"Complicatedism"

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

There is plenty to understand. Including the role of killing and vegetarianism in various religions (it is part of teachings on karma). Maybe a 4th quadrant useless activity for some. But for some, maybe they just want to explore and understand. If there is a compelling desire to understand something, it means there is some 'attachment' to the topic, and hence, it may be better to let such people explore, understand, and get over with it.

I disagree. I may choose the words of Zoroaster the final say. Each one gets to decide the 'final' without contradictions. Each one's reality is real and valid.

If one finds a 'qualified' teacher, good for him or her. There are many qualified teachers in different religions; and which of these imagines things or makes up things who knows. That apart, whatever be the activity of forum posters, there is no need for anyone to bother about what the other is doing. If one wants to take part in discussions, it is their will. Passing useless comments may be a pleasurable activity for some. And these actually comment on 4th quadrant activity of others. Sigh!

Please do not take offense for my saying this. What one thinks to be their ''own valid view'' (including the one on 4th quadrant activity), may be applied in the same manner, but in a context that is unsupportive to their ''own valid view''. If only all forms of reality were one....But well...anyways...all sides which say things are just human after all. Let anyone say, explore, argue, think, etc; these activities need not bother anyone. Nothing is permanent after all, including what one may think is innovative 1st quadrant stuff.

Thank you.

Thanks for reacting to my post. We can only discuss or debate if we are in the same page in terms of understanding of the axioms. We are not in my view - so I will not comment further.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

You present a very interesting theory on how Karma works on the material body on birth in a random manner, thereby negating reincarnation concept as well as the concept of Jeevathma.

How do you then account for the documented evidences of the remembrances of past births, around the world?

I also know you believe in Vedic astrology. So do I, because I pursued it all my life as a hobby. How do you then account for the fates of ones parents and siblings as can be read in one's chart, if it is random Karma? Your theory does not explain it here, because, if it is random Karmaphala, one should not be able to predict the fate of one's progeny, nor one's predecessors. Am I missing something, here?

I think, while the idea of 'Jeevatma' may be flawed, there seems to be scientific reason to believe that 'something' is carried in the physical world, such as mind, that is different from the substance of the 'Original' and this propagates the physical existence.

The 'Adhyasa' is then the mind, which in the first place is 'real', identifies with the body, rather than with the 'Original' stuff, which creates the issue of superimposition.

I take a view opposite to yours. What perishes is the body at death, but not the subtle mind, and what we call as 'consciousness' is a quantum representation of mind, while at each 'rebirth' the mind when it acquires a body, has to unwittingly acquire the 'Original' substance, without realizing that it itself is made of that substance.

All, because of the ego of the mind. Just my pov.

But again, I may be wrong. Who knows?

Regards,
KRS

 

[sarang]

It is a continuum. Each event has a precedent, whether it is do with kamsa or ravana. Nothing happens in isolation. Good and bad are always present and each gets supremacy over the other at different times. I am not sure whether everybody is bad or becomes good at the time of pralaya. For us, I mean, those who believe in our dharma, everything is cyclic. Even in devaloka, bad things do happen and good people behave otherwise and it is not always satvik.

In the midst of the learned members, allow me to present a contrarian idea. The six undesirables are necessary for the whole to stay dynamic and not be a totally boring place.

Without Kamsa, there would be no Krishna, without Ravana there would be no Rama. In fact without an evil demon at each stage, there would not be the 10 avatars of Vishnu. Then how would people feel the glory of God? To appreciate what is good, one has to witness evil.

 

[palindrome]

Thanks for reacting to my post. We can only discuss or debate if we are in the same page in terms of understanding of the axioms. We are not in my view - so I will not comment further.

Responded because i felt your 4th quadrant activity comments were pending a response since long. Yep, we are not of the same view, for me there is nothing axiomatic or unquestionable. Thanks.

 

[palindrome]

In my view, Karma is synonymous with the adhyaasa of advaita, though advaita makes adhyaasa as the reason for the jivas being under the spell of this world as reality, which is mAyA.

Sir, am curious why Shankara was not able to reconcile maya with his view of brahman. Please cud you elaborate on this. If all material in the universe exists, is real, then why view it as unreal or as an illusion?

If the view of illusion was propounded because matter is perishable, the theory of impermanence is acceptable. However, this would conflict with basic physics which holds matter is neither created nor destroyed but goes on changing its form and continues to exist. If matter always exists, and is real, why is it unreal?

Additionally, why are thoughts, dreams, living experiences considered unreal? They exist. The one who experiences lives it. Events are real and are brought forward from a previous balance of deeds, so are our thoughts. If so, why should we view all our thoughts (except those leading to brahman) as an illusion?

If the concept revolves around action of man, such that, all activity except that leading to brahman, is an illusory trap (of bonding or otherwise), then, in that context, it is acceptable. However, if not for the reality of thoughts, one wud never feel the need to explore its origin. Our thought being that real, why should they be considered unreal?

Am of view that all matter, all thoughts, all events, are real; as real as brahman; as real as our consciousness irrespective of whether it is in samadhi or not. It is not necessary to consider one part as maya (in the context of illusion), in order to propound brahman as real.

Additionally, am of view, reality has many dimensions and unless these are mere projections, they may not have a single point origin. The origin of reality is neither consciousness nor matter, though both constitute the appearance of reality.

Just my views please. Am curious to know your views on this.

Thanks.

 

[palindrome]

You present a very interesting theory on how Karma works on the material body on birth in a random manner, thereby negating reincarnation concept as well as the concept of Jeevathma.

How do you then account for the documented evidences of the remembrances of past births, around the world?

If i may be allowed to say something on this, sir, am of opinion past births and origin of our thoughts are real. Karma is real and can present itself in random events.

I think, while the idea of 'Jeevatma' may be flawed, there seems to be scientific reason to believe that 'something' is carried in the physical world, such as mind, that is different from the substance of the 'Original' and this propagates the physical existence.

The 'Adhyasa' is then the mind, which in the first place is 'real', identifies with the body, rather than with the 'Original' stuff, which creates the issue of superimposition.

I take a view opposite to yours. What perishes is the body at death, but not the subtle mind, and what we call as 'consciousness' is a quantum representation of mind, while at each 'rebirth' the mind when it acquires a body, has to unwittingly acquire the 'Original' substance, without realizing that it itself is made of that substance.

My view is null is the original yet, though a null, it has in it to be what it becomes. Like stem cells which are unconditioned, yet they have it in them to be.

Since the null is the tattva to be; (here tattva means reality); its identification with the body is not divergent or superimposed, or an illusory maya, instead it is part of the null or part of the original (not superimposed). Meaning, existence is self-propagatory, perpetual, whether life forms exist or not.

The null may be null for matter but may have in it something undefined which makes it resultant in existentialism. If i maybe foolish enough, i might think it is anti-matter, but seriously, i don't know. All i understand is the null remains null, yet is existential (that is, pertains to existence).

Also, the perpetual consciousness is existential. The consciousness exhibits itself as jeeva in life forms and for want of a better word is called intelligence, such that nature self-creates, self-destructs, (ie, experiments itself) through random events; so the path of an electron around the nucleus of an atom came to exist. Consciousness is not substance. Though a null undefined by itself, Consciousness has its tattva (reality) within substance.

Also, in my view there is no locus of avidya. I think avidya is merely not understanding what is real. And in that sense, maya would be an illusion which creates the idea that everything is an illusion, when in reality there is no such thing as an illusion.

Addition:

Additionally, we need to note sir, the concept of maya is non-vedic, from shramana traditions.
Maya, the understanding of which may have constituted wisdom, was associated with asura, in terms of being asuri maya; until prajapati got elevated in power and came to own it in the brahmanas (texts); possibly indicating a friction between asuras and devas such that after their diversification, in the period of brahmanas, the asuric concept, associated with might and power, was absorbed into the brahmana compositions.

Post-absorption the concept continued in the aranyakas and consequentially in the upanishads, however, the context of maya being originally associated not with illusion but with the mystery of life and death, may have been confounding to the vedic speakers (here, vedic speakers refer not to the samhita period, but to those who created the brahmanical sacrifices in the period of composition of the brahmanas) . Attempts to reconcile the non-vedic maya with vedic samhitas may not have been successful. The vedic samhitas propound no theory of rebirth (atleast the Rig does not as Sangom sir has described). There may be no vedic texts to support maya with regard to brahman. Especially when maya was converted to mean illusion.

Perhaps the politics of those times, between the vedic speakers and others, also caused the asuric concept turned into something else; such that it is not supported in its original intent, but got relegated into illusion. And yet it was absorbed in a way in vedic scriptures, such that it finds appeal within their own (vedic) concepts. Now after having defined it as illusion, perhaps, the vedic speakers do not know what is its relationship to brahman; or how it should relate to brahman.

Please note my view of maya is not illusion. It is reality and, existence, with respect to life and rebirth and consequentially deals with existentialism. There may be no vedic scriptures supporting this view. The view neither supports Buddhist nor Jain concept of karma. Call it Asuric if you will.

 

[C RAVI]

Now the thread has started doing justification to the Thread Topic!!

 

[C RAVI]

Sir, am curious why Shankara was not able to reconcile maya with his view of brahman. Please cud you elaborate on this. If all material in the universe exists, is real, then why view it as unreal or as an illusion?

You accepted the demands of a corrupt official and paid him the Bribe. Hot Cash!!

This activity is absolutely real with real, physical Hot Cash. The happiness of the corrupt official who took bribe from you is also Real.

BUT, the truth is, later you have fixed him up by informing the Corruption Vigilance Board, giving them the serial numbers of the currency you gave the official as demanding Bribe.


Now, the whole Real activity and the Real Happiness (that took place before fixing up the official) all proved to be MAYA/ILLUSION.

 

[sangom]

Sri. Sangom, Greetings.


I refer to your message in post #161. In my opinion, all the observed inequities in this world may not be explained by karma theory. My own karma theory may be good for my life in this birth. I can’t think that as a continuing serial.

Mostly all the inequities are present due to the six undesirable qualities namely, kama, krodha, lobha, moha, mada and madcharya. If overcome those qualities, we will not witness any inequity without attempting to correct it. In your message you did mention you would have adopted that poor child… Such a thought was possible only because you did not have any of the undesirable qualities with respect to that poor child.

In my humble opinion, karma theory was made only to manipulate gullible people. I noticed so many persons treat others unjustly and then said the persons suffered due to the karma of the victims!

Dear Raghy,

I had suggested to you last night to explain how it will be possible to rationally explain the observed inequities except by resorting to the Karma Theory. According to Islam (to the best of my knowledge) such inequities are due to the Supreme Divinity's will and so cannot be questioned nor should one try ti find a rationale for this. May be it can be taken to mean that Allah dispenses the ultimate justice to all.

But in the case of our religion it appears to me that Karma theory is the best option we have, to rationally explain the observed inequalities/inequities even at birth. (கூன் குருடு நொண்டி செவிடு ஊமை பிறப்பதெதாலே? - why are people born hunchback, blind, lame, deaf and dumb?).

Your suggestion that the six enemies (ṣaḍvairi) are the cause may not be logical because these six items come into play only after the foetus is fully grown with its own mind and intelligence etc. Even then, a newborn baby will normally possess very very little ego or the "I" feeling (which makes us see certain amount of 'divine' innocence in such babies) and this vanishes as the baby grows and its ego matures fully. Hence the question to be answered is, if there is no Karma carried forward and if there is no rebirth, why should there be such inequities? Is it because of the whims and fancies of a highly temperamental god?

Why should there be any rebirth? For that matter, why should there be any birth at all? If someone has to have a birth due to ‘karma phalan’, how did the first birth take place when there was no karma at all?

The question of "the first birth" (not the abrahamic one of Adam & Eve) is highly problematic. We do not know for one thing whether the very first humans on earth were completely fresh versions or whether they were upgrades from some other living organisms. In the case of the latter we will be compelled to go into an endless series and such a discussion may not lead us anywhere. Hence I would humbly refrain from answering this question.

Kindly tell me in simple terms, please – Rama caused death to so many 100s of asuras and vanaras. He did not go away taking the loss of his wife as his ‘poorva janma karma phalan’. From what you say, he should/would have collected a massive load of karma. ( Rama was quite egoistic. At one stage in the war, Ravana was made to loose all his weapons. Then, instead of killing and finishing him off, Rama humiliated Ravana by refusing to kill him and asking him to come back the next day. Kumbakarna came to the scene only after that. All the killings could be avoided but for Rama’s ego. Those killings should have piled up massive karma burden for Rama). So, would Rama taking many many rebirths to wash away these karmas?

I could ask a similar question about Krishna too.

In my opinion, karma theory is just a humbug to manipulate the gullible persons.

Kindly share your opinions, please.

Cheers!

I hold both Rama and Krishna as fictional characters and no more. But even so, I will say, theoretically, that both these characters must have some accumulated Karmas at the time their human life ended, and the phalas of these accumulated karmas must have been experienced by some people down the line (and may be residual Karmas of these 'avatAras' are being experienced even today by some living beings).

Karma theory may well be just a humbug but since it seems to explain the inequalities at birth of humans (with which we are mostly concerned) very nicely, I feel we should better stick on with it until we get a more acceptable one.

 

[renuka]

You accepted the demands of a corrupt official and paid him the Bribe. Hot Cash!!

This activity is absolutely real with real, physical Hot Cash. The happiness of the corrupt official who took bribe from you is also Real.

BUT, the truth is, later you have fixed him up by informing the Corruption Vigilance Board, giving them the serial numbers of the currency you gave the official as demanding Bribe.


Now, the whole Real activity and the Real Happiness (that took place before fixing up the official) all proved to be MAYA/ILLUSION.

This is not Maya...this is stabbing someone in the back.

If we do not believe in bribes..dont bribe anyone.

But dont go along..give bribes and then gain the person's trust and then report him to the Anti Corruption Board.

That is stabbing someone in the back.

So if we feel happy that we reported the person..wait till he gets out of jail..then our own happiness will be short lived.

This has nothing got to do with Maya mumbo jumbo..this is just actions and reactions.

 

[palindrome]

All views expressed above in post number 180 and 181 are my own. It has taken me some guts and also a great deal of liberty to call those views asuric; and indeed am of opinion it is asuric. I reject all claims whatsoever of associating asura or dAsA with tamasa guna, sloth, wickedness, being equivalent to a burial ground, or any such thing as per dharmashastras. Any discussion is welcome as long as there are no insults and sarcastic comments. Also, I reserve the right to not express all of those views or explain certain points, in this forum; and may seek to be excused from answering. Thank you.

 

[C RAVI]

You accepted the demands of a corrupt official and paid him the Bribe. Hot Cash!!

This activity is absolutely real with real, physical Hot Cash. The happiness of the corrupt official who took bribe from you is also Real.

BUT, the truth is, later you have fixed him up by informing the Corruption Vigilance Board, giving them the serial numbers of the currency you gave the official as demanding Bribe.


Now, the whole Real activity and the Real Happiness (that took place before fixing up the official) all proved to be MAYA/ILLUSION.

This is not Maya...this is stabbing someone in the back.

If we do not believe in bribes..dont bribe anyone.

But dont go along..give bribes and then gain the person's trust and then report him to the Anti Corruption Board.

That is stabbing someone in the back.

So if we feel happy that we reported the person..wait till he gets out of jail..then our own happiness will be short lived.

This has nothing got to do with Maya mumbo jumbo..this is just actions and reactions.

The analogy I produced was not to figure out if its stabbing some one in the back OR teaching a tough lesson to a corrupt official.

The analogy is an attempt to clarify the doubts about the Reality and Maya we are talking about, referring to our belief system.

Can we say MAYA is stabbing us at the back showing/giving us the glittering (so called glittering) world/life? Even if we make such a clam, What can We do about it??

 

[palindrome]

The analogy I produced was not to figure out if its stabbing some one in the back OR teaching a tough lesson to a corrupt official.

The analogy is an attempt to clarify the doubts about the Reality and Maya we are talking about, referring to our belief system.

Can we say MAYA is stabbing us at the back showing/giving us the glittering (so called glittering) world/life? Even if we make such a clam, What can We do about it??

Already explained why the concept of maya as explained in my posts will not be supported by "our belief system". One can pose as many pointers as they want to deem it an illusion. I have nothing to say about it, except that the view i presented does not support it.

I request Renu not to respond to comments that are senseless and have no connection whatsoever with what is being discussed; such as maya stabbing in the back, glittering etc.

 

[C RAVI]

<edited - praveen>

 

[renuka]

<edited as the previous post was edited - praveen>

 

[C RAVI]

Palindrome,


My analogy might have not been clear enough to put my thoughts across.

If that is the case, you may care to ask for my clarifications OR just chose to ignore it, rather trashing it as nonsense.

Ironically, this forum can never be free from such nonsense!!

Sigh!!


Mr.Praveen, excuse me to have bothered you.

 

[renuka]

Dear Ravi and Palindrome,

I thought the 3 of us were having a healthy strong disagreement that was a bit lighthearted too at the same time and I am surprised to see Red Ink.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Raghy,

I hold both Rama and Krishna as fictional characters and no more.

Shir Sangom,

Hope you don't pray and offer your obeisance to Rama and Krishna as you hold both as fictional characters of a fictitious stories out of human brain storm.

Otherwise it would be a real big joke on one self!!

 

[palindrome]

Dear Ravi and Palindrome,

I thought the 3 of us were having a healthy strong disagreement that was a bit lighthearted too at the same time and I am surprised to see Red Ink.

Renu, You explained and said "nothing to do with maya mumbo jumbo". No problem with that. But Ravi responds with a question on maya back stabbing and glittering which makes no sense. Ravi's ability to contextualize is not there. Explaining may not help. Additionally, in Ravi's edited post mockery was not amiss. Having explained this, request this not to be pursued. Thanks.

 

[tks]

Responded because i felt your 4th quadrant activity comments were pending a response since long. Yep, we are not of the same view, for me there is nothing axiomatic or unquestionable. Thanks.

Our aspects of teachings that I referred to has nothing to do with any religious beliefs including many variants of Hinduism but only deal with universal truths. This is not a claim but has to be discovered by anyone that is willing to question anything and everything. At the 'root' of any logic there is always an atomic (indivisible) notion that has to be self evident and compellingly obvious without requiring one to resort to a belief system.

Anything that requires belief and faith as a starting point may be fine but belief itself is a suspension of reasoning for anyone that wants to question everything. Many theories posted here have lots of beliefs on which they expand their explanation. Some posts acknowledge and others dont. I usually do not debate or discuss with any belief system since there is no basis to debate.

Time quadrant idea is well explained by Steven Covey in his books. Quadrant one relate to urgent and important items and hence relate often to crisis. Quadrant four is about activities we engage in that is neither urgent nor important.

It can be logically shown why certain 'logic' can never be understood by any means other than a teacher. How to recognize a learned teacher is also difficult but a simple rule of thumb for me is that they question anything and everything.

If one is true aspirant for knowledge then no engagement in forum can help with that important quest. So engaging here is neither urgent (unless our ego driven mind wants to provide a response to another person's post) nor important (to possibly any of our life mission).

One cannot learn science by reading science fiction .. that is a metaphor that can apply here.

However if you differ with any of the above statement that is fine - I will respond only if the disagreement is based on understanding (not necessarily agreement). Otherwise I respect your beliefs and leave it as is.

Regards

PS: Yes this is a Q4 activity for me

 

[sarang]

Analogies are substitutes to explain something complex and abstruse to make easier to understand. Analogy per se does not prove or disprove anything - like the rope-serpent analogy is used by the advatin to explain maya and the same is used by vishistadwatin to explain reality of both and absence of maya. In the land of no-corruption, this analogy will not make any sense, but it is real in our land.

Stretching an analogy will not serve any purpose - like whether the maya or real snake/rope bites someone and he has to be rushed to a vishavaidyar.

In a lighter vain- 'upama kalidasasya' - in our school days we got into trouble with our samskrit teacher for discussing 'rumboru'. We all got welted palms.

This is not Maya...this is stabbing someone in the back.

If we do not believe in bribes..dont bribe anyone.

But dont go along..give bribes and then gain the person's trust and then report him to the Anti Corruption Board.

That is stabbing someone in the back.

So if we feel happy that we reported the person..wait till he gets out of jail..then our own happiness will be short lived.

This has nothing got to do with Maya mumbo jumbo..this is just actions and reactions.

 

[palindrome]

It can be logically shown why certain 'logic' can never be understood by any means other than a teacher. How to recognize a learned teacher is also difficult but a simple rule of thumb for me is that they question anything and everything.

I disagree. However, no comments on it.

If one is true aspirant for knowledge then no engagement in forum can help with that important quest. So engaging here is neither urgent (unless our ego driven mind wants to provide a response to another person's post) nor important (to possibly any of our life mission).

One cannot learn science by reading science fiction .. that is a metaphor that can apply here.

Knowledge is everywhere. I learnt a great deal from Sangom Sir's posts and Nara Sir's posts. Early on, also learnt a lot on advaita from KRS sir's posts. Not necessary others should share your opinion. Everyone is not the same.

 

[C RAVI]

Analogies are substitutes to explain something complex and abstruse to make easier to understand. Analogy per se does not prove or disprove anything - like the rope-serpent analogy is used by the advatin to explain maya and the same is used by vishistadwatin to explain reality of both and absence of maya. In the land of no-corruption, this analogy will not make any sense, but it is real in our land.

Stretching an analogy will not serve any purpose - like whether the maya or real snake/rope bites someone and he has to be rushed to a vishavaidyar.

In a lighter vain- 'upama kalidasasya' - in our school days we got into trouble with our samskrit teacher for discussing 'rumboru'. We all got welted palms.

Very well said, Shri Sarang.

Analogies can be understood only by those who could really ponder on the complexity of the subject and have open mind with common sense of introspecting on any presented analogy.

Otherwise the analogy would be nonsense for sure.

One can consider an analogy nonsense BUT the utter nonsense is, instructing others to consider it as nonsense only. LOL!!

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

Everything is considered MAYA because it's the deceiving force that hides the realities of this creation. It deceives such that it conceals the core truth of the life force and leads it towards struggling with all 6 senses.

To pose this challenge, everything need to "appear Real" otherwise of which the Life Force would not sustain justifying the creation.

 

[palindrome]

Very well said, Shri Sarang.

Analogies can be understood only by those who could really ponder on the complexity of the subject and have open mind with common sense of introspecting on any presented analogy.

Otherwise the analogy would be nonsense for sure.

One can consider an analogy nonsense BUT the utter nonsense is, instructing others to consider it as nonsense only. LOL!!

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

Everything is considered MAYA because it's the deceiving force that hides the realities of this creation. It deceives such that it conceals the core truth of the life force and leads it towards struggling with all 6 senses.

To pose this challenge, everything need to "appear Real" otherwise of which the Life Force would not sustain justifying the creation.

<edited - praveen>

Quite understandably some of you folks feel the need to defend beliefs of your sampradayam no matter what pot holes it might have; or no matter what it cannot reconcile or explain. After all, devotion to acharya's words is foremost. All questioning must be done within a boundary that validates one's own philosophy, esp, if it is attached to birth right or adhikaram over anything.

Anyways, if at all you are interested (though may not be really), keep the advaitin view aside and read how the concept of maya evolved and got amalgamated with diverse belief systems. If you wud approach a Zoarashtrian, he would call Devas evil, untruth, a deceiving force...So would you be one? Accepting one's acharya's (teacher's) words verbatim, in any religion, and questioning it within the boundries of one's sampradayam is deceiving oneself...deceiving the mind which is probably not capable of opening up.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Please do not make a fool of yourself. Since you claim to be a brahmin, and do seem like one perhaps, it is apparent brahmin version is what people like you will value.

This is the kind of characterizations that should be restrained in this forum.

"You are a brahmin. Therefore you are like this..."

Won't be difficult to write a counter to this along caste lines.