-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Does karma theory make us suffer?
- Thread starter Raji Ram
- Start date
- Status
Vaagmi
0
Reference tks in #99:
Tksji,
I give my views below in three parts as it involves extensively quoting what you have presented and that takes a lot of space:
Part 1.
I agree that it is a powerful message used by theologies world over because it reassures and gives hope to those who are hopelessly mired in trouble. But my understanding of the principle has nothing to do with the problems in life alone. In spiritual journey every one reaches the stage one day where he/she wonders what is all this trouble about. It is at that stage-after actively pursuing wealth, pleasure, comfort and knowledge-that one starts looking at the God principle. Either he accepts God or rejects Him. For a believer who accepts God, Saranagati is an instrument to realize the summum bonum of existence and to reach God. For the non- believer, it is a meaningless theological dream-merchants’ ware and so he goes his way ignoring it. You can choose God as your saviour, treat Him as your refuge and take Him as your shelter and yet live your life with all its day to day troubles and problems, facing them and living them as they come. If you have an unanswered quest in your mind troubling you, Saranagati may help you get the answer.
I do not believe there are different saranagatis. Saranagati is a simple universal principle and it explains in simple terms the universally understood concept of complete surrender. For arguments sake only I am proceeding with your categorizing this universal principle as popular and traditional ones.
The saranagati or complete surrender is not possible as long as the residual freewill is playing mischief. You may surrender in the periphery while the free will at the core keeps telling you that what you have done is useless and the principle is itself a humbug. Your saranagati thus remains true this moment while it becomes a fake the very next moment. So surrender of freewill is an important aspect of saranagati. Without that the Saranagati is not complete. A Tamil poem comes to my mind while writing about this. This line comes in Sekkizhar’s Periyapuranam. When an enemy came to kill one of the Nayanars he came as a Sivanadiyar (a Saivite savant complete with Rudraksham, Vibhuti etc..). He came and asked for a favor from our Nayanar and did a Namaskar with both hands folded between which he had hidden a knife. Here Sekkizhar writes “தொழுத கையுள்ளும் படை ஒடுங்கும்........”. Here your free will is the படை/knife which can play havoc making your saranagati(the folded hands) a fake one.
There is no reason to sing the chorus of freewill by joining the Freewill Rasikar Manram. There is nothing great about it. Most of what is said above is just opinion and not accepted facts. Are we sure that the other beings in this world do not have a free will? We have a free will and we know only that much about it. To me it does not appear to be such a great gift as made out. Again this does not differentiate us from other beings because other beings may have their own free will too. We do not know about that. Does free will always help choose the right goal? Right and wrong are themselves relative to time and individuals.What about a person who kills wantonly or one who commits suicide? Where goes his free will? In my school days I lived in a small town down south. Near my house there was a railway line. I have observed a male pig trying to cross the line when a long goods train was being shunted in that railway line. He was focused on the sow which was grazing on the other side of the line. His free will demanded that he should somehow reach his mate and the rakes moving on the line did not just exist. He got under the wheels and died. So freewill is tricky. It can play havoc with you. Options and choosing from them is all subject to an overriding “given situation”.
Use your free will as much as you want , go through the Gnana and Bhakti margas and reach God. No problem with that. But there are also those for whom Gnana pursuit is not possible and so bhakti which comes next as the fruit of Gnana is also ruled out. What is the salvation for them? It is here that Saranagati comes in as the simple alternative. Accept God and surrender completely. There is no questions and answers there. There is no need to discern either. Free will many a times fails you and may not give you moksha because your residual questions may remain in tact-unanswered. You have to apply the guillotine at some point and get going. That is the problem with free will.
This is said in a context. And it is misinterpreted in the following lines quoted.
Saranagati does not mean that you should get up from your bed assisted by God every morning and then wash your teeth helped by God, sit quietly in a chair and leave it to God to bring food to you, feed you and digest it too for you etc., God has given you all the necessary equipments to live your life and it is you who should live your life with them. Saranagati involves only the recognition that it is God given and the commitment to use them only for what is pleasing to God. You can keep your free will in tact recognizing that it is given by God to you.
No need to comment.
Only when you have reached the tether’s end, where you feel completely helpless, a complete surrender may work. God enables you. Some times it may be seen as a miracle and many a time it is just that you feel you have ultimately won. That is it.
No need to comment.
Sastras are derivatives. They are colored. They have limitations for these reasons. As they deal with day to day issues of life, they are just civil codes. There is no finality about what they say. To the extent they quote Vedas they may be accepted. Leaving that, your sastra may not be my sastra and I may completely disagree with you on a point. This is the kernel of the problem between smarthas and other denominations. Smarthas being beholden to Smrithis and their derivatives while others following the same vedic religion refusing to accept smrithis where they differ with Vedas-the original scriptures. I do not want to go into the details here as these are all holy cows which are not supposed to be touched here in this forum.
The Saranagati that is recommended by Hindus does not promise any such miracles. May be the writer of this piece attends too many சுவிசேஷக்கூட்டங்கள் in which rabble rousing speakers and their weird translators speak about lames getting up and walking up to the stage, blinds getting sight back and seeing the Bible and reading the psalms from it, the deaf and dumb coming to hear and speak etc., Saranagati as spoken by Hindus is about reaching God and not about these miracles. Those among Hindus who have accepted Saranagati do not face any crisis in faith. They are people who have performed the highest Yajna (செய்த வேள்வியன் or krithakrithyan) and live their life as it comes with unshakeable faith in their saranagati.
You can use your free will, doubt, question, think and analyse. What is relevant is the conclusion you have reached after all this effort. If you believe that you have come to the conclusion that God exists, only then you need think about Saranagati. If your questions are endless and you have doubts just do not bother. Saranagati is not for you.
Vedas are Gods words. Sastras are derivatives. So there is no question of surrendering to Sastras. Sastras are useful in a limited way. ............contd. in part 2.
Tksji,
I give my views below in three parts as it involves extensively quoting what you have presented and that takes a lot of space:
Part 1.
I agree that it is a powerful message used by theologies world over because it reassures and gives hope to those who are hopelessly mired in trouble. But my understanding of the principle has nothing to do with the problems in life alone. In spiritual journey every one reaches the stage one day where he/she wonders what is all this trouble about. It is at that stage-after actively pursuing wealth, pleasure, comfort and knowledge-that one starts looking at the God principle. Either he accepts God or rejects Him. For a believer who accepts God, Saranagati is an instrument to realize the summum bonum of existence and to reach God. For the non- believer, it is a meaningless theological dream-merchants’ ware and so he goes his way ignoring it. You can choose God as your saviour, treat Him as your refuge and take Him as your shelter and yet live your life with all its day to day troubles and problems, facing them and living them as they come. If you have an unanswered quest in your mind troubling you, Saranagati may help you get the answer.
I do not believe there are different saranagatis. Saranagati is a simple universal principle and it explains in simple terms the universally understood concept of complete surrender. For arguments sake only I am proceeding with your categorizing this universal principle as popular and traditional ones.
The saranagati or complete surrender is not possible as long as the residual freewill is playing mischief. You may surrender in the periphery while the free will at the core keeps telling you that what you have done is useless and the principle is itself a humbug. Your saranagati thus remains true this moment while it becomes a fake the very next moment. So surrender of freewill is an important aspect of saranagati. Without that the Saranagati is not complete. A Tamil poem comes to my mind while writing about this. This line comes in Sekkizhar’s Periyapuranam. When an enemy came to kill one of the Nayanars he came as a Sivanadiyar (a Saivite savant complete with Rudraksham, Vibhuti etc..). He came and asked for a favor from our Nayanar and did a Namaskar with both hands folded between which he had hidden a knife. Here Sekkizhar writes “தொழுத கையுள்ளும் படை ஒடுங்கும்........”. Here your free will is the படை/knife which can play havoc making your saranagati(the folded hands) a fake one.
There is no reason to sing the chorus of freewill by joining the Freewill Rasikar Manram. There is nothing great about it. Most of what is said above is just opinion and not accepted facts. Are we sure that the other beings in this world do not have a free will? We have a free will and we know only that much about it. To me it does not appear to be such a great gift as made out. Again this does not differentiate us from other beings because other beings may have their own free will too. We do not know about that. Does free will always help choose the right goal? Right and wrong are themselves relative to time and individuals.What about a person who kills wantonly or one who commits suicide? Where goes his free will? In my school days I lived in a small town down south. Near my house there was a railway line. I have observed a male pig trying to cross the line when a long goods train was being shunted in that railway line. He was focused on the sow which was grazing on the other side of the line. His free will demanded that he should somehow reach his mate and the rakes moving on the line did not just exist. He got under the wheels and died. So freewill is tricky. It can play havoc with you. Options and choosing from them is all subject to an overriding “given situation”.
Use your free will as much as you want , go through the Gnana and Bhakti margas and reach God. No problem with that. But there are also those for whom Gnana pursuit is not possible and so bhakti which comes next as the fruit of Gnana is also ruled out. What is the salvation for them? It is here that Saranagati comes in as the simple alternative. Accept God and surrender completely. There is no questions and answers there. There is no need to discern either. Free will many a times fails you and may not give you moksha because your residual questions may remain in tact-unanswered. You have to apply the guillotine at some point and get going. That is the problem with free will.
This is said in a context. And it is misinterpreted in the following lines quoted.
Saranagati does not mean that you should get up from your bed assisted by God every morning and then wash your teeth helped by God, sit quietly in a chair and leave it to God to bring food to you, feed you and digest it too for you etc., God has given you all the necessary equipments to live your life and it is you who should live your life with them. Saranagati involves only the recognition that it is God given and the commitment to use them only for what is pleasing to God. You can keep your free will in tact recognizing that it is given by God to you.
No need to comment.
Only when you have reached the tether’s end, where you feel completely helpless, a complete surrender may work. God enables you. Some times it may be seen as a miracle and many a time it is just that you feel you have ultimately won. That is it.
No need to comment.
Sastras are derivatives. They are colored. They have limitations for these reasons. As they deal with day to day issues of life, they are just civil codes. There is no finality about what they say. To the extent they quote Vedas they may be accepted. Leaving that, your sastra may not be my sastra and I may completely disagree with you on a point. This is the kernel of the problem between smarthas and other denominations. Smarthas being beholden to Smrithis and their derivatives while others following the same vedic religion refusing to accept smrithis where they differ with Vedas-the original scriptures. I do not want to go into the details here as these are all holy cows which are not supposed to be touched here in this forum.
The Saranagati that is recommended by Hindus does not promise any such miracles. May be the writer of this piece attends too many சுவிசேஷக்கூட்டங்கள் in which rabble rousing speakers and their weird translators speak about lames getting up and walking up to the stage, blinds getting sight back and seeing the Bible and reading the psalms from it, the deaf and dumb coming to hear and speak etc., Saranagati as spoken by Hindus is about reaching God and not about these miracles. Those among Hindus who have accepted Saranagati do not face any crisis in faith. They are people who have performed the highest Yajna (செய்த வேள்வியன் or krithakrithyan) and live their life as it comes with unshakeable faith in their saranagati.
You can use your free will, doubt, question, think and analyse. What is relevant is the conclusion you have reached after all this effort. If you believe that you have come to the conclusion that God exists, only then you need think about Saranagati. If your questions are endless and you have doubts just do not bother. Saranagati is not for you.
Vedas are Gods words. Sastras are derivatives. So there is no question of surrendering to Sastras. Sastras are useful in a limited way. ............contd. in part 2.
Last edited:
Vaagmi
0
contd. from the previous post:
Part-2.
Free will is so free that it can not be dropped and forgotten. Surrender free will is the correct way of putting it.
Responsibility is yours if your residual freewill still is in command.
Have faith in God and scriptures (Vedas). Take the derivatives therefrom with a pinch of salt as they are products of time and men.
If you have the intellect use it to find God through the Gnana and Bhakti marga. If you have poor intellect(there are many in this world with poor intellect), completely surrender yourself. God will save.
Part-2.
Free will is so free that it can not be dropped and forgotten. Surrender free will is the correct way of putting it.
Responsibility is yours if your residual freewill still is in command.
Have faith in God and scriptures (Vedas). Take the derivatives therefrom with a pinch of salt as they are products of time and men.
If you have the intellect use it to find God through the Gnana and Bhakti marga. If you have poor intellect(there are many in this world with poor intellect), completely surrender yourself. God will save.
Vaagmi
0
contd from the previous post:
Part 3.
It is a mere restatement of a universal truth. I live my life as per dharma and yet I come across difficulties. I do not understand many things that are happenoing to me. What shall I do? Go to a Sastri and listen to his lecture? No way. I am worried about where I am going and what is the meaning of this life. I have no time for the Sastri’s involved analysis. Please give me some other kavacam please. This does not work for me.
I am a dimwit and you are quoting Sastras to me. As far as I know I have not violated my dharma in any way and yet I suffer. I have nothing to say about the remote past which is just an escape latch for the Sastris. I believe in God and I surrender to him. I do not expect my problems will go away. But I get strength to face them. I am happy with that.
Agreed. Not because Sastras say that but because the prayers are addressed to God. If I do Sandhyavandana which is a yajna and half way throught it I find the God’s deity coming through my street, I will leave the SV midway, go and pray to the God’s deity and then come back to continue the SV. Your sastras say I should not do that. I do not agree with your sastra on that. My free will wins over your sastra there and this free will is what I have surrendered to God.
I have nothing to say on this.
This involves touching the holy cows. So I prefer to leave it alone. I have my views on this “Atma jnanam” which are quite radical.
This again is a holy cow. I am wary of getting near it here. I respect Adi Sankara as a great thinker and just that. I have a healthy disrespect too for some of the interpretations that people offer to his presentations. Sarama Sloka of BG is a very big subject and it may not be possible to discuss the full meaning of it here in limited space and time.
For all the reasons discussed above I differ with this.
Thanks for your time.
Part 3.
It is a mere restatement of a universal truth. I live my life as per dharma and yet I come across difficulties. I do not understand many things that are happenoing to me. What shall I do? Go to a Sastri and listen to his lecture? No way. I am worried about where I am going and what is the meaning of this life. I have no time for the Sastri’s involved analysis. Please give me some other kavacam please. This does not work for me.
I am a dimwit and you are quoting Sastras to me. As far as I know I have not violated my dharma in any way and yet I suffer. I have nothing to say about the remote past which is just an escape latch for the Sastris. I believe in God and I surrender to him. I do not expect my problems will go away. But I get strength to face them. I am happy with that.
Agreed. Not because Sastras say that but because the prayers are addressed to God. If I do Sandhyavandana which is a yajna and half way throught it I find the God’s deity coming through my street, I will leave the SV midway, go and pray to the God’s deity and then come back to continue the SV. Your sastras say I should not do that. I do not agree with your sastra on that. My free will wins over your sastra there and this free will is what I have surrendered to God.
I have nothing to say on this.
This involves touching the holy cows. So I prefer to leave it alone. I have my views on this “Atma jnanam” which are quite radical.
This again is a holy cow. I am wary of getting near it here. I respect Adi Sankara as a great thinker and just that. I have a healthy disrespect too for some of the interpretations that people offer to his presentations. Sarama Sloka of BG is a very big subject and it may not be possible to discuss the full meaning of it here in limited space and time.
For all the reasons discussed above I differ with this.
Thanks for your time.
tks
0
Sri Vaagmi
Thanks for sharing your beliefs and perspectives. I enjoyed reading all your three posts.
You may not agree with classification of 'popular' understanding vs 'traditional' meaning of the word Saranagathi.
My first question to you was if you are more aligned with the former description. It seems the answer is yes, based on what I understood from your comments, though you may not agree with perhaps exact wordings associated with this so called 'popular' description. I also understand that you dismiss that other notions non-existent for this word since anyone talking about another description does not truly understand the meaning of Saranagathi in your view.
My purpose of sharing these notes was to ensure I have 'sort of ' understood what you have been talking about this term Saranagathi.
Having sort of understood, I find holes in the description ('popular' understanding) though our goal here is not to resolve any holes. I am ready to leave it the way it is . Since you have spent a lot of time in your response I felt I should say a few more words before leaving it the way it is. Certainly you are welcome to respond and have the last word if you choose to respond
Some points to describe the holes in logic are below.
The idea it seems of the 'popular' description (for the want of another term here to describe the notion) is that one is asked to 'surrender' their experience of free will completely. Is that surrender itself a free will based decision? If it is , such a decision can always be reversed. To mandate that a reversal is impossible when true surrender of free will has taken place is just a belief and no reasons need to be asserted for a belief at that point and hence there cannot be any further discussion.
If it is supposed to be understood only by experience by true surrender then that does not come under my view of what would be called teaching but preaching. Again discussion will come to an end here.
Another way an objection is provided is that if reversal were to happen it was never a true surrender of the free will. That is just very circular logic and more of a preaching.
Our Rishis emphasized teaching. In B.Gita there are 700 verses covering many perspectives to explain how Arjuna can overcome his sorrow. A simple prescription and preaching is not provided by telling him to resort to surrendering his free will.
I tend to agree with Dr Renu's description in this post
The other objection I hear from your notes is that a relatively uneducated person can 'fast track' (using my words) to Moksha without learning anything by simply surrendering the free will. For this all I can say that we are not aligned on what problem that is being resolved by these teaching.
From what I have understood there is no need for any scriptures and teaching or references since all one needs is to understand is how to surrender our free will totally and in an irreversible & irrevocable manner . I could not disagree more with this belief.
With the above statement there will be no need to cite any references to amplify any point. Regardless let me share just one point.
The famous '10 man' story (crossing the river and each student counting everyone but himself and worried about who drowned crossing the river) the emphasis is on knowledge which is the only thing that could end their suffering. No amount of right Saranagathi can resolve the suffering as described in that story.
A bhakthi arising out of understanding is final since ignorance becomes extinct at that point. The experience of free will is not viewed as an enemy but an enabler to go 'past' the experience of free will (like a ladder which a person does not take with him/her after climbing)
I know these are basic differences in approach.
The one thing I can say that it is pleasant to engage with you always
Regards
Regards
Thanks for sharing your beliefs and perspectives. I enjoyed reading all your three posts.
You may not agree with classification of 'popular' understanding vs 'traditional' meaning of the word Saranagathi.
My first question to you was if you are more aligned with the former description. It seems the answer is yes, based on what I understood from your comments, though you may not agree with perhaps exact wordings associated with this so called 'popular' description. I also understand that you dismiss that other notions non-existent for this word since anyone talking about another description does not truly understand the meaning of Saranagathi in your view.
My purpose of sharing these notes was to ensure I have 'sort of ' understood what you have been talking about this term Saranagathi.
Having sort of understood, I find holes in the description ('popular' understanding) though our goal here is not to resolve any holes. I am ready to leave it the way it is . Since you have spent a lot of time in your response I felt I should say a few more words before leaving it the way it is. Certainly you are welcome to respond and have the last word if you choose to respond
Some points to describe the holes in logic are below.
The idea it seems of the 'popular' description (for the want of another term here to describe the notion) is that one is asked to 'surrender' their experience of free will completely. Is that surrender itself a free will based decision? If it is , such a decision can always be reversed. To mandate that a reversal is impossible when true surrender of free will has taken place is just a belief and no reasons need to be asserted for a belief at that point and hence there cannot be any further discussion.
If it is supposed to be understood only by experience by true surrender then that does not come under my view of what would be called teaching but preaching. Again discussion will come to an end here.
Another way an objection is provided is that if reversal were to happen it was never a true surrender of the free will. That is just very circular logic and more of a preaching.
Our Rishis emphasized teaching. In B.Gita there are 700 verses covering many perspectives to explain how Arjuna can overcome his sorrow. A simple prescription and preaching is not provided by telling him to resort to surrendering his free will.
I tend to agree with Dr Renu's description in this post
The other objection I hear from your notes is that a relatively uneducated person can 'fast track' (using my words) to Moksha without learning anything by simply surrendering the free will. For this all I can say that we are not aligned on what problem that is being resolved by these teaching.
From what I have understood there is no need for any scriptures and teaching or references since all one needs is to understand is how to surrender our free will totally and in an irreversible & irrevocable manner . I could not disagree more with this belief.
With the above statement there will be no need to cite any references to amplify any point. Regardless let me share just one point.
The famous '10 man' story (crossing the river and each student counting everyone but himself and worried about who drowned crossing the river) the emphasis is on knowledge which is the only thing that could end their suffering. No amount of right Saranagathi can resolve the suffering as described in that story.
A bhakthi arising out of understanding is final since ignorance becomes extinct at that point. The experience of free will is not viewed as an enemy but an enabler to go 'past' the experience of free will (like a ladder which a person does not take with him/her after climbing)
I know these are basic differences in approach.
The one thing I can say that it is pleasant to engage with you always
Regards
Regards
Vaagmi
0
tksji,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
More aligned-yes. I am not dogmatic about anything. I acquire knowledge and test it on my touchstone and then accept it or reject it. I do not blindly follow anything or accept it - whatever be the source. Period. To speak about saranagati without including free will into it is like speaking eloquently for many hours about elephant without mentioning anything about the trunk that it has. This is my contention.
If you are saying free will decides the surrender which includes it and hence has the right and ability to reverse that I agree with you. But that is a statement of the obvious. The more pertinent question is this- Is the free will freer than the individual in whom it resides? Is the free will so free that it transcends the individual? If yes is the answer then what you say is possible-that the free will can get back into its original mode and deny the surrender in which it participated. My understanding is that free will does not exist independent of the individual. Ultimate master is the individual. Hence the master, if he decides to surrender his free will, the free will goes with that and can not declare independence. There is no blind or "reasoned-upto-a-point" belief involved here. Saranagati is a fully involved process and the individual decides to surrender everything including the free will which is just an appurtenance (one of the "upAthi"s) of the individual. Hope you get the picture.
It is like understanding an experience with the use of language. I believe this is possible. We are only discussing. What we understand and take home is according to our level of intellect. That is why I continue to discuss.
When you have surrendered everything except the free will and later reverse that surrender because of the prompting by free will what else would you call it? Preaching does not come into the picture at all. I have said already that saranagati is only for those who have accepted God. I don't try to convert. Period.
A butcher who slaughters animals, a fisher woman who cuts and dices the fish to sell it may not understand your scriptures and Sastras. Yet she may understand God and the need to reach him. In your Sastras there is no prescription for these people. Fast track or slow track they too need salvation. Saranagati is ideal for them. I said just that. Sankara too said "nahi nahi rakshathi .......". While I, with all my advantages, can search, pursue and acquire knowledge, understand God concept, allow that knowledge to mature into unbridled love for him in bhakti and pursue the path further to reach him, the butcher and fisherwoman are not lucky to do that. Saranagati helps.
You said it. That is precisely what is the gist of Saranagati. The scriptures, teachings and references all are intellectual opiate loads we acquire. I understand your free will's reluctance. You would completely trust a pilot(who is a total stranger to you and you know nothing about him) and surrender (completely!!) your most precious possession-life- to him for a few hours(!) when you fly in and out of your city but you can not surrender completely to God. I may politely say, let us meet in this forum, say, after 2 years to hear from you what you have to say on this. No offence meant.
The story is quoted out of context. If knowledge can solve all the problems there should be no problem in this world. Whereas we have a world full of problems and suffering. Saranagati will not give you your next break-fast if that is what you call suffering. It will give you the strength to face life in the full and secure understanding that after all the shootings, injuries, wars, skirmishes, pains, pleasures, successes, failures, vices and virtues lived through etc., when the final balance sheet is drawn the bottom line would really put an end to all that we have gone through in life.
I am a dimwit fisherwoman and I do not know what you mean by bhakti arising out of understanding. I understand only the fish I sell and the money it fetches besides the hunger and pain in my life. I am not even aware of the ignorance that you are speaking about, leave alone the effort to get over it or make it extinct.
The ladder should stop with helping me reach a height and should not insist on staying with me as a burden in my further march. For that I do not mind discarding it.
Thanks for your time. I too enjoy the conversations with you. For the next 4 days again I will be away. My tablet would not be able to handle the kind of heavy volume that we transact in our conversations!! So if you post a reply will come only after 4 days. Thanks.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
More aligned-yes. I am not dogmatic about anything. I acquire knowledge and test it on my touchstone and then accept it or reject it. I do not blindly follow anything or accept it - whatever be the source. Period. To speak about saranagati without including free will into it is like speaking eloquently for many hours about elephant without mentioning anything about the trunk that it has. This is my contention.
If you are saying free will decides the surrender which includes it and hence has the right and ability to reverse that I agree with you. But that is a statement of the obvious. The more pertinent question is this- Is the free will freer than the individual in whom it resides? Is the free will so free that it transcends the individual? If yes is the answer then what you say is possible-that the free will can get back into its original mode and deny the surrender in which it participated. My understanding is that free will does not exist independent of the individual. Ultimate master is the individual. Hence the master, if he decides to surrender his free will, the free will goes with that and can not declare independence. There is no blind or "reasoned-upto-a-point" belief involved here. Saranagati is a fully involved process and the individual decides to surrender everything including the free will which is just an appurtenance (one of the "upAthi"s) of the individual. Hope you get the picture.
It is like understanding an experience with the use of language. I believe this is possible. We are only discussing. What we understand and take home is according to our level of intellect. That is why I continue to discuss.
When you have surrendered everything except the free will and later reverse that surrender because of the prompting by free will what else would you call it? Preaching does not come into the picture at all. I have said already that saranagati is only for those who have accepted God. I don't try to convert. Period.
A butcher who slaughters animals, a fisher woman who cuts and dices the fish to sell it may not understand your scriptures and Sastras. Yet she may understand God and the need to reach him. In your Sastras there is no prescription for these people. Fast track or slow track they too need salvation. Saranagati is ideal for them. I said just that. Sankara too said "nahi nahi rakshathi .......". While I, with all my advantages, can search, pursue and acquire knowledge, understand God concept, allow that knowledge to mature into unbridled love for him in bhakti and pursue the path further to reach him, the butcher and fisherwoman are not lucky to do that. Saranagati helps.
You said it. That is precisely what is the gist of Saranagati. The scriptures, teachings and references all are intellectual opiate loads we acquire. I understand your free will's reluctance. You would completely trust a pilot(who is a total stranger to you and you know nothing about him) and surrender (completely!!) your most precious possession-life- to him for a few hours(!) when you fly in and out of your city but you can not surrender completely to God. I may politely say, let us meet in this forum, say, after 2 years to hear from you what you have to say on this. No offence meant.
The story is quoted out of context. If knowledge can solve all the problems there should be no problem in this world. Whereas we have a world full of problems and suffering. Saranagati will not give you your next break-fast if that is what you call suffering. It will give you the strength to face life in the full and secure understanding that after all the shootings, injuries, wars, skirmishes, pains, pleasures, successes, failures, vices and virtues lived through etc., when the final balance sheet is drawn the bottom line would really put an end to all that we have gone through in life.
I am a dimwit fisherwoman and I do not know what you mean by bhakti arising out of understanding. I understand only the fish I sell and the money it fetches besides the hunger and pain in my life. I am not even aware of the ignorance that you are speaking about, leave alone the effort to get over it or make it extinct.
The ladder should stop with helping me reach a height and should not insist on staying with me as a burden in my further march. For that I do not mind discarding it.
Thanks for your time. I too enjoy the conversations with you. For the next 4 days again I will be away. My tablet would not be able to handle the kind of heavy volume that we transact in our conversations!! So if you post a reply will come only after 4 days. Thanks.
Last edited:
tks
0
Sri Vaagmi
Since you posted a detailed response I felt it is respectful to say a few comments before closing. You are welcome to respond, hopefully I may have nothing more to add at that point if you were to respond.
The reason to close is because there are assumptions and beliefs inherent in your response that is not 'reasonable' in my understanding.
It is not possible to debate assumptions and beliefs.
All religious traditions start out with a number of axioms and assumptions. There are two minimal tests for reasonableness in my view. There are more but let me limit to two for this discussion.
a. The axioms need to be self evident to anyone or can be made self evident (obviously some level of background, preparation, open mind and abstracting ability is needed on the part of a listener)
b. There are *least number of such self evident axioms that are orthogonal*
Then the explanations of all that follows are more likely to be true. In my understanding that our scriptures do meet the above tests.
However there are other interpretations that exist that require more assumptions and axioms - I do not debate further on such points.
In the end if the explanations and self evident axioms are satisfactory to someone then that is all matters provided they do not cause harm to others (like the religions that have conversion as an agenda).
I numbered your paragraphs to refer to a few comments
1. So called 'traditional' approach to Saranagathi do take into account the existence of free will in its approach (and hence it is not left out). It is an unreasonable axiom to think that in this universe of beings , an ability of free will experience is manifested only for this to be 'willingly surrendered' to get reach the creator! You may say part of understanding this God concept implies this axiom and that is also unreasonable.
2. Next unreasonable assumption is about 'free will' being contained in an individual - the statement of containment or its opposite also does not make sense. There need not be any container/contained relationships to start out with. A metaphor would be - does a vessel exist is space or space exists inside a vessel, or both? Is the space inside the vessel contained in the vessel ? etc .. These are all meaningless statements as a starting point (axiom)
I do get the 'picture' somewhat - I think it includes unnecessary assumptions (and unreasonable). It is quiet possible for one to experience a sense of peace by feelings of total surrender to en entity called God. Often when 'bad things happen to good people' for many the surrender concept goes out the window. Now you may say that means their surrender was not really real but that is all circular and not useful. In a teaching there is a way to know if the understanding is complete. What you have stated therefore does not come under teaching though you can explain the way to reach this experience.
3. To gain an experience to reach 'God' itself is an assumption. The focus of this experience is to 'become' something you are presently not. This itself is unreasonable. Even the Mahavakya Tat Tvam Asi is an unconditional statement (without if then else)
.
.
5. What about the fish, the chicken, and the bacteria - are they also not Jivas .. Your method leaves them out ..
My point from my earlier post is that we are not aligned about problem we think need to be solved (and I dont want to get into that topic at this point) .
Now the starting point for your fisherman and the butcher is for someone to tell them stories of Ramayana and Mahabharatha (and Puranas) but with the underlying metaphorical significance in a simple language. There are no commandments to be taught - they do not even need these stories to understand the need to follow 'Ahimsa' and to follow the 'Golden Rule' to begin living a life of Dharma. That will be the starting point.
6. As I have stated many times my debating points here are not meant to draw conclusions about what I do
There is no reluctance as you put it on my part - that conclusion is coming from your axioms and assumptions. Let me use a metaphor to explain.Suppose we both look at the sky and say it is blue and you make that an axiomatic starting point of that fact for further discussions. I may say sky has no color, it is dark but can explain why it is appearing blue. To convey this I have to get past your axioms and have to delve into topics of light scattering, refraction etc and then say that while we agree on the appearance of the sky we cannot make that an axiomatic starting point. (By the way no offense taken from anyone and you have not said anything that even in my imagination I can take to mean offensive)
7. The story in its full explanation is very relevant. There is suffering despite assertion of free will by all students in the search process. There is an important missing information that is the only thing that can liberate them from that suffering in that metaphor. No amount of Saranagati will resolve the issue even after they have done all their search based on what their free will dictated. Once the information is available the cause of suffering is extinct. There is no going back.
.
.
9. I never said in my metaphor that the ladder is burden to be carried - its existence is asserted but has no influence but that is all based on understanding (not faith). The ladder is not given away ..
Well I have made this much longer than I intended.
Thanks for the engagement
Peace !
Vaagmi
0
Tksji,
1.We make comments here if they are warranted and if they lead to further understanding of the matter. I do not make them for any other reasons.
2. If you think you have got what you wanted to get you can close the discussion.
3. Assumptions and beliefs too have a base. They are not stupid thoughts which suddenly bubble from the bottom of the mind and come to occupy a central place. Assumptions and beliefs too are debatable because for one of the two parties it may be an assumption while for the other it may be a question to be resolved. Depending on the openness of minds the two go away at the end of the discussion with either a changed perception or with enough validation for a previously held perception.
4. Axioms are universally accepted general truths and assumptions are again based on keen observation and conclusions. They may be wrong or right depending on several factors. But they are not without roots. This is my understanding of axioms and assumptions.
Now a few comments about your comments which may leave unanswered or answer:
1. “traditional approach” may just “take into account” the free will. But that is meaningless. Your free will analyzes your saranagati and the understanding of the God and rejects one or both. After sometime with the passing of time and with some more experience the same free will comes back and tells you that it had committed a mistake earlier in rejecting or accepting what it did. It will be an endless regression of sorts. Understanding God concept does not require surrendering the free will. Without understanding God there is no question of surrendering anything to any one God or Satan. Understanding God requires only two things: a sincere search, understanding the self, and understanding the connection between the self and God when the God is finally understood.
2. My simple point is that there is no free will free of Individual. This is not an assumption. This is a simple logic. You and I are individuals and we possess the free will to act with. Pray, tell me what is the relationship between individual and his free will. Okay. Let us leave the resident and residence concept which I used in a figurative way. What else is this relationship called? Space exists inside and outside the vessel and hence it transcends the vessel. Does free will of you transcend you? Please let me know. There is no axiom involved here. Just plain and simple logic.
You have not understood the concept. Bad things, good things and all things happen to all people. But people who have done saranagati fully understanding it better manage the happenings. Less fortunate people who know only how to do a bargain purchase throw the saranagati out through the window when they suffer. I can say more about this. But I stop with this.
3. While what you say is not clear to me, I venture to express what I think about it. In saranagati you do not become anything new.
5. To your question about fish and amoeba the answer is this:
We know nothing about their communication system or thought processes. So it would be just appropriate not to discuss it. I can frivolously add further that they may have their own saranagati done. Now you will have to prove that they do not. My fisherwoman and the butcher do not need Ramayana and Mahabharata. They need just an advice to pray to God and surrender. As they have no time and mind for your sastras they have no time or inclination to know puranas. They may prefer an MGR or ‘Thala’ flick in its place. They have no use for the “Ahimsa” of your brand because they survive by catching fish and slaughtering animals.
6. You have used a good metaphor. But don’t you think all discussions have to have a starting point? If we are discussing a Rainbow it would be reasonable to start with a blue sky and water vapour etc., as the starting point. If we are discussing light itself it would be appropriate to start with the wavelengths, scattering of light and its effect on the color of space in the sky. If we are discussing philosophy we can start with a question as to what is blue and green and pointedly ask does the blue you observe creates the same impact on me or on me is it equivalent to the green of you etc..,., After discussion we do reach a certain conclusions though we may not openly list them. I have said earlier that we either gain a new perception or go with a validation.
7. I have nothing to say on this.
9. Ladders are just ladders. I am thankful to the for the help. But I have a long distance to cover. I look forward to more such ladders. That is all that I want to say about ladders.
Thanks.
1.We make comments here if they are warranted and if they lead to further understanding of the matter. I do not make them for any other reasons.
2. If you think you have got what you wanted to get you can close the discussion.
3. Assumptions and beliefs too have a base. They are not stupid thoughts which suddenly bubble from the bottom of the mind and come to occupy a central place. Assumptions and beliefs too are debatable because for one of the two parties it may be an assumption while for the other it may be a question to be resolved. Depending on the openness of minds the two go away at the end of the discussion with either a changed perception or with enough validation for a previously held perception.
4. Axioms are universally accepted general truths and assumptions are again based on keen observation and conclusions. They may be wrong or right depending on several factors. But they are not without roots. This is my understanding of axioms and assumptions.
Now a few comments about your comments which may leave unanswered or answer:
1. “traditional approach” may just “take into account” the free will. But that is meaningless. Your free will analyzes your saranagati and the understanding of the God and rejects one or both. After sometime with the passing of time and with some more experience the same free will comes back and tells you that it had committed a mistake earlier in rejecting or accepting what it did. It will be an endless regression of sorts. Understanding God concept does not require surrendering the free will. Without understanding God there is no question of surrendering anything to any one God or Satan. Understanding God requires only two things: a sincere search, understanding the self, and understanding the connection between the self and God when the God is finally understood.
2. My simple point is that there is no free will free of Individual. This is not an assumption. This is a simple logic. You and I are individuals and we possess the free will to act with. Pray, tell me what is the relationship between individual and his free will. Okay. Let us leave the resident and residence concept which I used in a figurative way. What else is this relationship called? Space exists inside and outside the vessel and hence it transcends the vessel. Does free will of you transcend you? Please let me know. There is no axiom involved here. Just plain and simple logic.
You have not understood the concept. Bad things, good things and all things happen to all people. But people who have done saranagati fully understanding it better manage the happenings. Less fortunate people who know only how to do a bargain purchase throw the saranagati out through the window when they suffer. I can say more about this. But I stop with this.
3. While what you say is not clear to me, I venture to express what I think about it. In saranagati you do not become anything new.
5. To your question about fish and amoeba the answer is this:
We know nothing about their communication system or thought processes. So it would be just appropriate not to discuss it. I can frivolously add further that they may have their own saranagati done. Now you will have to prove that they do not. My fisherwoman and the butcher do not need Ramayana and Mahabharata. They need just an advice to pray to God and surrender. As they have no time and mind for your sastras they have no time or inclination to know puranas. They may prefer an MGR or ‘Thala’ flick in its place. They have no use for the “Ahimsa” of your brand because they survive by catching fish and slaughtering animals.
6. You have used a good metaphor. But don’t you think all discussions have to have a starting point? If we are discussing a Rainbow it would be reasonable to start with a blue sky and water vapour etc., as the starting point. If we are discussing light itself it would be appropriate to start with the wavelengths, scattering of light and its effect on the color of space in the sky. If we are discussing philosophy we can start with a question as to what is blue and green and pointedly ask does the blue you observe creates the same impact on me or on me is it equivalent to the green of you etc..,., After discussion we do reach a certain conclusions though we may not openly list them. I have said earlier that we either gain a new perception or go with a validation.
7. I have nothing to say on this.
9. Ladders are just ladders. I am thankful to the for the help. But I have a long distance to cover. I look forward to more such ladders. That is all that I want to say about ladders.
Thanks.
tks
0
More comments and answer to direct questions below:
Your Item 3, 4> If someone's starting point for discussions (I loosely called this 'axioms and believes' for that person) is original sin (due to someone by name Eve eating a forbidden fruit) and without being 'saved' from that sin I am doomed to some place called Hell for eternity , it is not possible to have further dialog. For that person it is a resolved issue and may think that it is an open item that I am in search for resolution. Even if I am open to the idea of challenging that belief, the other person may respond in circular logic and will not be able to see anything else being too committed to preserving & insisting on their belief & open mind. The root for this may be the scriptures or a person they may be believing in.
==================== Now other numbered items in the post =========================
1. In your line "Understanding God requires only two things: a sincere search, understanding the self, and understanding the connection between the self and God when the God is finally understood" - I can agree with need for sincere search in any effort. Beyond that the statement can be read as "Understanding sdsdsdiosd, understanding self and understanding the connection of self to sdsdsdiosd when sdsdsdiosd is finally understood " (Here for emphasis I changed the word God to sdsdsdiosd which is undefined and meaningless). I just did this to illustrate where I am coming from and why it is not possible to dialog further because you may have a clear meaning for sdsdsdiosd. In my case I have to arrive at this definition using more basic "self evident" beliefs and I sort of know it will not agree with what you have as a starting point. Also understanding 'self' is not possible so easily - who will you ask
, ask the self? if self knew there is nothing to ask, if self does not know what is the point ... Anyway there are very basic issues I see in your statement.2. If you notice in my posts I have used the term 'free will experience' almost everywhere. The term 'free will' is used as an adjective in my posts and not as a noun on purpose. The focus is on the noun 'experience' which obviously mean the existence of an 'experiencer'. In what I have written there is no implied relationship and there is nothing to transcend.
This line below refers to preaching and beliefs and does not come under teaching in my view.
"Bad things, good things and all things happen to all people. But people who have done saranagati fully understanding it better manage the happenings. Less fortunate people who know only how to do a bargain purchase throw the saranagati out through the window when they suffer."
In B.Gita there are 700 verses to teach Arjuna many perspectives of truth with first six chapters teaching about duty, next six chapters about Bhakti (a form of Love which has no opposite) and culminating in the last 6 chapters the essence of knowledge needed to put the previous 12 chapters in context. That is an example of what I mean by teaching.
3. You talk about 'reaching the undefined word God' - Reaching implies some action requiring some kind of change (not sure what 'reaching' means otherwise and why should anyone try to reach God, the undefined)
5. It was not a frivolous example - Somehow there is an assumption that you know human being without stating a universal problem that we all can agree on. I can tell you many fisherman and butchers and Ayatollahs, Mullahs, Bishops that have completely different thinking than what you have prescription for 'to reach an undefined item'. Actually each of them have their own undefined item. You do not know about people for your prescription just like you do not have this prescription for the fish.
By the way Ahimsa idea has nothing to do with act or profession. Perhaps it is a bad choice since I did not define it properly. However I can say that even mountain people can understand the idea of 'Golden or platinum rule' without any scriptures because we are all born with that sense (of Samanya Dharma). So I would suggest living that as a starting point since human beings do not practice what they instinctively know.
6. Saranagati the way I understand (have not reached) is not based on faith / belief .. All other shortcuts and definitions are just that. Because it is subject of understanding it can be taught with knowledge to know the transmission to a student is successful. In addition it is final and can be understood why it is final. But discussion here is not like discussing rainbow but even more fundamental than even what we think we know about light in that metaphor.
I like to spend time (Q4) if it is enjoyable. I do not have a query or think I have a confusion around this (though I may have in other areas). If I have the time I respond. Also some people may take offense when one questions or challenges their assumptions. So I have stayed away since my intent is not to hurt anyone knowingly on purpose.
You have not posed any objections to my challenges which speaks to your firm beliefs (without confusion). Thank you..
Vaagmi
0
tksji,
We had such a long dialogue and you are now saying it is not possible to have a dialogue. I am open to discussion of the original sin even though personally my belief may be that the original sin is indeed a sin. I would still discuss with another person who thinks it is not at all a sin. The eternal condemnation to hell can also be discussed. You bring to the table your arguments as to why there can not be any condemnation. I will bring to the table my arguments as to why it is indeed a condemnation. We may agree or may not agree but go home with some idea of the opposite party's perception at least. I notice a certain irritability in your words. May be I am wrong. Instead of saying you are stuck I would prefer to say that it is your perception and I have not found anything new in it to change my perception. You have said ".....the other person may respond in circular logic and will not be able to see anything else being too committed to preserving & insisting on their belief & open mind". I would be polite and just say you have not understood me at all. You also said quite condescendingly "The root for this may be the scriptures or a person they may be believing in". I would prefer to leave that unresponded.
I have understood God. For you there is no God. It is just an undefined sdsdsdiosd. We have widely divergent views. Let us leave the God concept alone. When you have found the definition to sdsdsdiosd and understood God concept come back to me we can talk about saranagati then. Atleast the language, the axioms and the format of argument can be free of hassles then. Understanding self involves starting with the question "who am I". Great thinkers have started with that question in the past and have reached their own conclusions. You have trashed all that with a sweeping statement that "who will you ask?, ask the self? if self does not know what is the point etc.,".
Thanks for stating that experience is different from the "experiencer" for that is what I have been trying to get across all the while.
That was neither preaching nor teaching. It was just a reply to the original observation that good people when get bad things throw out saranagati-as if saranagati was an item for barter trade.
Reaching not the undefined word. Reaching God, even according to you, requires knowledge maturing into bhakti. So you do understand what is reaching.
I do not get clearly what you want to say.
You can keep your understanding in tact. I do not intend to change it.
Dear tksji, I hope you enjoyed your Q4 time this far. You need not worry one bit about offending me. I do not get offended at all. I am beyond that. My search is a continuous one. I do not get troubled by clutter. I have a good filter circuit in place which gleans the signal well. Please do not worry.
You can do a summing up and list the challenges including those which have been left unanswered by me for my benefit and the benefit of the readers here.
Thanks. I enjoyed the conversation. We can meet again on some other issues again if you close this with this.
We had such a long dialogue and you are now saying it is not possible to have a dialogue. I am open to discussion of the original sin even though personally my belief may be that the original sin is indeed a sin. I would still discuss with another person who thinks it is not at all a sin. The eternal condemnation to hell can also be discussed. You bring to the table your arguments as to why there can not be any condemnation. I will bring to the table my arguments as to why it is indeed a condemnation. We may agree or may not agree but go home with some idea of the opposite party's perception at least. I notice a certain irritability in your words. May be I am wrong. Instead of saying you are stuck I would prefer to say that it is your perception and I have not found anything new in it to change my perception. You have said ".....the other person may respond in circular logic and will not be able to see anything else being too committed to preserving & insisting on their belief & open mind". I would be polite and just say you have not understood me at all. You also said quite condescendingly "The root for this may be the scriptures or a person they may be believing in". I would prefer to leave that unresponded.
1. In your line "Understanding God requires only two things: a sincere search, understanding the self, and understanding the connection between the self and God when the God is finally understood" - I can agree with need for sincere search in any effort. Beyond that the statement can be read as "Understanding sdsdsdiosd, understanding self and understanding the connection of self to sdsdsdiosd when sdsdsdiosd is finally understood " (Here for emphasis I changed the word God to sdsdsdiosd which is undefined and meaningless). I just did this to illustrate where I am coming from and why it is not possible to dialog further because you may have a clear meaning for sdsdsdiosd. In my case I have to arrive at this definition using more basic "self evident" beliefs and I sort of know it will not agree with what you have as a starting point. Also understanding 'self' is not possible so easily - who will you ask
I have understood God. For you there is no God. It is just an undefined sdsdsdiosd. We have widely divergent views. Let us leave the God concept alone. When you have found the definition to sdsdsdiosd and understood God concept come back to me we can talk about saranagati then. Atleast the language, the axioms and the format of argument can be free of hassles then. Understanding self involves starting with the question "who am I". Great thinkers have started with that question in the past and have reached their own conclusions. You have trashed all that with a sweeping statement that "who will you ask?, ask the self? if self does not know what is the point etc.,".
Thanks for stating that experience is different from the "experiencer" for that is what I have been trying to get across all the while.
That was neither preaching nor teaching. It was just a reply to the original observation that good people when get bad things throw out saranagati-as if saranagati was an item for barter trade.
Reaching not the undefined word. Reaching God, even according to you, requires knowledge maturing into bhakti. So you do understand what is reaching.
I do not get clearly what you want to say.
You can keep your understanding in tact. I do not intend to change it.
Dear tksji, I hope you enjoyed your Q4 time this far. You need not worry one bit about offending me. I do not get offended at all. I am beyond that. My search is a continuous one. I do not get troubled by clutter. I have a good filter circuit in place which gleans the signal well. Please do not worry.
You can do a summing up and list the challenges including those which have been left unanswered by me for my benefit and the benefit of the readers here.
Thanks. I enjoyed the conversation. We can meet again on some other issues again if you close this with this.
Last edited:
tks
0
Sri Vaagmi - I am interested in hearing about your understanding of original sin, eternal condemnation etc.
There is no irritability that I intended to project. Just like there was no air of condescending attitude in my mind though I will take your statement as feedback so I am more careful and better at communicating.
The problem of open discussions here is that words get loaded with other emotions on the readers mind which is one reason I am reticent to get into being more direct and be more involved. But I appreciate your openness in sharing how you received as to what I said.
Coming to substantive part, if I have not understood anything then without any other meta descriptions please try another time. Also my point about "The root for this may be the scriptures or a person they may be believing in" is actually genuine if you for a moment lift the lens of judgement about this statement.
When we are born we have no idea of many things including the concept of what you call God (which to me has to be understood and not defined until it is understood). If someone is ready to run their life on a belief of an event ( Eve ate the forbidden fruit) and about a sin (replace with a blah1 - undefined) leading a person to eternal damnation (read as blah 2- undefined or possibly not definable from our observations, conclusions and reasoning) then such belief has origin in someone being told to swear by a scripture or swear by a person ( a parent figure or a religious figure). That is the point.
If you refer to any of my past posts there is a thought that I have unsuccessfully communicated and that is that a large part of learning in this area occurs when one has open mind to 'unlearn'. There is another way this thought is described by some teachers with a words 'neti, neti' ...
Again I sense that you have provided judgement word 'trash' to describe a serious point. If you re-read your answer it is not an answer at all. What great thinkers did is not relevant unless we are able to describe it or clearly refer to the key aspects here. The point of self inquiry (with 'who am I') may be popular but one that cannot have an answer and that can be 'proved' (no, I am not going to do that since it will require major infrastructure which you may or may not have but I cannot do justice here regardless)
I do not like to quote scripture if there is a simpler way to make a point.Let me quote a verse from Kena Upanishad (Chapter 2, verses 2 and 3) to amplify the point which you call as 'trashing'.
The reference below applies equally to self and 'God' you have understood per your statement.
[h=2]नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति नो न वेदेति वेद च |यो नस्तद्वेद तद्वेद नो न वेदेति वेद च ||२||
यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः |अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ||३||[/h]
Verse 2: I do not think 'I know it well' . But not that I do not know, I know too. Who among us comprehend It both as 'not known' and as 'known' - he comprehends it
Verse 3: He understands It who comprehends It not! and he understands It not who feels he has comprehended It. It is unknown to the Master of True Knowledge but to the ignorant It is known
I think I may have an idea of what you think you are communicating, but do not agree
Let us leave it at that for now because too many assumptions are involved in what you tried to communicate in my view (based on your previous posts)All religions that rely on (blind) faith run into this issue. Since aspirants think if they follow God will take care of them. When extraordinarily bad things happen (think of the plight of a parent of Nirbahaya) to 'good people' and if they were persons of faith who think they have surrendered to will of 'God' but are unable to explain why that 'God' did not protect their daughter from such violence. Many faith based actions do not stand the test of 'bad things happening to good people'. So if you have prescription I was asking in what way your prescription is different , how will a person know they have truly achieved Saranagati and why nothing will shake them (or they are better able to cope extraordinary injustice and violence). I was not able to sense an answer in your response in your previous post
I never said knowledge mature into Bhakthi .. All I can say is they are description of one and the same.
You have your vintage of 'God' and Saranagati as prescription for the poor fisher women and butcher. The assumption is that you think you know what their issue is for which this is the prescription. But you say you cannot communicate with the fish and hence you do not have any prescription for those Jivas. My point is that your level of understanding of other human beings (be it a Muslim cleric or a poor fisher women) is not any more than what you know about a fish and hence a universal prescription cannot be deemed to be applicable. However if the prescription were to be applicable you have to be able to state a problem that applies to all human beings (but not applicable to fish and other Jivas) and then you can say why your Saranagati resolves the common problem
A few years ago I was in Chennai with my daughter for a very short time. My children, having born and raised in USA interact with everyone without being even remotely aware of social/caste/religion labels of anyone. A woman who comes to wash dishes became her friend and my daughter was shocked that this dishwashing woman took her husband to a Doctor who prescribed a medication upon looking at he husband (and charging Rs 20)!. We tried to Google to find out what he gave it was one tablet to address serious issue of pneumonia. My daughter wanted to sue that Doctor which is impractical ( it seems this 'Doctor' deals with large number of poor people standing in line and prescribes by looking at the person and spends no more than 30 seconds per person)!
I am sure no one wants to go to such a Doctor who prescribes without a diagnosis.
My understanding arising not out of any unreasonable 'faith' hopefully can take challenge
I am not intent on keeping anythingI have enjoyed the discussions. I am not making claims here but if someone does using words I do not know what they mean then they have to explain it in a way I can understand it. I am ready to unlearn if that is needed.
Not sure if it is summing up:
1. State what your God concept it
2. State what you think you understand by self
3. State what problem you think you are solving
4. State what Saranagathi is
5. Prove why Saranagathi per your understanding is a prescription to the problem you have identified
Regards
PS: I have typed and have not spent time revising , kindly pardon me for typos/mistakes ..
Vaagmi
0
I dont think I am qualified to write about that as I have yet to complete my understanding of them.
In the given context it came out as if I am told " oh boy, don't repeat parrot-like what your Guru said or what you learnt by rote from the scriptures". It was just my protest against that kind of a condescension because I am not a push around. I have already written about the touchstone that I use. I think I was not wrong in my interpretation of the dismissal of my views by attributing them to a non-existing Guru or scriptures. The cloak is too thin and does not hide anything.
If the point of discussion is understanding the God idea what you say may be relevant. My understanding was that it was not the issue here. It was rather understanding saranagati. I made it clear right in the beginning that saranagati is for those who believe in God and have a felt need to reach Him.
this again is about the fundamental issue of the unintelligibility of God concept and so is beyond the scope of this discussion here. It is a vast subject and has already been discussed in this forum repeatedly. Going through that grind all over again is daunting.
My understanding of these lines is perhaps different from yours.
I have nothing to add.
I have said whatever I wanted to say. No further comments on this.
1. This is not the thread where God is discussed.
2. Each one has to find out for himself.
3. Already explained that it is about reaching God4
4. Already said. Nothing more to add.
5. Already explained.
Thanks and regards. I enjoyed the conversation.
Vaagmi
0
Thanks a lot to T K S Sir and Vaagmi Sir, for adding value to this thread!
dear RR,
Thanks. And.... don't you worry that this thread and the conversation will spin out of control. LOL.
tks
0
Thanks a lot to T K S Sir and Vaagmi Sir, for adding value to this thread!
Dear Mrs RR
It appears that this thread has reached a natural stopping point. I thought the response from Sri Vaagmi was uncharacteristically cryptic LoL
Thanks for your comments. The thread which started with Karma theory etc evolved into discussion about Saranagathi. I enjoyed and continue to enjoy interacting with Sri Vaagmi of course.
Given the number of views I assume it is at least browsed by more than Sri Vaagmi, you and I. So in the interest of clarity I want to add a few more comments.
1. The SV Sampradayam of Saranagathi is actually very powerful in terms of its ability to enable a sense of order in one's life . I am saying this from knowing well a few people (actually people who may call themselves Smarthas but have sought Saranagathi to Sri Krishna and have tried to follow this approach).
I do not want anyone to take from my debating points that I was arguing against such an approach. I do think there are more to this topic for those who want to obtain a more holistic view of the concept (not just the SV view) that is in alignment with core of our teaching.
2. This concept is best illustrated by this poem by Maha Kavi Bharathiyar
?????? ??????: ???????????? ???????????
I am copying the song for easy access:
பாஞ்சாலியின் பிரார்த்தனை
"அரி, அரி, அரி!"என்றாள் ."கண்ணா!
அபயமபயமுனக்கபயம்" என்றாள்.
கரியினுக்கருள் புரிந்தே-அன்று
கயத்திடை முதலையின் உயிர் மடித்தாய்!
கரிய நன்னிறமுடையாய்!-அன்று
காளிங்கன் தலைமிசை நடம்புரிந்தாய்!
பெரியதோர் பொருளாவாய்!-கண்ணா!
பேசரும் பழமறைப் பொருளாவாய்!
சக்கரமேந்தி நின்றாய் ! -கண்ணா!
சார்ங்கமென்றொரு வில்லைக் கரத்துடையாய்!
அக்கரப் பொருளாவாய் ! -கண்ணா!
அக்கார அமுதுண்ணும் பசுங்குழந்தாய்!
துக்கங்கள் அழித்திடுவாய்! -கண்ணா!
தொண்டர்கண்ணீர்களைத் துடைத்திடுவாய்!
தக்கவர் தமைக் காப்பாய்,--அந்தச்
சதுர்முக வேதனைப் படைத்துவிட்டாய் !
வானத்துள் வானாவாய்,--தீ,
மண்,நீர்,காற்றினில் அவையாவாய்;
மோனத்துள் வீழ்ந்திருப்பார் -தவ
முனிவர்தம் அகத்தினிலொளிர் தருவாய்;
கானத்துப் பொய்கையிலே -தனிக்
கமலமென் பூமிசை வீற்றிருப்பாள்,
தானத்து சீதேவி, -அவள்
தாளிணை கைக்கொண்டு -மகிழ்ந்திருப்பாய்!
ஆதியிலாதியப்பா!--கண்ணா!
அறிவினைக்கடந்த விண்ணகப்பொருளே !
சோதிக்குஞ்சோதியப்பா !--என்றன்
சொல்லினைக்கேட்டருள் செய்திடுவாய் !
மாதிக்கு வெளியினிலே -நடு
வானத்திற் பறந்திடும் கருடன்மிசை
சோதிக்குள் ஊர்ந்திடுவாய்--கண்ணா!
சுடர்ப்பொருளே ,பேரடற்பொருளே!
"கம்பத்திலுள்ளானோ?--அடா !
காட்டுன்றன் கடவுளைத் தூணிடத்தே!
வம்புரை செயுமூடா!"--என்று
மகன்மிசையுறுமியத் தூணுதைத்தான்
செம்பவிர்குழலுடையான்;--அந்தத்
தீயவல்லிரணியனுடல் பிளந்தாய்!
நம்பி நின்னடி தொழுதேன்;--என்னை
நாணழியாதிங்கு காத்தருள்வாய்.
வாக்கினுக்கீசனையும் --நின்றன்
வாக்கினிலசைத்திடும் வலிமையினாய் ,
ஆக்கினை கரத்துடையாய் --என்றன்
அன்புடை எந்தை !என் அருட்கடலே!
நோக்கினிற்கதிருடையாய் !--இங்கு
நூற்றுவர் கொடுமையைத் தவிர்த்தருள்வாய்!
தேக்குநல் வானமுதே!--இங்கு
சிற்றிடையாய்ச்சியில் வெண்ணையுண்டாய்!
வையகம் காத்திடுவாய்!--கண்ணா!
மணிவண்ணா,என்றன் மனச்சுடரே!
ஐய,நின்பதமலரே --சரண்
அரி,அரி, அரி, அரி, அரி!"என்றாள்.
3. A devotion that is unconditional can overcome many perceived obstacles - like lack of adequate knowledge or preparation. Sangeetha Kalanidhi TVS had a wonderful (own) composition to illustrate this concept of Saranagathi. I do not have the lyrics for it. There is this beautiful song by RaGa in raga maligai (it is about Siva) below and is similar to the composition I have heard rendered by Sri TVS . Often poems and songs communicate an idea better than prose
Katra Kalviyum (Viruttam) - Ranjani Gayathri | Devotional MP3
OP
OP
Raji Ram
Active member
Dear TKS Sir,
It is also said that till Panchali was holding to her single robe, Lord Krishna did not pay heed to her prayers but
when she surrendered as shown in the picture above, He came to her rescue. That was total 'saraNagathi'. :hail:
Thanks for posting the viruththam by Smt. Ranjani and Smt. Gayathri. Enjoyed the lyrics too.
It is also said that till Panchali was holding to her single robe, Lord Krishna did not pay heed to her prayers but
when she surrendered as shown in the picture above, He came to her rescue. That was total 'saraNagathi'. :hail:
Thanks for posting the viruththam by Smt. Ranjani and Smt. Gayathri. Enjoyed the lyrics too.
OP
OP
Raji Ram
Active member
One more verse:
திவ்யப் பிரபந்தத்தில் பெரியாழ்வார் சுலபமாக்கித் தருகிறார்.
....எய்ப்பென்னை வந்து நலியும் போதங்
கேதும்நா னுன்னை நினைக்க மாட்டேன்,
அப்போதைக் கிப்போதே சொல்லி வைத்தேன்
அரங்கத் தரவணைப் பள்ளி யானே!
And there is a bhajan song starting 'appOdhaik kippOdhE solli vaiththEn Hari Narayana'.
திவ்யப் பிரபந்தத்தில் பெரியாழ்வார் சுலபமாக்கித் தருகிறார்.
....எய்ப்பென்னை வந்து நலியும் போதங்
கேதும்நா னுன்னை நினைக்க மாட்டேன்,
அப்போதைக் கிப்போதே சொல்லி வைத்தேன்
அரங்கத் தரவணைப் பள்ளி யானே!
And there is a bhajan song starting 'appOdhaik kippOdhE solli vaiththEn Hari Narayana'.
tks
0
Dear TKS Sir,
It is also said that till Panchali was holding to her single robe, Lord Krishna did not pay heed to her prayers but
when she surrendered as shown in the picture above, He came to her rescue. That was total 'saraNagathi'. :hail:
Thanks for posting the viruththam by Smt. Ranjani and Smt. Gayathri. Enjoyed the lyrics too.
Dear Mrs RR
There is an interpretation to this story which is a far cry from how it tends to get interpreted.
To make a point of (total) 'Saranagathi' and what it means, some teachers have said that Panchali had to let go even the thought of holding a single robe since she was not in control and had surrendered totally.
However the result in real life may not work out like it did for Panchali (in the epic). The idea of divine intervention is just an idea and the end result may not be per devotee's wishes.
Some people may think that they 'took' total Saranagathi but terrible things continue to happen to them. It is then that their faith gets shaken because by definition that faith has no basis.
A more reasonable expectation is that divine intervention may not happen with Saranagathi but one may be able to cope with the situation regardless of how bad it could get.
Regards
Vaagmi
0
It was just "sarva pApEpyO mOkshayishyAmi" and not sarva dukhEpyO or sarva kashtEpyO in BG. saranAgati can be understood only in the context of surrender to the God entity for release from the birth cycle. It will be meaningless to look at it as a means to get the next meals or the next kick. Though it might have helped many people get their worldly ardent prayers answered well too.
tks
0
Dear T K S Sir,
I am a believer of 'avanindri OraNuvum asaiyAdhu'! Many events have happened to prove this, in my life.
But, I won't sit without putting any effort to do my duties, thinking that God will come and help me!!
Dear Mrs RR
If that works for you that is all that matters !
However in the line அவனின்றி ஓரணுவும்அசையாது ... if you define Him/Her/IT and then it does not have to be based on a belief.
One interpretation of our teaching is about 'Understanding Isvara without need for faith'
tks
0
Sri Vaggmi - Did not want to open a new can cookies now (dont want to think in terms of 'opening a new can of worms' since I cant understand why someone would want worms to be tortured by capturing them in a can )
Just wanted to provide a brief response to your statement (since you quoted Chapter 18, verse 66 of B.Gita to make a point)
One can believe anything and if that 'works' for that person so be it. I respect that and leave it at that.
However if a scripture is quoted then I would say it is necessary to reconcile that quote with many other verses.
Moksha as release from birth cycle is a popular message which is neither correct nor not correct. To me it is not useful since it requires a belief in rebirth etc. and it is a statement that can never be validated.
So working all our lives for a belief about 'after this life' does not make sense .
There are interpretations of the same teaching that is reconciled across all other teaching and does not require one to subscribe to a set of beliefs. For some reason many people are not motivated to understand those interpretations..
1. I have a very good Muslim friend who prays 5 times a day - he never asks for anything mundane like money etc but prays every day without fail to assure a place for him and people he cares about for a spot in paradise (after his death of course). They point to their scriptures.
2. I have very close friends who are born again Christians who are praying so they will reach heaven (after death). They point to their scriptures
3. Then we have many Hindu friends who do not want next birth ...(after death) -
Moksha is about here and now in this life and this *understanding* can arise from our scriptures including that verse in Chapter 18.
Of course there are many other interpretations to support many different belief systems which is the glory of Hindu religion
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
For rent [Property for Rent] 1st Floor Independent House In AdambakkamIndependent House 1st Floor
- Bav2003 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted Need of a Brahmin lady cook in AdambakkamRequire a Brahmin female cook in 40s to 60 to cook for a family of 4 adults +2 kids in...
- LakshmiRajesh (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Need Brahmin cook for homeBrahmin cook needed to make breakfast and lunch at home (Mylapore) for 4 people. Please text...
- ram1618 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
-