adharma. where else Dharma is rightnouss.

Are you asking if your karma will be affected ,if for example you kill a Criminal (assuming you are cop)in order to maintain law and order ?

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd February 2012, 04:40 PM

by sharp u mean i did not put it in a polite way? sorry if so.
and the basic nature... what do u mean by this...

He means "Our true nature" as in atma

SoftSword

22nd February 2012, 04:50 PM

adhu edhukku?

anbu_kathir

22nd February 2012, 04:55 PM

Btw Pradheep / AK - Your birthdate is 7 or Sum of DD+MM+YYYY is 7? Just curious.

No.

If I am going to kill someone (Say I am not Sathryan, in this era consider I am not Cop or Armyman ), am I answering my Karma or I am continuing my Karma by this act?

No, this question is in my mind for long time and it is relevant. If I am doing something good(not based on Karmayoha) or bad is it based on my Karma or am I seeding my next birth?

Aside: I didn't what you mean by "not based on Karmayoga".

If you do anything with expectation of a particular result, you accumulate new Karma and therefore the consequence has to be enjoyed by taking a body (and hence next birth is sure). That is the Hindu belief. However, the question may come as to how some antisocial elements also claim the same thing that they kill for the sake of God, will they also get "eternal heaven" as they often say?

The answer is : No. This is because Karma Yoga (i.e., the performance of actions in such a way that new Karma is not accumulated) involves two aspects.
1. Performance of Dharma (aram) based activities, the knowledge about which are available to us from scriptures (interpreted according to tradition). It is my view that Aram or Dharma broadly can be indicated by two things (a) Truth and Non-injury (b) Compassion. Any karma which falls in line with these two, (and some other unknown types of karma revealed by scriptures) are Dharmic Karma, i.e., they have the capacity of generating Punya shakthi.
2. Performance of such dharmic activities not for personal benefit but for the sake of God, without expectation of any result, and the humble acceptance of all life experiences (i.e. the results of our already performed Karma) as gifts from God, without condemnation, judgment or pride

Both are necessary. For example, I cannot steal someone else's property though I want to donate all of that to make a temple. In this case we cannot escape the sin of stealing just because we donated the money we got by stealing. In the same way, though we may be of great charitable nature like Karna, if we do it for name and fame, we will definitely get the punya shakthi and this itself will force us to take birth, albeit in a very good family and good circumstances around.

That is the Hindu belief, I think. Other knowledgeable ones may correct. Then what is the use of doing Karma Yoga, one may be tempted to ask. That is for gaining a clean and pure mind , so that one may get into Gyaana Yoga in this birth or the next, attain Self-Knowledge, become free and therefore get out of the cycle of birth and death once and for all.

Love and Light.

pradheep

22nd February 2012, 06:35 PM

Dear 19th May

My birthdate is not 7 and also the total is also not 7. I guess my writings make you feel that I have ketu (7) influence.

If you kill because of your personal motive you accumulate karma. If you are a soldier, cop and doing duty, no bad karma, but good karma. In doing duty if you get killed, the more good karma you get.

Dear PS and AK, you made excellent explanation to the discussion.

Dear SS,
"Sharp", I meant in a positive way. With few words you express it.

Basic nature.....karma.......

Karma is an action along with its result. The results localize , when there is locator (personality or doership). Karma becomes Universal, when there is no doership. The localized result then will continue to extinguish it. This is rebirth. When the Energy is non-localized (Dark energy, dark matter), there is no creation (meaning no matter and no evolution). When the energy becomes localized, then it becomes matter and then it naturally undergoes reaction and then evolution. This is Universal law.

When we have no personality (no doership), the karma is Universal like dark energy. When we do with a localized personality, then there is karma and evolution, birth, rebirth and Moksha (localized to Universality).

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd February 2012, 06:38 PM

My birthdate is not 7 and also the total is also not 7. I guess my writings make you feel that I have ketu (7) influence.

Dear Pradheep

Do you know much about Numerology ?

pradheep

22nd February 2012, 08:55 PM

Dear PS
Yes know numerology and other Vedic sciences, but do not give consultation to people. I found that they tend to lean towards the techniques and forget the ultimate purpose.

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd February 2012, 09:18 PM

Dear PS
Yes know numerology and other Vedic sciences, but do not give consultation to people. I found that they tend to lean towards the techniques and forget the ultimate purpose.

Dear Pradheep,

I did not want any consultation I just asked :)

Just one Generic question. Based on one's number (i.e the sum of 2 digits of the day someone is born) have you found any character similarities amongst the people you know ?

pradheep

22nd February 2012, 11:45 PM

Dear PS
Yes there is very much similarities in character based on birth dates. How cant there be similarity?. Because everything is connected and everything has the same pattern. This is why in numerology we see character similarities based on birth dates, then same way with vata, pitta and kapha in ayurveda, also in birth time in joythism and so on. All the sciences (Shastras) are so beautiful and intelligent.

19thmay

23rd February 2012, 12:26 PM

anbu_kathir

23rd February 2012, 01:12 PM

Hi Pradheep & AK - Thanks for your response.

I should have asked like this

Any act which I am going to do (both good and bad), not based on Karmayoha will lead to transaction and am going to born again? Which means if I am going to follow Karmayoha in all my actions how it will solve my previous Karma's results?
(Or)
Is it my Karma pushing me to follow Karmayoha, as I have completed or about to complete all my transactions.

It always confuses me.

I think you are thinking too much :D. Nobody can sit and rationalize the internal workings of Karma. Only the present moment is under our control, and you do have freewill to do Dharmic Karma or Adharmic karma with respect to that moment only. Your previous Karma results will be experienced by you as long as you have not attained self-knowledge AKA Moksha. However, how you handle these experiences is upto you. Karmayoga (and not yoha) is not something which comes because you have completed all your transactions. In fact, no person who is not yet free can ever complete this cycle of Karma. Therefore, we are always acting, make no mistake. Only the choice to perform Dharma or Adharma is left with us.

Love and Light.

pradheep

23rd February 2012, 05:23 PM

Do you think Disai plays any part in human beings for taking the spiritual route?
Dear May,
This is like asking, does grade or report card of the child plays a part in making the study well?. The reality is that grade card is a report of the child's performance. The same way astrological chart is the reflection of our actions and not that we are acting according to the astrological influence. Over centuries this has been highly been misunderstood.

http://uni5.co/index.php/vedic-science/navagrahas

pradheep

23rd February 2012, 05:30 PM

Karma
Dear May
I am adding to what Ak beautifully explained, we have choices at every level. Any action we do we have a result. Like every particle in the world has an energy balance, we also have our Energy balance with we continue to act. All atoms continue to do karma till they get to the Noble gas state (all electrons are filled in their shell). This pattern applies to human beings also. see this link

http://uni5.co/index.php/uni5-self-awareness

The above link will also make SS question what if I continue to act , if currently I am enjoying every moment of life and not doing any harm to anyone.

anbu_kathir

24th February 2012, 11:09 AM

Do you think Disai plays any part in human beings for taking the spiritual route?
Dear May,
This is like asking, does grade or report card of the child plays a part in making the study well?. The reality is that grade card is a report of the child's performance. The same way astrological chart is the reflection of our actions and not that we are acting according to the astrological influence . Over centuries this has been highly been misunderstood.

Haha! Perfect, Pradeep!

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir

24th February 2012, 11:35 AM

Dear 19th May
If you are a soldier, cop and doing duty, no bad karma, but good karma. In doing duty if you get killed, the more good karma you get.

Dear Pradeep,

I beg to differ here. I think this idea of Karma Yoga being "doing-your-duty-selflessly' is not accurate. The definition of "duty" here is not proper. I don't think being a soldier or policeman has anything directly to with Punya(Dharma) karma. First criterion for Karma Yoga should always be Dharma, the next is lack of ego. Suppose I am soldier and I am fighting an unjust war, then how can such karma be part of Karma Yoga ? Irrespective of how much ever I say that I fought this war on behalf of the lord, I have to reap the consequences of fighting in the unjust war. A similar argument is given by the fundamentalists of any religion, and it doesn't hold water.

Thus, the most important thing is Dharma, whose knowledge is available from scripture and the elders of the society (the one's who keep the scripture alive by their actions). Then comes Karma Yoga, in which one sticks to Dharma without desire for personal gain.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

24th February 2012, 05:35 PM

Suppose I am soldier and I am fighting an unjust war, then how can such karma be part of Karma Yoga ? Irrespective of how much ever I say that I fought this war on behalf of the lord, I have to reap the consequences of fighting in the unjust war. A similar argument is given by the fundamentalists of any religion, and it doesn't hold water.

When Karna fought an unjust war and dies , it is said that he attained Moksha? The reason given in the Mythological story is that his previous good deeds out shadowed his unjust war.

So here they are indicating , even if one performs bad Actions (karma) you can still attain moksha if the accumulated good (karma) from the soul's previous life and current life is greater ?

pradheep

25th February 2012, 07:13 PM

Dear Ak and PS,
Both of you pinpointed excellently what I missed writing. Yes , doing one's own duty along with higher purpose which will bring happiness to all (Dharma) gives the highest merit. Just fighting for war in the name of getting heaven or in the name of for pleasing God is all only a belief system (mind). In the intelligence and Awareness levels lies the truth. So karma is also of five types. 1. Doing actions at body level- example eating is Karma at body level. (prarabha and Sanchitha karma levels)
2. Doing actions at mind level (belief's) is raga dvesha - more ego fueling.(prarabha and Sanchitha karma levels)
3. Doing actions at intelligence level - Dharma - declutching karma.
4. Doing actions at awareness level is Bhakthi - dissolving karma
5. Doing actions at Consciousness level is Moksha. Free from Karma.

anbu_kathir

26th February 2012, 12:08 PM

When Karna fought an unjust war and dies , it is said that he attained Moksha? The reason given in the Mythological story is that his previous good deeds out shadowed his unjust war.

So here they are indicating , even if one performs bad Actions (karma) you can still attain moksha if the accumulated good (karma) from the soul's previous life and current life is greater ?

Dear Paramashivan,

We have to be a little careful when we talk Puranas/Itihasas literally. Moksha is not a 'immediate' result of punya (Dharma) or paapa (adharma). Moksha is a result of Jnaana Yoga only, not Karma Yoga (let alone Dharmic Karma with ego). Puranas present us examples only and not the generalised theory. In fact, they exaggerate many things to inculcate good morals/ethics in the mind of the common people (who are precisely the audience for the puranas/itihaasas). The accuracy of the information presented in such stories will be clarified only after proper shaastraic studies under a Guru who is Himself/Herself well versed in the scriptures and their core meanings.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

26th February 2012, 06:39 PM

Dear Pradheep,

I have sent you a PM,I dont know If you have recieved it. If you can reply to that, that would be appreciated.

Dear Prasad.

Can you pls PM the document you have emailed SS.

Many thanks

anbu_kathir

26th February 2012, 07:05 PM

Dear Prasad.

Can you pls PM the document you have emailed SS.

Many thanks

Can you PM me your email? I have not uploaded the documents anywhere online, so I can only send it by email.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

23rd March 2012, 04:16 PM

Kathir,

I am going through your docs; if I have any questions shall I post them here?

I have a question, which has nothing to do with the literatures you have sent me.

Isn't the next life we take depends on various other factors "other" than our Karma's we have done in our Current lives and previous lives? I mean the Culture, Environment and even the Climate in which we are in. Don't these also determine our next birth???

anbu_kathir

23rd March 2012, 08:43 PM

Vanakkam Paramashivan.

Kathir,

I am going through your docs; if I have any questions shall I post them here?

Sure. No issues.

I have a question, which has nothing to do with the literatures you have sent me.

Isn't the next life we take depends on various other factors "other" than our Karma's we have done in our Current lives and previous lives? I mean the Culture, Environment and even the Climate in which we are in. Don't these also determine our next birth???

I think the Hindu view is that the culture, the environment, the climate, all of which we find ourselves in now, is a result of our Praarabhda Karma (that portion of our accumulated Karma which has fructified in this birth - to provide us a stage, as though, to further this process of acting and therefore accumulating new Karma). Now based on the stage that is given to us, we act in one way or another. This new karma is accumulated further into the accounts of Chitragupta (so to speak :P). A portion of this will fructify to produce the situations in the next birth, again providing the stage for free-will based action "within" that stage which has been provided to us.

This cycle will keep happening. Hopefully (by Dharmic actions first, and then by Karma Yoga) a Jiva will slowly through many Janmas acquire Buddhi (thinking ability) and look at this Divine Tragedy by which he had been chained to this cycle, through either wooden chains (i.e. lifetimes in hell/earth) or through golden chains (i.e. heavens). Then such a person develops Vairaagyam by which he seeks God alone. If he is "lucky" (again a question of God's grace + karma) he will get a Guru who will reveal (which is a word that imbibes within the proper method of teaching, and so on) that the so-called God he has been searching for is in reality his own Self (not ego). By this Knowledge, the wooden/golden chains are cut off, and he can never come back again into the Tragedy for he now understands that he was never really part of it in the first place. The rest of his life is then, frankly, a cake walk. Thus the Divine Tragedy is now converted into a Divine Comedy which he enjoys till his praarabhda keeps his body-mind alive. After that praarabhda is done, his body-mind will drop dead. Chitragupta will then rub off that entry for that jiva from his ledger. The others continue playing.

I think this is the general principle.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

23rd March 2012, 09:18 PM

I think the Hindu view is that the culture, the environment, the climate, all of which we find ourselves in now, is a result of our Praarabhda Karma (that portion of our accumulated Karma which has fructified in this birth - to provide us a stage, as though, to further this process of acting and therefore accumulating new Karma). Now based on the stage that is given to us, we act in one way or another. This new karma is accumulated further into the accounts of Chitragupta (so to speak :P). A portion of this will fructify to produce the situations in the next birth, again providing the stage for free-will based action "within" that stage which has been provided to us.

Vanakam Kathir

Yes it makes sense, having spoken to Buddhist monk; his view was the Karmic aspect does not have a "significant" impact on one's next birth. He also mentioned by doing good Karma in this life will get rid off all the bad karma done in their previous life, your thoughts?

anbu_kathir

23rd March 2012, 09:34 PM

Vanakam Kathir

Yes it makes sense, having spoken to Buddhist monk; his view was the Karmic aspect does not have a "significant" impact on one's next birth. He also mentioned by doing good Karma in this life will get rid off all the bad karma done in their previous life, your thoughts?

Good karma might not get "rid" of bad karma as such, unless it is of the sort of a "praayaschitta" (repentance) type of karma as prescribed by scripture, that is my understanding. As for the significance of current karma on next birth, I shall profess ignorance beyond what I have mentioned already, as I am not clear as to what controls the praarabhda portion chosen for the next lifetime from the whole set of unfructified karmas (called sanchita). But two things may be said here with surety:

(1) The last thought before death carries with it a huge power with which one can propel oneself (give a birth conducive to further spiritual progress) or pull oneself down (a birth that is not so conducive), as far as the next birth is concerned. It is for this reason that we find recommendations for doing Naama-japaa, or devoting oneself to worship of God after withdrawing from worldly duties, etc. etc., in the later stage of life in Hinduism.
(2) If one is already a serious spiritual seeker, and he dies before acquiring Self-Knowledge, then Bhagavaan Krishna has promised in the Gita that such a person will be definitely born into an environment which is conducive to completing his saadhana and therefore achieving Mukthi.

Therefore, for the spiritual seeker (either in terms of devotion or in terms of knowledge-seeking attitude), things will be positive (and based on current birth actions). Hence, the message given to us is to carry on without worry about next birth.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

23rd March 2012, 10:04 PM

(1) The last thought before death carries with it a huge power with which one can propel oneself (give a birth conducive to further spiritual progress) or pull oneself down (a birth that is not so conducive), as far as the next birth is concerned. It is for this reason that we find recommendations for doing Naama-japaa, or devoting oneself to worship of God after withdrawing from worldly duties, etc. etc., in the later stage of life in Hinduism.
.

Yes, this is said in Gita, but though scientists have proved that Imagination/thoughts are quicker than the speed of light. I think it is possible to die without realising you are dying, hence no thoughts will occur. Say one is gone in a coma and passes away, how is it possible to have a thought or think of any thing? Aren't the thoughts generated in your consious mind rather than the subconscious mind??

anbu_kathir

24th March 2012, 06:49 PM

Yes, this is said in Gita, but though scientists have proved that Imagination/thoughts are quicker than the speed of light. I think it is possible to die without realising you are dying, hence no thoughts will occur. Say one is gone in a coma and passes away, how is it possible to have a thought or think of any thing? Aren't the thoughts generated in your consious mind rather than the subconscious mind??

Thoughts are faster than light? If you are talking about thoughts as quantities which are somehow measurable through the electrical signals occurring in the brain (which is the only scientific way of figuring out whether one is thinking or not), then I am afraid these measurements indicate that the physical manifestation of thoughts as electrical signals are certainly not faster than light, for electrons don't move "that" fast. Where did you read about the research you mention?

Again, we have to be a little careful to merge science and religion. I have for a long time committed this mistake. Science talks about the physical universe. As such, I have come to the conclusion that it (science) does not contradict religion (I mean Hinduism here). But the philosophical aspect of Hinduism talks about those things which are not available to science but which are available to every human being for his own study in a subjective sense.

The issues of coma, what happens to the mind during coma etc. are hard to answer. Especially since I don't recall being in one :D. But I can venture some blind guesses. I think the subtle body (Sukshma sharira, which includes the mind) is very much active in coma, although perhaps quite disconnected with the gross body. The subtle body, constituting the mind, is the source for conscious thoughts when in a normal non-coma state. Perhaps "thinking" still happens in some way. Or perhaps the last thought before going into coma counts. But these are blind guesses only. So I can't vouch for their truth. Moreover, speaking in terms of things that we can easily verify through our buddhi (without going into coma) seems more useful, since most of our time is spent without coma :P.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd May 2012, 08:52 PM

anbu_kathir

23rd May 2012, 11:51 AM

Kathir

I still wonder, how is it possible to have a"Split second thought" just before death!, If one realises that "death" is coming, then obviously such thoughts will flood in, but when yiu are unware that your are going to die, how will any thought arise within the mind ?

My guess is that in many cases one will always know at least a few minutes or seconds before when death is coming (unless its an accident or an act of violence). Probably has to do with the brain shutting down. Generally people would panic for the fear of the feeling of self disintegration. Rarely people might stay calm with their mind focussed on the Lord. People like Gandhiji are rarer, who have always the name of the lord on their lips or in their minds. Thus, even when death comes suddenly they are able to recall the Lord and focus their mind on Him before they go, for they have never forgotten the Lord. In fact, I would say only such people can remember the Lord before death and therefore get the great blessing. Those who try to reserve the Lord's memory for the last moment would never succeed in doing so.

Practically speaking, what we have with us is this moment only. The choice of spending this moment with the aim of Dharma and Moksha in mind is all that is important and really all that is possible, nothing more, nothing less!

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

23rd May 2012, 03:57 PM

(unless its an accident or an act of violence).

This is what I meant! When one dies instantly , say in a millisecond. Then it is impossible for any thoughts.

anbu_kathir

23rd May 2012, 04:13 PM

This is what I meant! When one dies instantly , say in a millisecond. Then it is impossible for any thoughts.

I assume that your issue is that this contradicts or negates "the last thought before death". But how? Death may be instantaneous. Still the person would have one last thought before death, is it not? If it is of a spiritual nature, our Dharma says there will be good benefits in the next life, thats all. I don't see any issue or contradiction here.

Again, in actuality what is with us is only this moment, nothing more nothing less.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

6th June 2012, 04:33 PM

I assume that your issue is that this contradicts or negates "the last thought before death".
Yes

But how? Death may be instantaneous. Still the person would have one last thought before death, is it not?

Find it hard to accept , how is it possible to have thoughts in millieseconds? :roll:

If it is of a spiritual nature, our Dharma says there will be good benefits in the next life, thats all. . Agreed

anbu_kathir

7th June 2012, 02:16 PM

Find it hard to accept , how is it possible to have thoughts in millieseconds? :roll:

I think you are confusing "thoughts during death" and "thoughts before death" Suppose an event X occurs in your life. Will you have thoughts during the event? Maybe not. Will you have any thoughts at all before event X occured? Yes, obviously, because you are alive and you can think. Will there be any "last" such thought, either during, or just before event X ? Yes, because thoughts are discrete in nature and one can only hold one thought in one's head at a time. So the question of "how can thoughts happen in milliseconds" does not arise at all. One simply holds on to the memory of the Lord (either as a personal deity or as a Supreme Self or as one's own identity), if with that memory the body drops, then thats it.

Again, the point is not this too literally but just to live one's life as worship.

Love and Light.

pradheep

3rd August 2012, 04:38 AM

Please see this universal Truth article supports this thread.

http://uni5.co/index.php/en/five-levels-of-truth-views.html

Thanks
pradheep.

PARAMASHIVAN

3rd August 2012, 04:57 PM

Please see this universal Truth article supports this thread.

http://uni5.co/index.php/en/five-levels-of-truth-views.html

Thanks
pradheep.

Many thanks Pradheep

PARAMASHIVAN

3rd August 2012, 05:01 PM

One simply holds on to the memory of the Lord (either as a personal deity or as a Supreme Self or as one's own identity), if with that memory the body drops, then thats it.

This is where the problem is , well IMHO. Why do we look for this Energy externally, when this energy which created the cosmos is within our self ?

anbu_kathir

5th August 2012, 02:13 PM

This is where the problem is , well IMHO. Why do we look for this Energy externally, when this energy which created the cosmos within our self ?

If I have to answer your question, I must first understand the following.

What you mean by "within our self"? Within the body? Or the mind? What is creation? What is the cosmos? What is this energy you speak of?

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

6th August 2012, 03:28 PM

If I have to answer your question, I must first understand the following.

What you mean by "within our self"? Within the body? Or the mind? What is creation? What is the cosmos? What is this energy you speak of?

Love and Light.

What I meant was when the "Energy/Creator /GOD" which created this cosmos and it's attributes is within us (Mind/Body) why do we need to look for the source of creation externnally , like Diety worship ? :)

anbu_kathir

7th August 2012, 09:35 AM

What I meant was when the "Energy/Creator /GOD" which created this cosmos and it's attributes is within us (Mind/Body) why do we need to look for the source of creation externnally , like Diety worship ? :)

As the senses and the mind are trained to look for external things only, there is the necessity for the existence of places and forms of worship. But it must be kept in mind that nobody who is indulging in such worship says that they are just worshiping some picture or some stone. Every faithful person believes that it is the omnipotent Lord himself who is present in and as such form, and He is the cause for all creation and is of the nature of justice and compassion.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

8th August 2012, 09:22 PM

As the senses and the mind are trained to look for external things only

Correct

There is the necessity for the existence of places and forms of worship

These places of worship (temples) were constructed in a way to give certain energies to human bodies; hence the ancient temples were built with "Human body" in mind.

. But it must be kept in mind that nobody who is indulging in such worship says that they are just worshiping some picture or some stone, Every faithful person believes that it is the omnipotent Lord himself who is present in and as such form

Applying the same logic, the omnipotent is omnipresent in every parts and parcel within cosmos, including us. So why is necessity for worshiping an object?

anbu_kathir

9th August 2012, 11:52 AM

These places of worship (temples) were constructed in a way to give certain energies to human bodies; hence the ancient temples were built with "Human body" in mind.

You can't sell these mystic explanations to a philosopher or to a scientist. Hinduism AFAIK doesn't talk about such things.

Applying the same logic, the omnipotent is omnipresent in every parts and parcel within cosmos, including us. So why is necessity for worshiping an object?

There is no *need* to do anything. The temples are there for people who cannot see the omnipotent omnipresent everywhere. If one can do so, one need not go to a temple. But most of us cannot do so. Therefore the necessity is there for a place and object which is specially sanctified according to traditional rituals, which gives the people an opportunity to forget about worldly affairs and commune mentally with the spirit of living for the Lord, by the Lord and of the Lord.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

9th August 2012, 02:43 PM

If one can do so, one need not go to a temple

Correct! These are the enlightened ones

But most of us cannot do so. Therefore the necessity is there for a place and object which is specially sanctified according to traditional rituals
agreed

which gives the people an opportunity to forget about worldly affairs and commune mentally with the spirit of living for the Lord.

Correct, this was the reason for temples being built, but sadly temples have become funds generating business institutes!

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 03:56 PM

http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?9826-Hinduism-Initial-concept-of-Shiva-Trinity&p=928741&viewfull=1#post928741

anbu_kathir

13th August 2012, 05:03 PM

http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?9826-Hinduism-Initial-concept-of-Shiva-Trinity&p=928741&viewfull=1#post928741

Sunilji

Excuse me if I ask you a personal question, did you live the majority of your personality-forming years in a country other than India?

"Hinduism" is not a religion, indeed, in the notion of Abrahamic religions. But it is a religion in the sense that its fundamental principles are founded on the Veda, which is its holy text.

It is natural to be bewildered by such a "religion" where the people who call themselves as "hindus" subscribe to a whole lot of different and conflicting ideas. Although you do indeed see a similar diversity with other religions (the flavours of Islam, Christianity is a testimony to the fact that they are too not without diversity), in no other do you find it to the extent you find it in Hinduism. The reason for these conflicting ideas is simply that Hinduism allows for different interpretations of the Vedic words according to the nature and mindset of its followers. It allows the diversity, as long as the general guidelines given by the Veda are not contradicted.

As to the issue of polytheism in Hinduism, you yourself have provided the answer.

I knew God wouldn't mind as long as I worship him/her in any form.

You do realise that God is one indeed (in Hinduism), only the forms and names are different. Even when a devout Vaishnavite worships Lord Vishnu, he doesn't simply worship one name or one form. There is the Vishnu Sahasranama which speaks of Vishnu with a thousand names and in a thousand forms (well, nearly.. there are a few repetitions :P) and this devotee is perfectly OK with worshipping Vishnu with all these names and in all these forms. So there is no such thing in Hinduism where God exists only in a particular form alone. So there is no need to feel "guilty" wrt other forms, when you are worshiping one form. Just as you may be playing different roles in your life, like being a son, father, brother, employee, employer, student etc., in the same way, the one and only Lord takes up these names and forms according to the roles that needed to be taken up at those particular occasions. So there is no contradiction at all.

In fact, Hinduism is one of the few religions in this world which is perfectly fine with embracing and encouraging the thinking faculty among the people. As the thirst for knowing the Lord is shown, so too the Lord opens ways for knowing and understanding Her in Her truer and truer forms, which are rewards not just for faith but also for the growing intellect.

Love and Light.

p.s: copy pasted from other thread.