God Exists

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear TKS,

You said;

Anyway, it does not matter what happens to him. You are indeed endowed with maturity to act properly - that is all that matters. I hope you never lose this Satvic nature you are endowed with (though this forum may test your capacity for Rajasic nature

I dont really know how much Sattva I am but i know I can be Rajas too in some other threads in the forum.
I feel most of us can switch to from Ambi mode(Sattva),Anniyan mode(Rajas) and to Remo mode(Tamas) through out the day but I know a few members here who are very very Sattva all the while.

 

[C RAVI]

Becoming detached is indeed the culmination of a long learning process. But the process needs to be set into motion and this is what happens. You learn that you don't be too attached to materialist aspects or too attached mentally. When you achieve that balance is when you are able to be fully detached. I am not familiar with buddhism but it seems that the middle path preached by Buddha is the striking of this balance.

I agree with you cent percent here, Sri Sravna.

Detachment is the learning process of the soul.

I agree with Shiv too... Emotional attachment is the must towards our children and spouse, without which one can not be “truly” attached to God, IMO.

Strong emotional attachment paves the way to offer the best to our family in any given circumstances. The stable feel of "Love" and the true feelings of "Commitment" can be possible only with strong emotional attachment with our family members. Still one can be selfless.


What I personally follow is -

-Do more, show more and be attached to bring the best out of you and offer the best of you. Don't expect in return. As humans we tend to expect some way at the end of the day. But, just overcome any such disappointments and continue to do with your strong sense of emotional attachment. This way you will never ever be guilty of yourself and would never ever have the pain of being biased some way, having taken the middle path.

-The more you are attached to your family with honesty (without a safe middle path - that is in a way escaping from the fear of getting disappointed, having not received in return), without hatred (when and if been disappointed), the more would be your closeness to GOD.

Having been emotionally attached to our family, we can still show love to all around us. Detachment from our compassionate love towards our family should not be considered as the only way to love people outside of our family.

Have strong emotional attachment towards your family, be compassionate towards all the human and animals out side of your family, learn to over come disappointments of expectations in return as mere human beings, still continue with your passion and compassion and continue to owe your strong sense of love and attachment to GOD.


When you present yourself before GOD in your prayers, don’t allow your consciousness to conceal your own truth.

What I have observed so far in my life is, when people take the middle path in love, affection, emotional attachments etc, they tend to be facilitating themselves to fulfill their needs as their priority. Tend to be tactful to evaluate what, when and how things should be done so that personal interest is not hampered at any cost. (These, I have highlighted as the consequences of taking the middle path with respect to one's own family)

We should not confuse emotional detachment in love, affection etc as a tool to have selflessness and the way of liberation.

"Selflessness towards attaining Liberation" is - Be compassionate and take the straight one track path to fulfill our duty without any lapse, with all your true love, affection etc with complete emotional attachment BUT not to expect in return in the same order and if not obtained in return in the same order, not to develop hatred, vengefulness, frustration and determine to hate all and oneself with all negative perceptions. Continue to hold on your true attachment towards your family and others surrounding you. Closeness to God and the grace of God would follow on its own. Would help refinement of soul, attaining maturity of soul and would facilitate attaining liberation after the life span of present or next janma.

 

[sravna]

I agree with you cent percent here, Sri Sravna.

Detachment is the learning process of the soul.

I agree with Shiv too... Emotional attachment is the must towards our children and spouse, without which one can not be “truly” attached to God, IMO.

Strong emotional attachment paves the way to offer the best to our family in any given circumstances. The stable feel of "Love" and the true feelings of "Commitment" can be possible only with strong emotional attachment with our family members. Still one can be selfless.


What I personally follow is -

-Do more, show more and be attached to bring the best out of you and offer the best of you. Don't expect in return. As humans we tend to expect some way at the end of the day. But, just overcome any such disappointments and continue to do with your strong sense of emotional attachment. This way you will never ever be guilty of yourself and would never ever have the pain of being biased some way, having taken the middle path.

-The more you are attached to your family with honesty (without a safe middle path - that is in a way escaping from the fear of getting disappointed, having not received in return), without hatred (when and if been disappointed), the more would be your closeness to GOD.

Having been emotionally attached to our family, we can still show love to all around us. Detachment from our compassionate love towards our family should not be considered as the only way to love people outside of our family.

Have strong emotional attachment towards your family, be compassionate towards all the human and animals out side of your family, learn to over come disappointments of expectations in return as mere human beings, still continue with your passion and compassion and continue to owe your strong sense of love and attachment to GOD.


When you present yourself before GOD in your prayers, don’t allow your consciousness to conceal your own truth.

What I have observed so far in my life is, when people take the middle path in love, affection, emotional attachments etc, they tend to be facilitating themselves to fulfill their needs as their priority. Tend to be tactful to evaluate what, when and how things should be done so that personal interest is not hampered at any cost. (These, I have highlighted as the consequences of taking the middle path with respect to one's own family)

We should not confuse emotional detachment in love, affection etc as a tool to have selflessness and the way of liberation.

"Selflessness towards attaining Liberation" is - Be compassionate and take the straight one track path to fulfill our duty without any lapse, with all your true love, affection etc with complete emotional attachment BUT not to expect in return in the same order and if not obtained in return in the same order, not to develop hatred, vengefulness, frustration and determine to hate all and oneself with all negative perceptions. Continue to hold on your true attachment towards your family and others surrounding you. Closeness to God and the grace of God would follow on its own. Would help refinement of soul, attaining maturity of soul and would facilitate attaining liberation after the life span of present or next janma.

Well said Ravi. I can't agree more with your views on attachment to family and not to expect anything in return.

 

[renuka]

When we love someone its the underlying principle of Sat Cit Ananda we are actually practising without even realizing it cos the intrinsic nature of man is Love and Happiness.

If we are able to transcend the attachment part of it we can realize that Love is all pervading at a macrocosmic scale and we were compartmentalizing it all the while at a microcosmic scale.


Just a note: Ravi you said:

Detachment from our compassionate love towards our family should not be considered as the only way to love people outside of our family.

Ravi by being compassionate as much as we can towards anyone we only gain new family members..as in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

 

[sravna]

The concept of love I think is blurred by the emotions we now and then experience towards the persons we love, to the extent we mistake the feeling of such emotions as what love really is. True love and care is actually achieved when one transcends emotions. That is the reason it is possible for true love to be unconditional. It doesn't change whatever happens. But when someone is still in the stage of developing emotions the love is under threat. In the world of detached reality, I think love towards someone equates with how much one is duty bound to that person.

Ravi we mean the same though you are expressing it differently.

 

[C RAVI]

Detachment from our compassionate love towards our family should not be considered as the only way to love people outside of our family.

Dear Renuka,

Quoting my above message in "Blue", in my previous post, you have expressed your views as below -

Just a note: Ravi you said:

Ravi by being compassionate as much as we can towards anyone we only gain new family members..as in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

My statement is very clear...

I have specifically empasized that "Detachment from our compassionate love towards our family should not be considered as the only way to love people outside of our family."

I couldn't get what you are trying to convey?

In my above quote, I have expressed very cleraly that, there is no need to exclude or down play (by way of taking a middle path) with our family members in order to love people outside of our family.

That means, no such middle path concept is required to love any one on this Earth. But the priority to family is the prime factor to prove true belief in God and getting close to God. But not at the cost of outsiders.

You can bring the whole world under your family set up, if you have the capacity to make every one happy.

 

[C RAVI]

The concept of love I think is blurred by the emotions we now and then experience towards the persons we love, to the extent we mistake the feeling of such emotions as what love really is. True love and care is actually achieved when one transcends emotions. That is the reason it is possible for true love to be unconditional. It doesn't change whatever happens. But when someone is still in the stage of developing emotions the love is under threat. In the world of detached reality, I think love towards someone equates with how much one is duty bound to that person.

Ravi we mean the same though you are expressing it differently.

Exactly Shri Sravna....

Duty bound is the paradigm of "LOVE". Duty that we do with commitment is the most refined form of true LOVE and Care. A unconditional True Love is nothing but our duty with commitment.


Duty with commitment simply and clearly donates our true love & care and with this alone the human survival seeks security, peace and fulfillment. And by such a commitment (Unconditional Love) towards our duty alone we can qualify ourself to be close to God in a pure and true sense.

 

[renuka]

When I read Ravi and Sravnas mutual admiration I cant help thinking of this line from the song "I want to break free"

"I've fallen in love ..I've fallen in love for the first time and this time I know its for real...God knows!! God knows I want to break free"

How correct yaar both Ravi and Sravna are so loving and yet with a view to break free from the chains of Samsara.


Hey guys dont get me wrong Ok..i love reading both your posts.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Quoting my above message in "Blue", in my previous post, you have expressed your views as below -



My statement is very clear...

I have specifically empasized that "Detachment from our compassionate love towards our family should not be considered as the only way to love people outside of our family."

I couldn't get what you are trying to convey?

In my above quote, I have expressed very cleraly that, there is no need to exclude or down play (by way of taking a middle path) with our family members in order to love people outside of our family.

That means, no such middle path concept is required to love any one on this Earth. But the priority to family is the prime factor to prove true belief in God and getting close to God. But not at the cost of outsiders.

You can bring the whole world under your family set up, if you have the capacity to make every one happy.

What I meant is when we extend compassion to everyone both "related by blood" or not we make the world a family and no need to downplay "Svajana" to love others.In other words we have less of the Mamaiva feeling and the question of "my family" and "your family" wont come in the picture.

A Grihasta is bound by Dharma and thats just doing our duty to family.
Dont take duty here in a mechanical sense as being sans Love.
True Duty comes with Love without expectations.


I will give an example..I have a friend out here a senior male doctor who runs a shelter home for orphans and physically challenged and also gives financial aid to disabled children and single mothers and has taken into his custody many children who he brings up as his own in his own house and does not differentiate his own kids and them. In fact he says his own kids he made himself and others were God given.All kids are given same excellent education and he is sending them all to colleges for proffesional qualification.
I have never seen a person as loving and compassionate as him in my life and he always says.."The whole world is my family".
He is one person who is truly selfless and believes that the Hands that Serve are Holier than the Lips that Pray.

 

[sravna]

How correct yaar both Ravi and Sravna are so loving and yet with a view to break free from the chains of Samsara.

Nothing contradictory in that ? Is there?

 

[C RAVI]

What I meant is when we extend compassion to everyone both "related by blood" or not we make the world a family and no need to downplay "Svajana" to love others.In other words we have less of the Mamaiva feeling and the question of "my family" and "your family" wont come in the picture.

A Grihasta is bound by Dharma and thats just doing our duty to family.
Dont take duty here in a mechanical sense as being sans Love.
True Duty comes with Love without expectations.

Dear Renuka,

I am not sure if I got your above message clearly...

But, the thing is, I consider in a simplistic way that, duty with full commitment first starts from one's own family as a samsari for whom duty is not just a mechanical routine without any true sense of love/unconditional Love, to be truly in beleif and close to God. I have not included any Sanyasi/Tapsvi/Yogi in my messages..

So, for me there is nothing called middle path to be closely associated with God. I have expressed clearly what and how I find the middle path concept in one's own family, in my post #702 Highlighting and Underlining in Italics

 

[renuka]

I will give a simple example..even our spouses or adopted brothers and sisters were not born in "Our Family" and later on became Svajana "Our Family".
So same way we can extend love to anyone and make them our extended Svajana and we dont have to be a Sanyasi for that.

 

[C RAVI]

I will give a simple example..even our spouses or adopted brothers and sisters were not born in "Our Family" and later on became Svajana "Our Family".
So same way we can extend love to anyone and make them our extended Svajana and we dont have to be a Sanyasi for that.

That's what I am saying naa....In my every post...Can love any one on this Earth, humans and animals. But taking middle path in our love towards our spouse , children, parents etc..etc. is the one, that I am not agreeing with you.


Really Renuka, you seem to be confusing yourself and others a lot. .

We know what you consider about love and God. But the thing I am differing with you is the concept of "Middle-Path" with one's own family member.

 

[amala]

See the so called Middle Path is not an escape route at all. It doesn't come easy. Doesn't come for everyone, maybe. Or after years of dedication and practise. Some people have more attachment than others.

Loving selflessly and unconditonally, without expectations is very very difficult. Its very hard to love and not be attached.

 

[sravna]

I will give a simple example..even our spouses or adopted brothers and sisters were not born in "Our Family" and later on became Svajana "Our Family".
So same way we can extend love to anyone and make them our extended Svajana and we dont have to be a Sanyasi for that.

Dear Renuka,

It is not that you do not have to be a sanyasi. To take the decision to be a sanyasi for the sake of knowledge is itself a mark of an advanced soul. Very few are born like that. Especially so in a kaliyuga.

But it is still possible to be not a sanyasi and practice selflessness though it would be no mean achievement either.

The moral is in the path towards liberation whichever one you choose, there are bound to be big obstacles which you need to overcome.

 

[amala]

I have a question to all: Can we ever have too much of a good thing?

 

[renuka]

Just a question here.
After reading some of the post here..no one in particular i feel many are under the impression that "Middle Path" is running away from Love and Attachment and being almost selfish and pay more attention to the world by emotionally neglecting family I wonder what is the either end of the Spectrum?

 

[amala]

Sri Shiv, Doc -

Let me give you my perspective.

Most love, including love for our children or anyone else tends to be selfish love (at least some part of it) . In other words if you feel full and satisfied because of their company then it is selfish love though many will not label it that way.

Only when we are totally fulfilled and complete (pUrNam) that it is possible to love someone unconditionally since there are no expectation of others in our interaction.

(Some of the situations that Renu has described tend to be much more selfless in my view)

A love for someone or something when truly selfless will not cause binding or attachment.

Attachment oriented love will always cause hurt and guilt to different degrees when things do not go the way we want.

Regards

Shri TKS' post IMO can never be repeated enough.

 

[sravna]

I have a question to all: Can we ever have too much of a good thing?

Dear Amala,

Excesses are definitely not good irrespective of whether it is a good thing or the bad thing. In the latter case it hurts others and in the former case it hurts self.

Here I will give my perspective on question raised by Renuka in another post. To my understanding, the two ends of a spectrum are these positive and negative excesses, one hurting others and the other hurting self. So in my interpretation the middle path is the right balance between the two, where you think and act solely according to the highest dharma.

Having said this I agree with Ravi in that a family man should be more commited to his family members than to others members in the society. Of course he can extend his love to others. But the duty towards his wife or his mother or his father will always be more, the duty being an objective counterpart of love. Though in one sense he loves his family more he is also selfless.

 

[amala]

I totally agree. Except one thing. For me anyway middle path doesn't not in any way mean a lack of commitment to family and its members. On the contrary I beleive it means doing ones duty (with love but no expectations, herculean task i know!) to the best of ones ability towards family members.

I still dunno where the idea that middle path means lack of commitment and love to family members arose

 

[zebra16]

Looks like people want to add new names to God. May be today we should say Vishnu Koti namam instead of sahasranama. Said in good humour, devotees of Vishnu, please dont feel offended.

What I dont like is twisting the religion this way and that, so that old meanings are completed wrapped up and changed in accordance with modern ideas and science. If there was a god and a purana, it was there much before us and so the ideas should be consistent and not finetuned to change as per time. One can present things in a new way, but not change its meaning altogether and make the works sound metaphorical where none is intended.

No offence taken. But your understanding that there would be twisting religion this way and that to wrap up new meanings, at least in respect of science, is quite misplaced.

May be you have not heard about the following sloka (5.2) of aittiriya upaniSad which reads as "yad etad hrdayam manas caitat. samjnanam ajnanam vijnanam prajnanam medha drstir dhrtir matir manisa jutih smrtih sankalpah kratur asuh kamo vasa iti sarvany evaitani prajnanasya namadheyani bhavanti." To have double verification that "vijnanam" means science, you may refer here: New Educational Philosophy - Google Books and prajnanam is Brahman as per the mahavakyas.

Regards,

narayan

 

[renuka]

I totally agree. Except one thing. For me anyway middle path doesn't not in any way mean a lack of commitment to family and its members. On the contrary I beleive it means doing ones duty (with love but no expectations, herculean task i know!) to the best of ones ability towards family members.


I still dunno where the idea that middle path means lack of commitment and love to family members arose

Dear Amala,

You know your thoughts are similar to mine.

 

[C RAVI]

Sri Sravna,

We seem to have deviated from the thread topic...

Do we have anything more to discuss on the same line? Like, if God exists? How to present the case in favor, in a different angle for the atheists? etc...

 

[sravna]

I totally agree. Except one thing. For me anyway middle path doesn't not in any way mean a lack of commitment to family and its members. On the contrary I beleive it means doing ones duty (with love but no expectations, herculean task i know!) to the best of ones ability towards family members.

I still dunno where the idea that middle path means lack of commitment and love to family members arose

I have to go through their exchanges closely. I have a feeling that they have the same thing in mind but use terms differently.

 

[renuka]

Sri Sravna,

We seem to have deviated from the thread topic...

Do we have anything more to discuss on the same line? Like, if God exists? How to present the case in favor, in a different angle for the atheists? etc...

I feel the thread is God Exists so anything can be debated here after all Love and Attachment is always the main topic in Religion too.
God is All and All is God so I feel we havent deviated.