God...Why?

sapthajihva · Jul 9, 2009

Since it was too long, I split my post into two.

Read verse 4 with verse 13 - creation or manifestation is a mix of these elements in various proportions.

Verse 5 - even though such energies produce the effect, there is still an enveloping energy. This is what the Isopanishad says - About Poornam. When the primordial energy is everywhere, and one infers that something is utilized by 'taking it away', then there is no vaccuum as there is always an enveloping energy. The words 'take' and 'away' should be understood in the concept of 'Maya'.

Verse 6 to 12 - 'Akaro Vishnuruddhishta Ukarasthu Maheshwara, Makarastu smrtho Brahmma, Pranavasthu Thrayathmakaha'. The different states of beings.

One may see the 'Me' that is referred by Krishna as the human personification - this is bhakthi bhava.

One may see the 'Me' that is referred by Krishna as the 'I' of Krishna - this is tattva bhava.

One may see the 'Me' that is referred by Krishna as the result of actions prescribed - this is karma bhava

From the verses, it is clear that the 'Me' should be the object of all objects, and since everything is 'under' Him, it does not matter what path one chooses to attain Him.

Thus, anyone spiritual, in this world is striving to attain Brahman (the 'Me') in their own way, and that is probably why the Hindus have an ingrained tolerance to all religions and all philosophies. The other religions differ in that they do not realize the true nature of Brahman and hence, though having the tendency to organize a society, fall short of explaining or guiding the way to the Ultimate Knowledge.

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

Just a few questions Sapthajihva:

sapthajihva said:
Verse 5 - even though such energies produce the effect, there is still an enveloping energy. This is what the Isopanishad says - About Poornam. When the primordial energy is everywhere, and one infers that something is utilized by 'taking it away', then there is no vaccuum as there is always an enveloping energy. The words 'take' and 'away' should be understood in the concept of 'Maya'.

On what basis cud one say that by "taking away" there is no 'vaccum"...Is it not possible that a dimensionless vaccum is the "source' of sorts of unlimited energy, like the space can be a dimensionless vaccum of sorts within which various versions of energy exist..Now its hard to say whether the space itself has a source, or whether there is unstudied energy, matter or anti-matter, that decides its methodic and non-methodic randomness..

Thus, anyone spiritual, in this world is striving to attain Brahman (the 'Me') in their own way, and that is probably why the Hindus have an ingrained tolerance to all religions and all philosophies. The other religions differ in that they do not realize the true nature of Brahman and hence, though having the tendency to organize a society, fall short of explaining or guiding the way to the Ultimate Knowledge.

do you think, the tendency to organize a society, from a spiritual point of view, is a right thing to do?

sapthajihva · Jul 9, 2009

happyhindu-On what basis cud one say that by "taking away" there is no 'vaccum"...Is it not possible that a dimensionless vaccum is the "source' of sorts of unlimited energy, like the space can be a dimensionless vaccum of sorts within which various versions of energy exist..Now its hard to say whether the space itself has a source, or whether there is unstudied energy, matter or anti-matter, that decides its methodic and non-methodic randomness..

The taking away is a phrase which is understood by us while we are enveloped within the system. To give a more concrete example, it is like living within water and if one scoops a handful of water, it is only an interpretation that one has taken it. In reality it is never taken anywhere.

If I want to create vaccuum in a room, I have to spend some energy to create it. We think it is vacuum because there is no air, but it is sustained only due to the energy acting on it. This is for creating a vacuum within energy. Similarly the converse must also hold true. So this overlapping goes on and on with a root energy being the causal factor.

happyhindu-do you think, the tendency to organize a society, from a spiritual point of view, is a right thing to do?

Yes

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

Sapthajihva,

sapthajihva said:
happyhindu-On what basis cud one say that by "taking away" there is no 'vaccum"...Is it not possible that a dimensionless vaccum is the "source' of sorts of unlimited energy, like the space can be a dimensionless vaccum of sorts within which various versions of energy exist..Now its hard to say whether the space itself has a source, or whether there is unstudied energy, matter or anti-matter, that decides its methodic and non-methodic randomness..

The taking away is a phrase which is understood by us while we are enveloped within the system. To give a more concrete example, it is like living within water and if one scoops a handful of water, it is only an interpretation that one has taken it. In reality it is never taken anywhere.

water can be emptied, even an ocean can be dried up....my basis of asking was 'what if the vaccum itself was the source and basis of inexhaustible energy'?

If I want to create vaccuum in a room, I have to spend some energy to create it. We think it is vacuum because there is no air, but it is sustained only due to the energy acting on it. This is for creating a vacuum within energy. Similarly the converse must also hold true. So this overlapping goes on and on with a root energy being the causal factor.

not talking abt vaccum in room, but vaccum in general (in space), where do you think that root energy comes from?

happyhindu-do you think, the tendency to organize a society, from a spiritual point of view, is a right thing to do?

Yes

on what basis?

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

sapthajihva said:
The Gita is a revelation, which happened during the Mahabharatha war. You used the word 'compose' and inferred it to mean that the text form was not available. But these were/are termed 'shrutis' ie., they were passed on through the 'sound' medium.

Of course, the sceptic can always question the oral, but does it not apply to the textual too?

request some clarification:
does gita come under shruti merely for being passed on thru sound medium?

Arun, please explain further about the gita composition period..

sapthajihva · Jul 9, 2009

happyhindu - water can be emptied, even an ocean can be dried up....my basis of asking was 'what if the vaccum itself was the source and basis of inexhaustible energy'?

Please understand that my reference was an example. How can you empty water when there is water everywhere? And where will you empty it when there is nothing but water?

If vacuum is the source of continuous energy then it is no more a vacuum.

happyhindu - not talking abt vaccum in room, but vaccum in general (in space), where do you think that root energy comes from?

The example was to illustrate a higher order and not meant to be taken literally.

Energy does not come from anywhere. It is.

happyhindu-do you think, the tendency to organize a society, from a spiritual point of view, is a right thing to do?

Yes

on what basis?

Why not?

sapthajihva · Jul 9, 2009

happyhindu said:
request some clarification:
does gita come under shruti merely for being passed on thru sound medium?

My explanation of shruti was to Arun to explain the possibility of a genuine oral media being used before textual forms.

What is heard from the supreme is shruti. This hearing is 'divya vaani' - truths realized. Does this answer your query?

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

sapthajihva,

sapthajihva said:
happyhindu - water can be emptied, even an ocean can be dried up....my basis of asking was 'what if the vaccum itself was the source and basis of inexhaustible energy'?

Please understand that my reference was an example. How can you empty water when there is water everywhere? And where will you empty it when there is nothing but water?

instead of water, a convertible matter, which can be emptied, wish you had used some other example of lastingness...

If vacuum is the source of continuous energy then it is no more a vacuum.

why do you think so? is not space an expanse of vaccum with regions of vaccum?

happyhindu - not talking abt vaccum in room, but vaccum in general (in space), where do you think that root energy comes from?

The example was to illustrate a higher order and not meant to be taken literally.

alright.

Energy does not come from anywhere. It is.

on what basis do you say "it is"?

Why not?

, it wud be nice if you can explain the basis of social organization from a spritual stance, instead of simply asking why-not? that's no answer. you wud need to explain the basis..

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

sapthajihva said:
My explanation of shruti was to Arun to explain the possibility of a genuine oral media being used before textual forms.

What is heard from the supreme is shruti. This hearing is 'divya vaani' - truths realized. Does this answer your query?

somewhat yes...am waiting for arun to respond on the composition period as well..

sapthajihva · Jul 9, 2009

happyhindu

instead of water, a convertible matter, which can be emptied, wish you had used some other example of lastingness...

You can choose whatever material, but when all space is filled with the same material, where is the concept of emptying it somewhere? You do not seem to have comprehended it.

why do you think so? is not space an expanse of vaccum with regions of vaccum?

I have given the explanation already.

on what basis do you say "it is"?

Because it is.

, it wud be nice if you can explain the basis of social organization from a spritual stance, instead of simply asking why-not? that's no answer. you wud need to explain the basis..

What is the purpose in asking this question? May I know?

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

Sapthajihva,

sapthajihva said:
happyhinduYou can choose whatever material, but when all space is filled with the same material, where is the concept of emptying it somewhere? You do not seem to have comprehended it.

i mentioned abt emptying based on the example you used - water ...ofcourse i did not apply the same to 'energy'

anyways, cud you plz lemme know on what basis wud you possibly reject (if you wud that is) the idea of a dimensionless vaccum (like space) being the possible container or source of various versions of energy?

SJ: If vacuum is the source of continuous energy then it is no more a vacuum.
HH: why do you think so? is not space an expanse of vaccum with regions of vaccum?
SJ: I have given the explanation already.

perhaps i missed the post, can please show me which post..

SJ: Energy does not come from anywhere. It is.
HH: on what basis do you say "it is"?
SJ: Because it is.

request you to please explain this, instead of saying just saying "it is"..

What is the purpose in asking this question? May I know?

the purpose of knowing is because you ascribed a spiritual basis to social organization..

arunshanker · Jul 9, 2009

happyhindu said:
somewhat yes...am waiting for arun to respond on the composition period as well..

Here you go!

There has not been a single manuscript of Bhagavad-Gita before Adi Shankara (Now please I don’t want to go into the dates of Shankara but if you do want to know my views go to thread (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=2211)
Hence one is tempted here is to say that it had been passed on thru mouth, although personally I take this an argument only to predate it because I wonder how a composition of this magnitude was not manuscriptised when there were several manuscripts of various other work much before the accepted dates of Adi Shankara.
But I guess there was a commentary on it by Bodhâyana but that is matter of contest
Some research on the text of Gita itself gives us a hint of its time like for example, verse XV, 15
(sarvasya caham hridi sannivisto
mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham)
makes a mention as the author of the Vedanta. Vedantic schools of thought were founded by Shri Adi Shankara, composition of the widely accepted text or version text took place when the doctrine of Vedanta came into prominence. But these are conjectures and possibly one of many methods to date it
Alberuni, (1017 to 1031 A.D), wrote a book Alberuni's Indica, mentions Gita fourteen times but never as Bhagavad Geetha!
The original Geetha has say about 85 verses and mostly dealt on Samkya Phill. A lot of interpolation has been done on this with yoga and vedanta to come up to the present version of Bhagavat Geetha
There has been editing or revising a text based on critical analysis ever so many on this text and Adi Shankara must have done some very significant ones here.
But in general a date between fifth century B.C.E and the second century B.C.E can be accepted for the original Geetha. Note here it is the Geetha and not the Bhagavath Geetha

But it was definitely shruti earlier to that as it was thought to be an important one too even before the accepted practice of manuscripting in palms leaves came about
Note that the Shankara Bhashyam does not have commentary on 57 verses of gita He starts with 11th verse of chapter II
Actually the archaic gita may have mentioned a moola prakrithi ( Kapila’s God ) rather than the God as a creator.
Will post more later. But let me tell you History was one of weakest points in Ancient India nobody really cared to record and preserver event as we saw being done much much earlier in Rome and Greece . That is one of the shortcomings working as deterrent in dating the gita

The author was vysa and the style difference in it from Mahabhratha was because Vysa poetised it and made it actually a geetha that was what it was and was sung hence the shruthi

Remember here there was no mention of Mahabhrata in Indan History before 4th Century BCE It was originally the Jaya Kavya and pbly composed after 4th Cent BCE and before 2nd Centurt CE

arunshanker · Jul 9, 2009

sapthajihva said:
My explanation of shruti was to Arun to explain the possibility of a genuine oral media being used before textual forms.

What is heard from the supreme is shruti. This hearing is 'divya vaani' - truths realized. Does this answer your query?

THis verse 9:32

mam hi partha vyapasritya
ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras
te 'pi yanti param gatim

O son of Pritha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth -- women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers] -- can attain the supreme destination.
is not divya vaani' - truths realized It is written with a purpose

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

Very interesting Arun...some queries:

arunshanker said:
Here you go!

There has not been a single manuscript of Bhagavad-Gita before Adi Shankara (Now please I don’t want to go into the dates of Shankara but if you do want to know my views go to thread (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=2211)
Hence one is tempted here is to say that it had been passed on thru mouth, although personally I take this an argument only to predate it because I wonder how a composition of this magnitude was not manuscriptised when there were several manuscripts of various other work much before the accepted dates of Adi Shankara.
But I guess there was a commentary on it by Bodhâyana but that is matter of contest
Some research on the text of Gita itself gives us a hint of its time like for example, verse XV, 15
(sarvasya caham hridi sannivisto
mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham)
makes a mention as the author of the Vedanta. Vedantic schools of thought were founded by Shri Adi Shankara, composition of the widely accepted text or version text took place when the doctrine of Vedanta came into prominence.

Is it possible that Shri Adi Shankara was not the founder of vedantic schools? I mean vedanta wud simply mean the end portion of vedas... upanishads too are vedanta, vedanta seems to have existed before shri adi shankara, i mean vedanta is what the monastic traditions (uttaramimansaka school) have been following before (and after) Sri Shankara..wud really appreciate some clarification on this..

But these are conjectures and possibly one of many methods to date it
Alberuni, (1017 to 1031 A.D), wrote a book Alberuni's Indica, mentions Gita fourteen times but never as Bhagavad Geetha!
The original Geetha has say about 85 verses and mostly dealt on Samkya Phill. A lot of interpolation has been done on this with yoga and vedanta to come up to the present version of Bhagavat Geetha
There has been editing or revising a text based on critical analysis ever so many on this text and Adi Shankara must have done some very significant ones here.
But in general a date between fifth century B.C.E and the second century B.C.E can be accepted for the original Geetha. Note here it is the Geetha and not the Bhagavath Geetha

i can tend to agree with the add-ons..its natural for stuff to get added on over time, like a theory never remains stagnant but gets enhanced over time...

though it has clearly been a case of interpolation in some, in the case of geeta, cud it be possible that the original sankhya got enhanced by the yoga, since anyways the yoga-sankya-vaisheshika schools do tend to go hand in hand...so is it possible that the original belonged to all 3 instead of specifically samkhya..and is there anyway to know what were the original 85 verses?

But it was definitely shruti earlier to that as it was thought to be an important one too even before the accepted practice of manuscripting in palms leaves came about
Note that the Shankara Bhashyam does not have commentary on 57 verses of gita He starts with 11th verse of chapter II
Actually the archaic gita may have mentioned a moola prakrithi ( Kapila’s God ) rather than the God as a creator.

i still think gita is not about god as creator (more on this later)..though kapila was sankhya, the idea of moola prakrithi is so yoga as well..

Will post more later. But let me tell you History was one of weakest points in Ancient India nobody really cared to record and preserver event as we saw being done much much earlier in Rome and Greece . That is one of the shortcomings working as deterrent in dating the gita

The author was vysa and the style difference in it from Mahabhratha was because Vysa poetised it and made it actually a geetha that was what it was and was sung hence the shruthi

ah ok..so shruti comes from there..thanks much for this arun..i stand clarified now.

Remember here there was no mention of Mahabhrata in Indan History before 4th Century BCE It was originally the Jaya Kavya and pbly composed after 4th Cent BCE and before 2nd Centurt CE

actually i think mahabharata was just an tribal war that did span several linked tribes, but it probably happened more around 1000bc, rather than 3200bc..

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

arunshanker said:
THis verse 9:32

mam hi partha vyapasritya
ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras
te 'pi yanti param gatim

O son of Pritha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth -- women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers] -- can attain the supreme destination.
is not divya vaani' - truths realized It is written with a purpose

there is so much diff b/w how things are translated arun... am told papa-yonah is anyone born from the union of desire....so the author might have meant to say "anyone can take shelter in me, whther he be born of desire, whether it is a woman, a money accumulater or a subordinate, just anyone"..

arunshanker · Jul 9, 2009

Is it possible that Shri Adi Shankara was not the founder of vedantic schools? I mean vedanta wud simply mean the end portion of vedas... upanishads too are vedanta, vedanta seems to have existed before shri adi shankara, i mean vedanta is what the monastic traditions (uttaramimansaka school) have been following before (and after) Sri Shankara..wud really appreciate some clarification on this..

Yes very very true but Geetha is clear exposition of the Advaita Vedanta and Shankara main person behind it
i can tend to agree with the add-ons..its natural for stuff to get added on over time, like a theory never remains stagnant but gets enhanced over time...

though it has clearly been a case of interpolation in some, in the case of geeta, cud it be possible that the original sankhya got enhanced by the yoga, since anyways the yoga-sankya-vaisheshika schools do tend to go hand in hand...so is it possible that the original belonged to all 3 instead of specifically samkhya..and is there anyway to know what were the original 85 verses?
Again possible but here Kapila's philosophy was shunned in a veiled manner in Geetha. I have got the 85 verses will give you the link actually there was one found in Bali the south china sea island in palm leaves I wonder if they have Carbon dated it
and a similar 85 verse was found in
here are the details
Chapter 1 - 20-37 and 45-47
Chapter 2 10-13, 18-30, 39 and 47-52
Chapter 3 -1-16, 19, 26-29, 33-34 and 42
Chapter 4 16 -19, 23-33 and 37-42
Chapter 5 1-2, 4-6 8-17 1-6
Chapter 6 10-12, 18-28 and 46
that makes it 121 verses in common actually some are combined hence the only 85 in the archaic Geetha

i still think gita is not about god as creator (more on this later)..though kapila was sankhya, the idea of moola prakrithi is so yoga as well..
I dunno here I guess I have to read it again
ah ok..so shruti comes from there..thanks much for this arun..i stand clarified now.
Thanks for thanks in fact that took me least time to research and answer! But I may not be entirely right here but what I say is logic
actually i think mahabharata was just an tribal war that did span several linked tribes, but it probably happened more around 1000bc, rather than 3200bc..
Please note here that I am talking of when it happened I talking of when it was possibly composed

You have gone too far back!The most primitive acknowledged references to the Mahabharata date back to time of the great Sanskrit lit Pā[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]ini ( 4th century B.C.E), This suggests that the core verses, were composed by the 4th century B.C.E. The original Jaya purana may date back further but not before 8th Cen BCE
It reached the final form in in thee Gupta period
One Important finding here is the copper-plate inscription of the Maharaja Sharvanatha (516-517 CE) from Khoh (Satna District, Madhya Pradesh) describes the Mahabharata as a "collection of 100,000 verses"

esarkey@yahoo.com · Jul 9, 2009

:yo:To All: I am reading all this posting and replys every thing toolong exlpntn, just think about aruns "divya vaani"expl is currect. I am also experienced during Meditation lisition various sounds,and that sound current will pull the soul to upward and taking to various upper regions, then you will understand GOD WITH IN YOU, So understand the GOD with in you must have a Master and he should be initation. The GOD is with in a thief, a poor man, Rich Man, A King, or a GURU and much more. To realize God we must realize ourselfs. So reading Books, Scriptures, listen uppanyasams or duing hourlong poojas is not the real salvation, the real salvation to do Meditation. S.R.K.

sapthajihva · Jul 9, 2009

happyhindu said:
sapthajihva,

i mentioned abt emptying based on the example you used - water ...ofcourse i did not apply the same to 'energy'

anyways, cud you plz lemme know on what basis wud you possibly reject (if you wud that is) the idea of a dimensionless vaccum (like space) being the possible container or source of various versions of energy?

SJ: If vacuum is the source of continuous energy then it is no more a vacuum.
HH: why do you think so? is not space an expanse of vaccum with regions of vaccum?
SJ: I have given the explanation already.

perhaps i missed the post, can please show me which post..

SJ: Energy does not come from anywhere. It is.
HH: on what basis do you say "it is"?
SJ: Because it is.

request you to please explain this, instead of saying just saying "it is"..

What is the purpose in asking this question? May I know?

the purpose of knowing is because you ascribed a spiritual basis to social organization..

Please explain what your stance is wrt all those points that you are questioning. Knowing what our train of thoughts are, would help in making a discussion fruitful.

Line by line questions can be discussed later.

Arun -O son of Pritha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth -- women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers] -- can attain the supreme destination.
is not divya vaani' - truths realized It is written with a purpose

The way you have interpreted it, certainly does not seem to be divya vaani. But if the terms are looked at in a different manner - 'lower birth' to mean low/base qualities/ignorance, 'vysya/sudra' to mean that they are not engaged in pursuit of the truth. Even such persons would receive spiritual enlightenment if they surrendered to the supreme.

It provides a path even to the downtrodden in qualities and knowledge. The Lord is always there to guide them to knowledge if they look towards him, whatever may be their character history.

happyhindu · Jul 9, 2009

Arun,

arunshanker said:
Yes very very true but Geetha is clear exposition of the Advaita Vedanta and Shankara main person behind it

Arun, i wud be very interested in this. On what basis is it possible that the text was interpolated by Shri Adi Shankara? And Advaitha too seems to have existed (as followed by the ekadandi monks) before Shri Shankara? So why Adi Shankara, and why not someone else?

Again possible but here Kapila's philosophy was shunned in a veiled manner in Geetha. I have got the 85 verses will give you the link actually there was one found in Bali the south china sea island in palm leaves I wonder if they have Carbon dated it
and a similar 85 verse was found in
here are the details
Chapter 1 - 20-37 and 45-47
Chapter 2 10-13, 18-30, 39 and 47-52
Chapter 3 -1-16, 19, 26-29, 33-34 and 42
Chapter 4 16 -19, 23-33 and 37-42
Chapter 5 1-2, 4-6 8-17 1-6
Chapter 6 10-12, 18-28 and 46
that makes it 121 verses in common actually some are combined hence the only 85 in the archaic Geetha

This is fantastic. I shall look up the sholakas from the respective chapters...very interesting.

Please note here that I am talking of when it happened I talking of when it was possibly composed

You have gone too far back!The most primitive acknowledged references to the Mahabharata date back to time of the great Sanskrit lit Pā[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]ini ( 4th century B.C.E), This suggests that the core verses, were composed by the 4th century B.C.E. The original Jaya purana may date back further but not before 8th Cen BCE
It reached the final form in in thee Gupta period
One Important finding here is the copper-plate inscription of the Maharaja Sharvanatha (516-517 CE) from Khoh (Satna District, Madhya Pradesh) describes the Mahabharata as a "collection of 100,000 verses"

wow..so mahabharat had add-ons. is it possible that the interpolations happened somewhere around 1ad (kushan times) onwards..i heard that in japan a system existed where a defeted warrior cud remain a part of the mainstream society if he became a monk / priest..wonder if this system applied to indians..

Sapthajihva,

sapthajihva said:
Please explain what your stance is wrt all those points that you are questioning. Knowing what our train of thoughts are, would help in making a discussion fruitful.

there is no room for my stance or individual train of thots, i don;t have any one single or selected approches or any such stuff, i asked the questions since you made some statements without explanations and thot it wud be interesting to hear you explain them..my questions were:

1) what if a vaccum itself were the source and basis of inexhaustible energy?

I asked it bcoz of your mention of: Verse 5 - even though such energies produce the effect, there is still an enveloping energy. This is what the Isopanishad says - About Poornam. When the primordial energy is everywhere, and one infers that something is utilized by 'taking it away', then there is no vaccuum as there is always an enveloping energy. The words 'take' and 'away' should be understood in the concept of 'Maya'.

2) where do you think that root energy comes from?

it was asked coz you mentioned root energy being casual factor: If I want to create vaccuum in a room, I have to spend some energy to create it. We think it is vacuum because there is no air, but it is sustained only due to the energy acting on it. This is for creating a vacuum within energy. Similarly the converse must also hold true. So this overlapping goes on and on with a root energy being the causal factor.

to me this was not clear, since i thot root energy was unconditioned state, and you seem to mention it as a conditioned state (as creation and its converse), the unconditioned root energy is what usually yogis can call as moolam..they don't call it casual factor, but primordial factor, like the origin, when it becomes casual, it is already conditioned.

3) on what basis do you say energy does not come from anywhere, "it is"?

the context of asking was based on the first question, and what you mentioned as maya (as the context of 'take' and 'away'). i was expecting you wud answer based on maya and i was looking forward to that..

4) on what basis is it right to organize a society, from the spiritual point of view? or rather what is the basis of ascribing or assigning a spiritual basis to the organization of a society?

Line by line questions can be discussed later.

arunshanker · Jul 10, 2009

[email protected] said:
:yo: just think about aruns "divya vaani"expl is currect.

You got it rong!:becky:
It was Sapthajihva post that must have been confused with mine

sapr333 · Jul 11, 2009

The last 25 posts with all the VIGYOR colours and multiple quotes,gives me a sense,that, things have again moved out of track.This is the main reason for me to take back few points, so that we dont waste time in digging out scriptures.Lets take a generic stand, on what people/majority of adherents claim,and let ensure we make a claim with an open mind.

While going through those vibgyor posts, there is an interesting point raised by Shri.Sapthajiva 'anyone spiritual, in this world is striving to attain Brahman (the 'Me') in their own way, and that is probably why the Hindus have an ingrained tolerance to all religions and all philosophies'

I have a query here.Tolerance does not solve the fundamental differences of opinion between Philosophy/Doctrine/ideology, but it definitely creates a peaceful environment in which the differences can be rationally and calmly debated. An eg. about tolerating philosophies' is....Its like JC telling 'Love Thy Enemy (and) also telling 'Kill as much non-christians,as you can.....Can we have a govt which accomodates both Aristocracy&Democracy in its pure form? How to accomodate/tolerate two contradictory opinions?

Shri.KRS shared a wonderful point ""God reveals Himself to the tastes of the followers. then JC is an 'avatar' or incarnation of Godhead, which then leads one to accept all other avatars in Hinduism. Different incarnations of God would have taken at different point of time, like Lord Krishna earlier and JC later.. In this context, I also can agree to both of their claims (agrument sake) as 'I'm the Only Way to God'. So lets not dispute here digging in to scriptures where Lord Krishna said I'm or I'm Only way to god..Lets accept this premise first..Based upon the above, the question here is, If Lord Krisha/JC could be viewed as incarnations of God or God coming down, then, Islam/Judaism totally disagree with the concept of reincarnations of God.. In this context, Christianity&Hinduism be right to say 'Judaism & Islam are false' or vice versa.

In the middle, an excellent point was raised by HH interms of accomodating Karma/Forgiveness.. Will touch upon this, when appropriate time comes. At the moment, we are discussing about 'Various paths to God'

Btw, Shri.KRS, I have already placed an order with Penguin for Diana Eck's book. I was told, since 2006 the stock was not replenished in major book stores. Likely to get it by next week..Thanks indeed for the reference.

Will touch upon #150, little late.

KRS · Jul 11, 2009

Daer Sri sapr333,

Again, you are trying to apply logic that is not thought through. When God decides how to communicate with certain people, whether coming in as an avatar or sending words through messengers, how can one say that if one is valid the other is invalid? Again, this thinking on your part is occurring because, you forget that God is all powerful and has no limitations.

In JC's case, we should not forget that the Jewish scriptures foretold the arrival of a saviour, it is just that a lot of them did not accept JC as such. But then some Jews did believe and so a new religion started. Why was this? Probably at that time a group of people were ready for His message.

This is akin to a saying in Hinduism that a person does not choose his/her guru. It is always the other way around. And this is how it works when it comes to religions around the world.

As far as Islam is concerned, perhaps the nature of the desert wanderers would not have accepted an Avatar, but they were ready for a righteous messenger telling them that there was one supreme God who had no shape, as they were worshipping various idols (not in the sense of Hinduism).

By insisting that God's actions have to be according to your own interpretation of the canonical logic, you fail to see the common thread connecting all different paths. Again, please do not confuse with the fact that there is ONE GOD, with a requirement that then there ought to be only one path to reach Him.

Regards,
KRS

sapr333 said:
Shri.KRS shared a wonderful point ""God reveals Himself to the tastes of the followers. then JC is an 'avatar' or incarnation of Godhead, which then leads one to accept all other avatars in Hinduism. Different incarnations of God would have taken at different point of time, like Lord Krishna earlier and JC later.. In this context, I also can agree to both of their claims (agrument sake) as 'I'm the Only Way to God'. So lets not dispute here digging in to scriptures where Lord Krishna said I'm or I'm Only way to god..Lets accept this premise first..Based upon the above, the question here is, If Lord Krisha/JC could be viewed as incarnations of God or God coming down, then, Islam/Judaism totally disagree with the concept of reincarnations of God.. In this context, Christianity&Hinduism be right to say 'Judaism & Islam are false' or vice versa.

In the middle, an excellent point was raised by HH interms of accomodating Karma/Forgiveness.. Will touch upon this, when appropriate time comes. At the moment, we are discussing about 'Various paths to God'

Btw, Shri.KRS, I have already placed an order with Penguin for Diana Eck's book. I was told, since 2006 the stock was not replenished in major book stores. Likely to get it by next week..Thanks indeed for the reference.

Will touch upon #150, little late.

sapthajihva · Jul 11, 2009

sapr333 said:
I have a query here.Tolerance does not solve the fundamental differences of opinion between Philosophy/Doctrine/ideology, but it definitely creates a peaceful environment in which the differences can be rationally and calmly debated. An eg. about tolerating philosophies' is....Its like JC telling 'Love Thy Enemy (and) also telling 'Kill as much non-christians,as you can.....Can we have a govt which accomodates both Aristocracy&Democracy in its pure form? How to accomodate/tolerate two contradictory opinions?

Salt and sugar are both added, in certain food items, to give a different flavour.

The usage of tolerance here is to mean the recognition of independence that an individual has wrt 'the pursuit of truth'.

The analogies of 'aristocracy/democracy' would not fit in, as we are talking about a concept that is above such mundane ideas.

But still to prove the point:

Pakistan was a dictatorship, India - a democracy, Saudi - a monarchy, China - a communist, USA - a federal democracy. Was such a status any reason for these nations to fight with one another or to be intolerant towards each other? Government is merely a mechanism to mete out fair governance to the people. If that is achieved, there is no harm in the mechanism.

sapr333 · Jul 11, 2009

sapthajihva said:
The analogies of 'aristocracy/democracy' would not fit in, as we are talking about a concept that is above such mundane ideas.

But still to prove the point:

Pakistan was a dictatorship, India - a democracy, Saudi - a monarchy, China - a communist, USA - a federal democracy. Was such a status any reason for these nations to fight with one another or to be intolerant towards each other? Government is merely a mechanism to mete out fair governance to the people. If that is achieved, there is no harm in the mechanism.

Shri.Sapthajiva, the point again Im saying is, persons/states with different ideologies can co-exist. But contradicting ideologies/philosophies cannot co-exist..That mean, there is no meaning for an ideology/philosophy in individualistic terms.

As a nation,India with democracy and China with communism can coexist.. But,in the name of tolerance, can we change the 'definitions' of Democracy&communism,so that it appeals to both?

sapthajihva · Jul 11, 2009

sapr333 said:
Shri.Sapthajiva, the point again Im saying is, persons/states with different ideologies can co-exist. But contradicting ideologies/philosophies cannot co-exist..That mean, there is no meaning for an ideology/philosophy in individualistic terms.

As a nation,India with democracy and China with communism can coexist.. But,in the name of tolerance, can we change the 'definitions' of Democracy&communism,so that it appeals to both?

All ideologies are subject to the broader philosophy. Differences in Ideologies occur due to differences in viewing the 'scheme of things', situational factors and individual orientation.

There were militant revolutionaries and ahimsavadis, in our freedom struggle from the British. Both are honoured. Both types appeal to us!

God...Why?

sapthajihva

Guest

0

sapthajihva

Guest

0

0

sapthajihva

Guest

sapthajihva

Guest

0

0

sapthajihva

Guest

0

Active member

Active member

0

0

Active member

Guest

sapthajihva

Guest

0

Active member

sapr333

Guest

Active member

sapthajihva

Guest

sapr333

Guest

sapthajihva

Guest

Share this page

Share this page

Follow us on Social Media