"Complicatedism"

[C RAVI]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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. 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.

Whether I am a Brahmin or Not, immaterial to that, I have my understanding and acceptance of MAYA. Whether I make fool of myself or not it is my personal affair.

Like wise, I don't bother if you are fooling yourself or not, if Zoarashtrians are fooling themselves or not and if the other belief system of the Hindu School of thought is fooling its followers are not. BUT, I certainly would not belittle others theories and belief!

Either I would try to grasp their inputs and introspect on them OR would just ignore them.

Like many belief system existed/exists with all the liberty, I do have my liberty in this forum as a member to express my understanding and acceptances.

Instead of feeling pity of me and advising me not to fool myself, I better suggest you to stick to your views and engage other members whom you feel comfortable with to debate. Many posts contrary to your views bound to appear. Claiming such posts as nonsense and the poster a Fool does not shows one's disciplined behavior and open mind (commonly applicable to all).


This public forum is open for all, subject to its terms and conditions and I suppose it is member's responsibility to behave with each other without being fanatically obsessed with one's own views and making personal attacks.

 

[palindrome]

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.

No intention to characterize. Was just trying to get across the point that as a brahmin there is a version you would want to defend, ie., defend the acharyas position on anything since one thinks this is my acharya, this is my sampradaya. Nothing wrong with that. But perhaps, the defensive tendency may prevent from truly exploring a subject for what it is.

 

[palindrome]

Whether I am a Brahmin or Not, immaterial to that, I have my understanding and acceptance of MAYA. Whether I make fool of myself or not it is my personal affair.

Like wise, I don't bother if you are fooling yourself or not, if Zoarashtrians are fooling themselves or not and if the other belief system of the Hindu School of thought is fooling its followers are not. BUT, I certainly would not belittle others theories and belief!

Either I would try to grasp their inputs and introspect on them OR would just ignore them.

Like many belief system existed/exists with all the liberty, I do have my liberty in this forum as a member to express my understanding and acceptances.

Instead of feeling pity of me and advising me not to fool myself, I better suggest you to stick to your views and engage other members whom you feel comfortable with to debate. Many posts contrary to your views bound to appear. Claiming such posts as nonsense and the poster a Fool does not shows one's disciplined behavior and open mind (commonly applicable to all).


This public forum is open for all, subject to its terms and conditions and I suppose it is member'ss responsibility to behave with each other without being obsessed with one's own views and fanatically obsessed with one's own views and making personal attacks.

I did not pity you or any such thing. Offering a suggestion to explore something for what it is, is not pity. I do not belittle philosophical belief systems either. Just stated my views. Also stated why they are not in concordance with "our belief system". When did I say you are a fool? I did not say your post was nonsense. I said it was senseless. And already explained why so in post # 194. If one finds a point a non-sequitur or senseless, it is not a personal attack. It is an opinion. For that you need not have mocked the way you did in the post edited by praveen. Fanaticism can apply in other things, not just philosophical systems. If you assume, am being fanatical, obsessed, etc, then it is your opinion alone. You are entitled to it. As much as I am entitled to my opinion that your comment was senseless or that you were unable to contextualize.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Shri KB,

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. I view the unfructified karma (i.e., those karmas whose results are as yet not come about and has not been experienced by anyone) with which a new birth happens, as the only reason for the inequalities we see among all the creation. One person is probably born with a load of good karmas which bestow on him/her a lucky life, whereas another person is born with a load of bad karmas and consequently suffers a bad life. This is quite in agreement with our traditional belief so long as we hold that the same soul, AtmA, Jeeva or self is born with its old balance of Karma carried forward. But then it will be difficult to explain the karna mantra which says that, on death, the AtmA extends to prithvee or the Earth (i.e., the AtmA stretches over to the Earth and dissolves into the latter).

Hence in a new life it is not the same AtmA which gets in. At the same time we have "jeevO brahmaiva naapara" and so all jeevas are intrinsically the same brahman. It is therefore evident that the same brahman or life force exists in and activates every living body but each gets a different life because of the Karma load it is born with.

Hope I have been able to clarify your doubt.

Dear Sangom,

Thanks for the reply.

Obviously you have thought a lot about it but the explanation still is not satisfying (to me).

Even if it is true that it is the karma balance that causes birth, and births will continue to happen until all the accumulated karma is extinguished, it is still not clear why some are loaded with good karmas and some are loaded with bad karmas at birth as you postulate. In my opinion, the question of inequity only becomes tougher to answer if one were to consider this karma balance as common to all jivas.

 

[sangom]

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?

Dear Shri KRS,

I agree there are some documented evidences of remembrances of past

births. But it is also a fact that such past birth memories do not last for

more than some years and, as the individual matures, all such memories

are lost completely.

I am of the view that in such cases - which have so far been the exceptions

- the Karmas of one or more past births are very strongly tied up with

certain personalities, places and incidents. When the new birth is caused

at the instance of such Karmic bundles, some amount of the information

which has been very strongly "embedded" into it, gets activated as soon as

the child attains the ability to speak and express itself but since nature

does not envisage this, these memories fade away very fast.

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 know well you are an adept in astrological prediction while I am at best

an also-ran.
As your are aware, the horoscope emerges only after the physical birth. By

that time all the broad parameters of the birth under consideration have

become crystallized, whatever theory we may have about karma, AtmA,

rebirth and so on.

One's progeny will be born only in accordance with one's Karmas. We are

tentatively ascribing to Karma, the potency to cause a new birth and this

new birth also has to be such as to satisfy what all this new birth will have

to experience. Such a birth will be possible only if the Karma of the

parents and siblings also conform to such a birth happening in the family.

Thus the new birth is not really random but takes place according to

certain well-defined laws. (Tibetan Buddhism explains this by assuming

that the soul of a dead person is interviewed by very highly spiritually

evolved Lamas in the higher world and deciding where the next birth has

to be. But since we start with the premise that the AtmA itself gets

dissolved in the Earth, we cannot have such a simple explanation.

But since each birth is based on Karmaphala and fits into a family/lineage

like a jigsaw puzzle, the astrological questions which you have raised will

get explained satisfactorily, imo.

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

The Karna mantra clealy shows that the mind gets stretched to the speech

मनसो वाचँ सन्तनु (manaso vācam̐ santanu) it means that the mind dissolves

into the speech and does not continue its existence. What could remain

after all this dissolution can only be the Karmas, which causes the next birth with all the attributes in the reverse order of the dissolution given.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom,

Thanks for the reply.

Obviously you have thought a lot about it but the explanation still is not satisfying (to me).

Even if it is true that it is the karma balance that causes birth, and births will continue to happen until all the accumulated karma is extinguished, it is still not clear why some are loaded with good karmas and some are loaded with bad karmas at birth as you postulate. In my opinion, the question of inequity only becomes tougher to answer if one were to consider this karma balance as common to all jivas.

Dear KB,

I had, on a previous occasion, likened this to the arrears cases inherited by a newly posted/transferred government employee. If the predecessor from whom you get the seat was a good employee and had done a good job, leaving very few arrear cases, you are lucky; but if the previous person was a slipshod employee you inherit a huge bundle of pending cases and will have to struggle. The karma one inherits is much like this.

 

[sangom]

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!!

Dear Ravi,

I can't say if Rama's picture is in the kitchen where my wife keeps her pooja. Krishna's photo is not there in my house nor do I worship or pay my obeisances to any deity. Why are you having such a doubt? You can verify by a surprise visit next time, if you so desire. I feel sorry.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Ravi,

I can't say if Rama's picture is in the kitchen where my wife keeps her pooja. Krishna's photo is not there in my house nor do I worship or pay my obeisances to any deity. Why are you having such a doubt? You can verify by a surprise visit next time, if you so desire. I feel sorry.

No Sir, I have no purpose to check on some one's personal stuff. My post to you was just for fun!

 

[Govinda]

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

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.

Ravi Ji,

You call Maya , a deceiving Force. Acc. to science, Force is an energy, is a 'Functional' attribute of an object with mass.

For Sankara, Maya is illusion, and it is inexplicable.

So, are you contradicitng Sankara/Advaita??

 

[Govinda]

Dear Sangom,

Thanks for the reply.

Obviously you have thought a lot about it but the explanation still is not satisfying (to me).

Even if it is true that it is the karma balance that causes birth, and births will continue to happen until all the accumulated karma is extinguished, it is still not clear why some are loaded with good karmas and some are loaded with bad karmas at birth as you postulate. In my opinion, the question of inequity only becomes tougher to answer if one were to consider this karma balance as common to all jivas.

Kalabairavan Sir,

Your response suggests that you accept the plurality/many different jivas.

Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah is the famous Sankara's Aphorism.

Why do you differ from Sankara's Advaita?

 

[Govinda]

Dear Shri Jaykay,

(āyuṣaḥ prāṇam̐ santanu | prāṇādapānam̐ santanu | apānādvyānam̐ santanu | vyānāccakṣuṣaḥ santanu | cakṣuṣaḥ śrotraṃ santanu | śrotrān manassantanu |manaso vācam̐ santanu | vāca ātmānam̐ santanu | ātmanaḥ pṛthivīm̐ santanu | pṛthivyā antarikṣam̐ santanu | antarikṣāddivam̐ santanu | divassuvassantanu |)

The word santanu means "spread, extend" in the imperative mood. Therefore, what was envisaged by this mantra (in kāṭhaka saṃhitā :' āpastamba śrautasūtra) was that on death happening, the prāṇā will extend from out of the āyuṣ or the living being, from out of the prāṇā will extend or stretch out the apāna and apāna > vyāna > cakṣuṣaḥ (the eyes or sight) > śrotraṃ (ears or the power of hearing) > manaḥ (the mind) > vācam̐ (words or the power of speech) > ātmā (commonly known as soul) > the earth > the atmosphere > the sky > suvaḥ (the heavens).

The noteworthy point here is that the ātmā is considered to extend to the earth and it does not seem to exist further on. Hence our own religious practice supports the view that the ātmā or soul does not live on but gets absorbed into the earth. With such a perishable ātmā how is it possible to have "self-realization" if by the word "self" we denote the ātmā or soul?

I wish our very knowledgeable members ponder over this mantra.

Sangom Sir,

I have read this in a commentary on Panca-agni (5 fires). When Jiva dies, ll these senses merge in prana [ becomes the subtle karma] enjoins the Atma. The Jiva (being atomic) travels to the skies, heavens etc. depending on their level of karma. If it has high merits, reaches Diyo-loka/heaven, when the jiva is given as oblation, he gets a body suitable for heaven to enjoy. After the expense of good karma, they come down to the rain, down to the seeds and to the fire of semen then to the fire of womb. These are the five stages/fires.
Thus, when the jiva departs, the subtle senses/elements merge into the higher elements, and when they take birth, they become prominent individually to become sense organs.

So, Atma still remains, and retains the individuality and also its karmic nature/phala. Depending on the karma, they attain the regions (heaven or other lower lokas or earth or hell) and take the form depending on the Karma Phala. Only the liberated reach farther.

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Sangom, Greetings. I refer to your message in #184.

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?).

When I said inequities, I did not mean physical disability. Happy to talk about it though. To be born with a disability is not any kind of inequity at all. Anyone born with any disability would get used to it. I had one on-line friend in Malaysia who was an English professor. One of his eyes was completely blind and the other was half blind from his birth. As a child he thought others saw the world as he did too. He did not think he was any different until someone from school pointed that out. He became a professor, says he doesn’t miss much. Same way, being born in a poor family is not an inequity either. Everyone enjoys life because no one really cares for these things other than the narrow minded people who pass judgements on these people saying “ Look at him/her! his/her poorva janma karma must be so bad, he/she is born with physical disability!” These comments are like rubbing the salt to an already challenged person. Physical disabilities are nothing but natural defects. That’s all. Connecting that to karma theory is not rational at all.

When I said inequities, I meant the gap between the haves and have nots. Well, the have nots are getting exploited by the haves so that rich gets richer when poor only sometime breaks the cycle. Inequities here are created by the haves due to the six enemies.

…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.

Exactly. That is my point too. Until one’s ego takes over, one doesn’t get enslaved by the six enemies and do not act unjustly. It’s a slow development.

.. 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.

I am not talking in the context of Adam & Eve. I am talking in the context of every individual. If the karma based rebirth is true, my own birth could be retraced…. Doesn’t matter how many thousands .. to life of bad karma but still there would be one stage where it was my first instance to be born where I did not have any bad karma at all. Well, how did that birth happen if I did not have any bad karma? That is an important question to meditate on when we talk about karma and rebirth. Kindly you may not refrain from that question, please.
Sir, More over, you also said earlier that karma phalan must be experienced. Physical disability doesn’t qualify that because anyone with physical disability learn to live with that; they don’t feel it’s some kind of punishment either. What’s more, such disability turns out to be advantageous for some too! So, connecting physical disability and karmic justifications are only subjective.
You did concede Rama and Krishna, if they are indeed real persons would be washing away their karma. What about God? Would God be washing away his/her karma too? Through natural disasters God cause millions of death every so often. How does God wash away those karmas?

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.

Sorry sir. I don’t think karma theory explains anything.
Cheers!

 

[sangom]

No Sir, I have no purpose to check on some one's personal stuff. My post to you was just for fun!

Dear Shri Ravi,

There was a time when I also used to pay obeisance to and worship all the different deities' images, idols etc. like most others. But on reading more and more of our scriptures, epics and our six philosophical systems, my attitude changed at some point of time and I started feeling that the ways of religion do not guide us correctly. From then onwards I have stopped visiting temples, doing pooja or keeping gods' images for personal worship. I am convinced that god is within each one of us as wisely said in the siddhar pADal :—

இருக்கும் இடத்தை விட்டு இல்லாத இடம் தேடி
எங்கெங்கோ அலைகின்றார் ஞானத் தங்கமே
அவர் ஏதும் அறியாரடி ஞானத் தங்கமே

(irukkum iṭattai viṭṭu illāta iṭam teṭi
eṅkeṅko alaikiṉṟār ñāṉat taṅkame
avar etum aṟiyāraṭi ñāṉat taṅkame)

Approximate meaning: People search for you in many places where you are not there, O golden knowledge! Such people are completely ignorant.

PS: I mistook the post to be from Raghy instead of Ravi. Shri Raghy and his wife were gracious enough to visit my house in Feb. this year. The invitation for surprise visit was because of this but we will be happy to receive you also any time. Kindly let me know when you visit India next.

 

[sangom]

Sangom Sir,

I have read this in a commentary on Panca-agni (5 fires). When Jiva dies, ll these senses merge in prana [ becomes the subtle karma] enjoins the Atma. The Jiva (being atomic) travels to the skies, heavens etc. depending on their level of karma. If it has high merits, reaches Diyo-loka/heaven, when the jiva is given as oblation, he gets a body suitable for heaven to enjoy. After the expense of good karma, they come down to the rain, down to the seeds and to the fire of semen then to the fire of womb. These are the five stages/fires.
Thus, when the jiva departs, the subtle senses/elements merge into the higher elements, and when they take birth, they become prominent individually to become sense organs.

So, Atma still remains, and retains the individuality and also its karmic nature/phala. Depending on the karma, they attain the regions (heaven or other lower lokas or earth or hell) and take the form depending on the Karma Phala. Only the liberated reach farther.

Shri Govinda,

Thank you for your valuable input. Here I do not clearly get what the term jiva signifies. Secondly, the mantra/s under consideration are clear that let the prāṇā extend to the apāna(prāṇādapānam̐ santanu), let the apāna extend to the vyāna (apānādvyānam̐ santanu) and so on till ātmanaḥ pṛthivīm̐ santanu (let the ātma extend to pṛthivī or earth) etc., and so it is clear that ātma is not the central item with which the senses merge or the prāṇā merges. Again, we should note that udāna & samāna are not included in this list. udāna, as you may well know, is the prāṇā which pushes the subtle bodies out of the physical body at the time of death and is the one causing tears, burping, vomiting etc. (a kind of apāṇā, imo) while the samāna is responsible for assimilation of nutrition into the body. It therefore looks to me that as per the above mantras prāṇā merges or dissolves into ātma (after six or seven successive mergers) which merges into the earth, which then merges with atmosphere, the sky and the heavens and that prāṇā does not exist separately.

Of course I could find the google book "Śrī Vedānta-sūtra, Adhyāya 2" which follows the line given by you. But that does not fit with the mantras above imo.

 

[Raghy]

Killing an unharmed man who cannot defend himself was against the norms of war. Hence, Rama let Ravana go. It was not due to the ego factor.

Is Mantara who instigated Kaikeyi; and is everyone who played a role in kuru politics, responsible for loss of lives? Perhaps there is 'collective karma' indeed which comes about by the synchronization of individual karmas (just my view, though this is not supported by scriptures of various religions).

As you may be aware, the concept of karma is non-vedic; and associated with diverse shramana belief forms, including the ones which gave rise to the siddha tradition of southindia. It was formulated into a preaching openly for common humans with a lovely sutra by Buddha (and hence Buddha is called kammavada which in Pali means one who propounded karma).

However, no one knows how old the tradition of prohibiting killing of animals and humans is. The vedics were into sacrificing animals (as part of brahmanical sacrifices). Wars were part of vedic tradition. A key discord between devas and asuras was the role of cows. The Zoroastrian tradition holds devas (who killed cows) evil. Maybe an ancient tribal fight based on cows, ownership of cows and how animals are treated (ie, apporach to life or cultural conflict).

A specific set of shramana views (which possibly also gave rise to Zoroastrian beliefs), prohibited the killing of animals and humans. However, afaik it appears it was followed only by shramana followers or by renunciates. With Buddha's open message to people, the common man became aware every action leads to consequential reaction.

Buddha's Karma sutra however, is a broad guideline. The Jain and Buddhist teachings on karma, which can be called the originators of the karma theory into mainstream religions of today, are worth reading into.

Sri/Smt. Palindrome, Greetings.

Rama did not start the fight with an unarmed defenseless person. When the fight started Ravana was adequately armed but lost or had his weapons broken in the course of the fight. Ravana did not want out when he lost his weapons. Had his left arm was cut off, he would have wielded that arm in his right hand as a weapon. If Rama was following 'dharma', then he should have engaged with Ravana in an arm to arm combat; or should have asked him to get any weapon of his choice to continue to fight. But only when Rama stopped fighting, Ravana was helpless. Rama should have completed Ravana then. Telling him to come back later was humiliating.

I do not know about 'collective karma'. In fact, Had Rama went with Vali instead of murdering him, the whole war could have been averted.

No, I was not aware karma is non-vedic. Thank you for the information. I am not that learned... I did not know. But always wondered... how could the vedic people kill animals in the yagnas and talk about karma at the same time! Now I can see it! I always thought Zoroastrians were the 'asuras' since they worshipped Azura-Mazda though.

Thanks for your suggestions. May take it up in a later date.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

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......

Sri. Biswa, Greetings.

The six undesirables are not necessary. World is not dynamic due to those six; world is dynamic without them. Fortunately everyone is affected 100% by those qualities. if and when that happens, world would become an unlivable place.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Sri. Sangom, Greetings. I refer to your message in #184.

When I said inequities, I did not mean physical disability. Happy to talk about it though. To be born with a disability is not any kind of inequity at all. Anyone born with any disability would get used to it. I had one on-line friend in Malaysia who was an English professor. One of his eyes was completely blind and the other was half blind from his birth. As a child he thought others saw the world as he did too. He did not think he was any different until someone from school pointed that out. He became a professor, says he doesn’t miss much. Same way, being born in a poor family is not an inequity either. Everyone enjoys life because no one really cares for these things other than the narrow minded people who pass judgements on these people saying “ Look at him/her! his/her poorva janma karma must be so bad, he/she is born with physical disability!” These comments are like rubbing the salt to an already challenged person. Physical disabilities are nothing but natural defects. That’s all. Connecting that to karma theory is not rational at all.

Dear Shri Raghy,

You say that physical disability is not an inequity at all. But have you ever experienced that sort of inability so that you can swear on this? Secondly, suppose a couple get all their children with one physical disability or another, will they be as happy as in case all their children are healthy? I now have some interaction with the vision impaired. Much progress has been made by science in assisting these kinds of people but when I ask them how they feel about such helping measures, there is always sadness in their reply. For example one boy said that he would never be able to enjoy the real beauties of nature like his not-blind siblings or friends. I therefore feel that your statement does not reflect the truth.

You admit your own fallacy when you are forced to remark "These comments are like rubbing the salt to an already challenged person."; why challenged and why salt-rubbing if the person does not suffer from any inequity and if "Everyone enjoys life because no one really cares for these things"? Why then should the person feel "challenged"?You agree that physical disabilities are "natural defects"; "natural" because these conditions were not caused by artificial means. OK. But yet these are defects or disabilities. What do we do if a factroy product is "defective"? Do we sell them as normal "no-defect" goods? Kindly think.

When I said inequities, I meant the gap between the haves and have nots. Well, the have nots are getting exploited by the haves so that rich gets richer when poor only sometime breaks the cycle. Inequities here are created by the haves due to the six enemies.

Exploitation is also a result of Karma as per my view. Haves alone cannot do this unless nature had provided the have nots readily, to be exploited. Inequity is not "created" by the haves but inequity arises because there are these two groups readily in nature. Even in an ant colony we can observe this.

Exactly. That is my point too. Until one’s ego takes over, one doesn’t get enslaved by the six enemies and do not act unjustly. It’s a slow development.

But this is poor consolation because ego starts manifesting even when a child is a few months old. And it is also not true that all people do not act unjustly at all points of time.

I am not talking in the context of Adam & Eve. I am talking in the context of every individual. If the karma based rebirth is true, my own birth could be retraced…. Doesn’t matter how many thousands .. to life of bad karma but still there would be one stage where it was my first instance to be born where I did not have any bad karma at all. Well, how did that birth happen if I did not have any bad karma? That is an important question to meditate on when we talk about karma and rebirth. Kindly you may not refrain from that question, please. Sir, More over, you also said earlier that karma phalan must be experienced. Physical disability doesn’t qualify that because anyone with physical disability learn to live with that; they don’t feel it’s some kind of punishment either. What’s more, such disability turns out to be
advantageous for some too! So, connecting physical disability and karmic justifications are only subjective.

You did concede Rama and Krishna, if they are indeed real persons would be washing away their karma. What about God? Would God be washing away his/her karma too? Through natural disasters God cause millions of death every so often. How does God wash away those karmas?

Sorry sir. I don’t think karma theory explains anything.
Cheers!

The point which we do not know is, whether, before being born as a human for the very first time, there was any birth as some other kind of living entity. I think, therefore, that we need not discard Karma theory just because of that ignorance.

God causing natural calamities and therefore being liable for the experiencing of the results of that Karma, does not figure at all in my scheme of things; according to me the natural calamities are as natural as death and disease for man. Those whose Karmas guide them to perish in one such natural calamities do get killed by that. This is my view of the matter.

If you do not want to believe in this theory and are happy with some other kind of explanation, there is no harm.

 

[sangom]

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?

Palindrome,

My response is delayed because I had to think a great deal before answering. I am sorry for this.

Shankara did not explain fully and comprehensively about his notion of "adhyAsa" (covering, superficial layering). He just said that the jeevAtmas are unable to comprehend their own "brahmatva" because of an adhyAsa or layer of ajnAna (ignorance) which comes over the brahman inside them. He left it at that. But when Ramanuja questioned the advaita for its shortcomings, this adhyAsa (which had by this time come to be popularly known as mAyA) took up an important place.

The core of the objection was, to the best of my knowledge, the origin and locus of this mAyA or adhyAsa. If mAyA exists as separate from brahman, then the axiom that brahman is everything is no longer valid. If mAyA forms part of brahman, then Brahman is no longer "nirguna"; it has this guna of mAyA in it. Such were the objections.

Now Shri KRS has suggested the undernoted book where all these objections have been analyzed and answered, he says.

THE SEVEN GREAT UNTENABLES: SAPTA VIDHA ANUPAPATTI - A Critical Study
in Vedanta Dialectics. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, India, l990

I have yet to get this book. May be you can get it and find out for yourself.

If all material in the universe exists, is real, then why view it as unreal or as an illusion?

This material universe exists for us only during our life time. We ordinary people do not know what happens at death. Taking Shankara to be a great Acharya, it may be possible that he could fathom the state of affairs after death and he found that all this "jagat" disappears on death. This is how I like to explain.

This universe "is real" only as long as we can experience it through our physical body and the sense organs. Just as a world full of colourful flowers, rainbow, mist etc., cannot be experienced by a completely blind person, and just as beautiful music cannot be experienced by a completely deaf person, (and hence these things are non-understandable for these people) this world also disappears from our experience at the time of death. You may liken it to seeing a very absorbing film in the theatre which gets abruptly ceases for some reason. Possibly, Shankara could get this experience and that was what led him to say that all this world is just an illusion. But it looks real and alike to all of us and this whole illusion obeys certain laws, just as the images on the screen also do. Yet both are illusions ultimately.

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?

Matter and energy are interchangeable and it is the total energy in the universe which is conserved. But this unchanging existence itself depends upon our sense organs and is illusory due to that reason, imo.

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?

All thoughts including thoughts leading to Brahman are all illusory, again, because the mind which conjures up the thoughts itself is impermanent and perishable. What it produces (thoughts) also is therefore perishable and hence illusory.

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.

I am omitting the portions in bold & blue since you yourself admit these are your views. All activities including all thoughts actions etc., are all unreal according to advaita because this life itself is caused by the ignorance which makes us think that this jagat is for real whereas in truth it is not.

I like to consider that there is a field which causes "Life". This is the Brahman and is the only reality. When this life manifests as a human being inside a human body, this human body with all its sense organs, limbs etc., perceives this jagat and gets the feeling that it is all for real. Take away the body, sense organs, limbs, etc., and we are left with only the field of "Life" which has no qualities, nirguna and the only reality. Though simple it explains advaita well enough.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi palindrome Ji,

Thank you for your comments. Guru Shankara clearly stated that 'Maya', 'Avidya' and all such are the products of the mind, which is also part of Ishwara, which is Brahman. I think his proposition is misunderstood - he has never said that the material world we experience daily is 'unreal'. He was trying to explain why the material mind in a material body would not recognize that while they are perishable, they are part of the unperishable within them that infuses them. The 'I' ego, in my opinion creates this. Anyways, to me, this is all logical and neat.

Regarding the 'Maya' concept having been borrowed from other traditions - it may very well be, but to me that does not diminish in any way the advaitha theory as enunciated by Guru Shankara. I think all traditions in India borrowed from each other freely (for cultural, political and/or social reasons). Advaitha concept existed before Guru Shankara all over the world - he just put forward a cogent theory within the philosophical traditions of Brahma Sutras, using Nyaya. It is just a model - thereby perhaps appealing to some and not to others. As we have seen, there are other scores of models, including the well known other two.

I also do not know what is Asura and what is not. This knowledge, perhaps of interest to historians and obviously to curious minds like yours, is not of much interest to me. I have very narrow interests, and not having been blessed with keen intellect have to really toil to understand what I can grasp. So, you need to excuse me commenting on this.

Regards,
KRS

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.



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.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji Sir,

Thank you for your response. First, let us dispel a myth: I am not at all 'an adept' at Astrology. I know little and it is an ocean, and call it foolishness if you will, whenever I dare predict, I have just been lucky a lot of times. I don't know why.

Anyways, I think if we agree that there is predetermination of events in a person's life, and it has to fit like a jigsaw puzzle with respect to others who have material interaction with this person, then, whether it is the selective Karmaphala that is floating out there attach themselves to that person at birth, or an entity after death with 'vasanas' that is born to give expression to the Karmaphala that the entity acquired during previous lives are just different models.

I tend to believe in the latter model, because of the teachings of my own Guru, and others that make sense to me. The 'vasana' theory also appeals to me to explain the phenomenon that are evident in some in childhood of expertise, especially in those disciplines that require long training and rigor, such as music.

In this context, I would like to know the source and origins of the 'Karna Mantra' that you have quoted. I am ignorant on this.

Of course in all this, we have not touched upon the role of 'free will', but that is a vast different subject altogether.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS,

I agree there are some documented evidences of remembrances of past

births. But it is also a fact that such past birth memories do not last for

more than some years and, as the individual matures, all such memories

are lost completely.

I am of the view that in such cases - which have so far been the exceptions

- the Karmas of one or more past births are very strongly tied up with

certain personalities, places and incidents. When the new birth is caused

at the instance of such Karmic bundles, some amount of the information

which has been very strongly "embedded" into it, gets activated as soon as

the child attains the ability to speak and express itself but since nature

does not envisage this, these memories fade away very fast.



I know well you are an adept in astrological prediction while I am at best

an also-ran.
As your are aware, the horoscope emerges only after the physical birth. By

that time all the broad parameters of the birth under consideration have

become crystallized, whatever theory we may have about karma, AtmA,

rebirth and so on.

One's progeny will be born only in accordance with one's Karmas. We are

tentatively ascribing to Karma, the potency to cause a new birth and this

new birth also has to be such as to satisfy what all this new birth will have

to experience. Such a birth will be possible only if the Karma of the

parents and siblings also conform to such a birth happening in the family.

Thus the new birth is not really random but takes place according to

certain well-defined laws. (Tibetan Buddhism explains this by assuming

that the soul of a dead person is interviewed by very highly spiritually

evolved Lamas in the higher world and deciding where the next birth has

to be. But since we start with the premise that the AtmA itself gets

dissolved in the Earth, we cannot have such a simple explanation.

But since each birth is based on Karmaphala and fits into a family/lineage

like a jigsaw puzzle, the astrological questions which you have raised will

get explained satisfactorily, imo.



The Karna mantra clealy shows that the mind gets stretched to the speech

मनसो वाचँ सन्तनु (manaso vācam̐ santanu) it means that the mind dissolves

into the speech and does not continue its existence. What could remain

after all this dissolution can only be the Karmas, which causes the next birth with all the attributes in the reverse order of the dissolution given.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji Sir,

You said:

There was a time when I also used to pay obeisance to and worship all the different deities' images, idols etc. like most others. But on reading more and more of our scriptures, epics and our six philosophical systems, my attitude changed at some point of time and I started feeling that the ways of religion do not guide us correctly. From then onwards I have stopped visiting temples, doing pooja or keeping gods' images for personal worship. I am convinced that god is within each one of us as wisely said in the siddhar pADal :—

One thing I have learnt in my life is that each one of us on this earth is unique, with our own likes and dislikes, coming from very unique circumstances - place we grew up, our parents, siblings, relatives and friends, culture, religion, wealthv, unique physical/mental capabilities, emotions, spirituality and perceptions.

The key word here, as you may have surmised is 'uniqueness' of a human being.

How does then One idiom of God can suffice? Whatever works for you may not work for someone else. There is no one 'logical' way when it comes to faith and practicing sadhana and worship. It depends on the uniqueness of a person, comprised of so many different dimensions, what appeals to them.

This is why I am grateful to my religion. Because it allows me to express spirituality and advance myself based on my own metrics and inclinations. This is why I am a firm believer in reincarnation, as I believe that each life an athma goes through is to perpetually advance it through spiritually to attain Moksha. Moksha is nothing but a ripened fruit falling from a tree at the touch of a breeze - but it has to go through being a flower first and all the stages in between.

This is why I do not like any system that is top down in the interest of a broader community. People should live in freedom from any ideology, be it social, religious, political or anything else. Religions to me are there for us to pick and practice, if we want to. No more, no less. If we use them wrongly, shame on us. Thus I do not look down on any valid religion that has a philosophical foundation on it's own and practices morality according to the natural laws as applied to current living.

Just my pov.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Jaykay767]

Wow, I am surprised at the views of many here.

Our Vedic Religion (Incl. the entire Sanskrit literature,not just the Vedas) is the pinnacle of our existence. It is a Genius body ofwork !!

It attempts toexplain the mystery of our universe, the ultimate Brahman – the supreme being,& the complex human life – Atman,Jeeva, Chit, Manam, Ahamkaram, Mokha, Self realization etc.. in absolutedetail. Karmic theory, the continuous cycle of rebirths, etc..

After having learnt some of it (most in this form have noclue except a few learned members), via google – LOL !!, they have come to theconclusion that our religion will not lead to Salvation & infact ahindrance to reach God, etc..

Our “truly Genius” Guru’s have done penance/meditation fordecades & have written volumes about self realization.

But according to some here, all this is not true, & we don’tneed our religion to reach self realization !!

Ravi: Agree with you !!

Sangom:
Your interpretation of karmic theory is brilliant, but I disagreethat some xyz reaps the benefit of our life.

Atman & Jiva define the human being. Jiva is derivedfrom Atman but has no conscious knowledge of the past, but if you dig deep, you(Jiva) will be able to revisit your past life & understand the true Karmaat work. Jiva is the one that continues the life/birth cycle, inherits theKarma & Atman is the Brahman that resides in each human being & whenJiva reaches out to Atman, it becomes one with HIM. Thepremise of our great Guru’s is that life comes from HIM – Brahman & henceJiva which is the Soul is attached to Paramatman !!


Also on the ritualistic traditions, they are an integral part of our religionbecause it moves our body & soul towards God everyday.

 

[renuka]

Also on the ritualistic traditions, they are an integral part of our religionbecause it moves our body & soul towards God everyday.

Dear JK,

I do not see how??

Some rituals and poojas are supposed to be to please some Devas for rain and grain etc.

What I can not understand is we humans are supposed to be Karmanyevadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadacana (entitled to the action and not hanker for the fruits of actions).....We read enough times that without homa etc the Devas do not get their share of bounty from humans.

You see if we need to worship an entity that entity needs to be a perfect example to us man and be better than us.

So why do the Devas need to be pleased?

Can't they also be Karmanyevadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadacana?

Can't they just do what they are supposed to do without expecting anything in return??


That is why sometimes I feel rituals do not really show the right path..it contradicts our very perception of religion itself.

Sometimes I feel Lord Buddha's teaching made the most sense and logic.

 

[sarang]

We are back to pre sankara days now. We have to silence (not physically) avedic and avaidic folk who sprout now and then and attack with full force the basic tenets of sanatana dharma. This my view and top priority issue in my list.

Ravi Ji,

You call Maya , a deceiving Force. Acc. to science, Force is an energy, is a 'Functional' attribute of an object with mass.

For Sankara, Maya is illusion, and it is inexplicable.

So, are you contradicitng Sankara/Advaita??

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka, Praying for rain & food are for survival of the human race, hence the Karmanyevadhikaraste .. does not apply. Devas are a higher representation of Brahman, ie they are more closer to him like many of our human Guru's (not the fake swamijis) - hence by praying to them we move closer to God. If you look at the entire body of rituals, there are many that help in preserving the humans, help them to avoid disasters, but the core body of ritualistic prayers move us closer to God. Cheers,