God...Why?

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

Your concepts are the same as mine. We only express them differently, in my opinion.

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

<<dhr = corresponding to natural inherent quality>>

Dear Sri KRS ji,

This is a very interesting root derivative you have put across.

According to Mariasusai Dhavamony in Classical Hindusim, Dhr is used in Dharma as an intransitive verb to means "to hold, remain, continue, to set down, to fix".

According to Adrian Snofgrass, Dhr is "to carry, to bear" and means "supporter".

Am coming across the meaning of Dhr as to support, carry, remain, continue, fix, etc as a term of casual continuum.

Am wondering how it cud relate to natural inherent quality, though i found a part of the explanation here: http://www.experiencefestival.com/define_dharma

Can please explain further.

Thanks.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,
This definition of Dharma would perhaps give you the meaning of the root 'dhr':
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]dharma–derived from the Sanskrit root dhr meaning to hold up, to carry, to bear, to sustain. The word dharma refers to that which upholds or sustains the universe. Human society, for example, is sustained and upheld by the dharma performed by its members. For example, parents protecting and maintaining children, children being obedient to parents, the king protecting the citizens, are acts of dharma that uphold and sustain society. In this context dharma has the meaning of duty. Dharma also employs the meaning of law, religion, virtue, and ethics. These things uphold and sustain the proper functioning of human society. In philosophy dharma refers to the defining quality of an object. For instance, liquidity is one of the essential dharmas of water; coldness is a dharma of ice. In this case we can think that the existence of an object is sustained or defined by its essential attributes, dharmas.[/FONT]

From: http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Sanskrit/sanskritterms.htm

Regards,
KRS

<<dhr = corresponding to natural inherent quality>>

Dear Sri KRS ji,

This is a very interesting root derivative you have put across.

According to Mariasusai Dhavamony in Classical Hindusim, Dhr is used in Dharma as an intransitive verb to means "to hold, remain, continue, to set down, to fix".

According to Adrian Snofgrass, Dhr is "to carry, to bear" and means "supporter".

Am coming across the meaning of Dhr as to support, carry, remain, continue, fix, etc as a term of casual continuum.

Am wondering how it cud relate to natural inherent quality, though i found a part of the explanation here: http://www.experiencefestival.com/define_dharma

Can please explain further.

Thanks.

 

[happyhindu]

KRS sir and all,

Am also looking for the origin of the term rishi

If just in case anyone can help, it wud be great.

My context is this:

Am considering if rishi can come from the term vrishi, perhaps as a cognate maybe.

Am told that in written old telugu vrushi (the u is pronounced as ah like vr:shi) used to be the term used for a sage. But i got no leads from any written work so far to show that vrishi transformed into rishi.

However, the explanation given by yogis is that vri, the consciosness is ensconced in layers or koshas and the one who has realized vri is a vrishi.

Am also told (oral only again no written proof) that vrishi was a term used first by the vrishnis and everyone in that clan was considered a rishi (yogi actually) plus warrior. That's sorta displaced though since a rishi possibly cannot be a warrior (?) and it cud mean a rishi-like warrior (?) or what i really cannot place.

Am also told (oral only again) that the term rishivanshi means vrishni-vanshi or from vrishni grouping (someone said its an explanation from the tables of andhra kings but i have not read that yet so cannot confirm).

Any written sources or leads that vrishi can mean rishi or anything on this is welcome.

Thanks.

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Hi and thank u for the response. Ism's apart....

Dear Sridhar, I welcome you here!! I also appreicate your view, which is inded thought provocking(esp second paragraph)..requesting you to stay tuned, cos, I'm specifically looking for contradictory views!

A small note... As hinduism is of diffrent school of thoughts, I would request you to address your stand on this. For eg, KRS said, he sticks by Monism & Advaidham.. Though Im not curious about any ones stands, Im asking this, so that we dont get mixed with complex doctrines and beliefs.. Trust you would agree with me.

Back to the point.. If every action of animals are accountable, then, I agree with you, all my logic would fail, and Hindu philosophy (not sure if its Monist philosophy too) of equating animals with humans (rather all living being as one) would definitely stand tall..I have no second thought about that.

But then, to start with,you need to agree with the premise that, homosapiens are same as pigs/chicken in the eyes of god. If you agree, then, you have a big task ahead to prove your point

1) How can a Chicken/Pig do good tapa or deed to come out of its Karmic debts. Do a pig/bacteria know what a good tapa is?

Have you ever watched the life of Chicken/Pig or any animal? Not all of them react the same way for a given circumstance. So they do have their own tiny brain. Individual reactions have limitations based on their birth as a particular animal or bird or any living being. The individual reaction (mentally or physically) is the present karma, while the limitation by their own birth is also a karmic event. When the pendulum of karma is shaken during the course of living, the time start ticking.


2) If Chicken/Goat can be chopped for our appetite in this world,then slitting the throat of a human may not be wrong for a common man..We equally kill lot of Bacterias by antibiotics, and do deforestation for real-estate!! ( I mean equating human life with plant life)

Each event or preserving and killing can happen by ignorance, necessity, greed, selfishness. When a person hits a person of power, the chances of getting it back is high. Similarly, when a person harms a living being or higher birth, the chances of getting affected back is also higher. The way in which the person gets affected might depend on various aspects of the individuals past accounts (karma).


3) Why plants and rocks are missed in the purpose of life.. Do rocks and sand know that they have a pupose of life? How can a mountain/spinach/Oak tree pursue their goal to reach God.. Do they have a soul?.. They are also the God's creation right!!.. Why not the god's creation of rock/stone be made accountable also?

Plants and rocks have a greater purpose in life. They are made to be in witness state. When one gets to the witness state, then it would be more appropriate to give an answer to this.


4) One can all nullify all my arguments,just by claiming , that, 'We are all a role playing puppets act in this world"... If you believe in this doctine, please let me know, I have a unique question for you

That's True in a sense and not true in another perspective. The perspective that it is not true is what many believe and that is why people think and act individually. When one understands how to operate with nature we know that we are only role playing in this life.


Having said that, Monotheism definitely fails to answer the purpose of animals in line with soul/oneness with God. But It gives a high value for human (homosapien) life and considers the animal/plant kingdom as a suppliement for the esteemed humans, similar to rock/beaches/waterfalls etc. Above all, it distinguishes 5th and 6th sense..[/B][/COLOR]


PS: I truly enjoyed your view, and I lookforward to be here often.. I also request one of my favourite handle Shri Seshadri-subramoniam to join here..

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Hi,

1)) Only to kindle this same point, I have quoted the the 11th century (not 6th as said in earlier post)philosopher Avveroes 'God-Stone paradox' earlier.. ie, If God is all Powerful, can he create a big stone, so big, that he cannot lift it!!! Try to refute this, then you will realise God.

Does God need to be a person? Cant he be the rock itself? Then he cant lift it!!!


Yes, universe expands.. I agree with you. But then, you need to explain, if the universe started at one point, and life infinity of expansion, its origin was also infinity (or even sub-zero, ie infinitesmly small)..?

"People say" but does it really expand?


2>>> If people say God is in Every Thing, then he can also be every where an in every spot of TIME/Place of Origin.. You comprehend a time of origin of God and place of Origin of God, sure he will be there, cos you agreed to the point, that ' God is in every thing'.. May be we can call him as 'Infinite".....

"People say" but is God a person? Where did this God come from? The "Great Omnipresent Divine" - GOD


So where is the confusion?

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Dear Sridhar,

After talking to gurus and mediums, this is what i understand:

<<People say the Universe expands - but into what?>>

The soul is enclosed within 'gaseous' or 'amorphous' like stuff (for want of better words) which hindus call ether. The sun too is just hot gas.

Hindus beleived light is conducted in the medium of ether. This is what physics also says today, and we have come closer the understanding of light as ether waves.

Of the panchabhutams, the concept of ether is hindu (the chinese or dao also have the concept of panchabhutam but it is metal for them not ether, the remaining four are same).

The sun too is just hot gas. Ages later, it will cool. But the gases themselves do not cease to exist. They can still concentrate into a ball of condensed heat again.

These gases have no time or boundries. The universe just expands, not specifically into anything, it just expands. This page also has a part on what is the universe expanding into: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#UN

The five elements land, water, fire, air, ether are also represent the five chakras in human body - from a spiritual aspirants point of view. Now extend this, the puruva madhi is the sixth chakra which is not related to any of these five. And we might also be aware that there is a seventh that takes up beyond - but to where? And that is where my question of "the universe expands in to - What? seems to be retained


Einstein (a brahman and that too a vedic one to me ) was able to prove using logic of the existentiality of other things (in his theory of relativity space), deriving at with his various calculations, that ether exists: http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

<<People say God is in everything - but from where did God come from?>>

Going back to the idea that hindus beleived light as the medium of ether, it seems that the yogis saw the soul ensconced as a tiny concentrated light enclosed within amorphous gaseous stuff that diffused outwards. Meaning, they saw the soul itself as amorphous gaseous matter and light that concentrated at a point and diffused outwards. (hope am putting this into words sufficiently well since it is taking me effort to get the right words).

So the yogis explained the soul as a fragment from a "source"; and that everything came from a single point of origin. This is rather similar to the concept of big bang (nasadiya suktam ?).

The yogis say that when the soul (gaseous matter) returns to its source it is in an unconditioned state (the body is a part of the conditioned state). And since this soul matter is part of the other gaseous matter of the universe, it too can expand. In that way, they expanded their consciousness. Meaning, they dropped their senses, got to a blank state, had glimpses of their soul light, travelled into it, and found that they are in an astral plane where there was nothing but shapeless gaseous expanse of light, which they called consciousness. They figured out that the darkness occurs during transition states or transformation stages of conditioning or transformation. They merely called this light as God and darkness as a state of conditioning or transformation.

This God came from nowhere. It exists, within each one of us, it exists everwhere. There is nothing without an atom, or light or gaseous matter.

Everything we see is in a conditioned state as a stone or a plant or human. Meaning "creation" is a state of conditioning.

Various people and philosophies describe this in various ways. Some say the source (God) and the sourced (the soul) are the same. Some say the sourced is part of the source but it can never go back to the source, like the planets cannot go back into the sun. But well, they can, but only after a stage of massive transformation (some say its destruction, but its not, its just transformation, of taking on an other form, so shiva (to me) is transformation, but we are in a conditioned state so it appears as destruction).

It also seems to mediums that every soul has an inbuilt evolutionary intelligence to choose its expereinces or its conditioned state. That's a point of freewill. The freewill chooses conditioning of various kinds (even so-called wrong doing) and only after a conditioned state there is a point of understanding of something as "good" or "evil". The soul chooses both since it has to experience both, before it merges back into the source. (this obviously is moved away from making 'judgements' or morality about deciding that something is good or evil, there simply is no room for judgements in this point of freewill).

Now comes the question - what is the source? And why did the source choose to become conditioned as creation?

Currently i call the source with various 'names' like God or Allah (all sounds and syllables that come from a conditioned 'mind'), the closest of which personally to me is Narayana. But this Narayana to me is not without Shiva. The terminology may be sounding hindu, but they are just names given to attributes (of matter and all else). A rose by any other name is not going to be different, so if i call it Allah, its still gonna be the same.

Regards.

Okay, God exists. but from where did God originate from? that was why I had asked - People say God is in everything - but from where did God come from?

 

[happyhindu]

1) The five elements land, water, fire, air, ether are also represent the five chakras in human body - from a spiritual aspirants point of view. Now extend this, the puruva madhi is the sixth chakra which is not related to any of these five. And we might also be aware that there is a seventh that takes up beyond - but to where? And that is where my question of "the universe expands in to - What? seems to be retained

2) Okay, God exists. but from where did God originate from? that was why I had asked - People say God is in everything - but from where did God come from?

Dear Sridhar,

1) Suposedly takes the soul up and beyond into the (astral) plane of other gases. Physics and yogis both say the same thing so far - that the universe expands into nothing or nothingness. Stellar, interstellar and space dust just moves in space, sometimes not particularly for a reason or so it seems.

2) So far, the answers from everyone have met is this: God came from nowhere, because God is nothingness, a state of unconditioned-ness. If you notice, i did not answer this either:

"Now comes the question - what is the source? And why did the source choose to become conditioned as creation?"

If i knew this, i wud be brahman (the realized one).

Regards.

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Dear Sridhar,

1) Suposedly takes the soul up and beyond into the (astral) plane of other gases. Physics and yogis both say the same thing so far - that the universe expands into nothing or nothingness. Stellar, interstellar and space dust just moves in space, sometimes not particularly for a reason or so it seems.

2) So far, the answers from everyone have met is this: God came from nowhere, because God is nothingness, a state of unconditioned-ness. If you notice, i did not answer this either:

"Now comes the question - what is the source? And why did the source choose to become conditioned as creation?"

If i knew this, i wud be brahman (the realized one).

Regards.

And the fun is in pursuing questions that we know even a person who knows would not answer, but might at most help us find out ourselves.

 

[happyhindu]

And the fun is in pursuing questions that we know even a person who knows would not answer, but might at most help us find out ourselves.

Sridhar, when i listen to all those gurus, teachers and spirit-mediums, it really appears that we are verily just dust, cosmic dust...and what an aakaram we have given to this aham ego...the kaaranam for aham-kaaram as aham-aakaram is just maya....is it not too much of a creation for dust?

 

[kunjuppu]

Lets all welcome Kunjuppu..

I have enjoyed reading some of his intellectual posts. Having gone through many of his posts(though not countered him), I regard his intellectuality/razer sharp points, in line with Naachinarkiniyan.

sapr,

thank you muchly for the welcome

i will have to demur, however gently, but definitely firmly, on your other attributes to me. mostly maNdu i am.

but very glad to be here, among giants.

thank you.

 

[happyhindu]

sapr333,

No, I do not ask this question. Because as a believer of monism/advaitham that we are discusing here, I do not believe that God has any interest in rectifying anyone's adharma. I have told you already that the concept of 'Avathars' trouble me intellectually on this point.

Sir,

If i may ask, why do you say so....i mean the concept of avatars do not trouble me, so am just curious why makes you feel so..hope am not treading personal grounds..if i am, am sorry please do leave it...if not, then i wud love to hear from you. thanks.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

No, you have every right to ask this question. I believe in avatars from my faith POV.

But when I think about the 'free will' concept of our faith from advaitha POV, then I think that if everything is pre-ordained, what is the necessity for an 'external' God to come in as an Avatar? The only answer I can come up with is to 'teach' the bhakthas about Dharma. If this is the case, then it alters one's perspective on the reasons for avatars in the first place. After all we all are divine and just Maya is sheilding us from knowing the Truth. This is my 'mind' dilemma.

Hope I have explained.

Regards,
KRS

Sir,

If i may ask, why do you say so....i mean the concept of avatars do not trouble me, so am just curious why makes you feel so..hope am not treading personal grounds..if i am, am sorry please do leave it...if not, then i wud love to hear from you. thanks.

 

[sapr333]

Okay, God exists. but from where did God originate from? that was why I had asked - People say God is in everything - but from where did God come from?

Shirivasudevan, this is an interesting question asked for 2 millennias, by aetheist philsophers too. Its similar to who came first, Chicken or egg?.. Even that could be answered through evoloution, but when it comes to concept of God,the answers goes purely philosophical way.

1) Most of the religions agree in common that God is beyond Time-Space. The question of WHEN/WHERE becomes irrelevant in the absence of Time&Space. Its is more like asking 'Whats the smell of colour Green"!!

2) Mathematicians quantify God's origin as Infinity.

3) Philosophers as well all religions, attribute the origin point of God to the 'The ABSOLUTE & ULTIMATE'.. ie, Absolute Power, Absolute Holiness,Absolute Justice, Absolute Righteousness etc etc.. Now, its for us to comprehend and explore the origin based on this.

I have presented a very crispy view, in case of further clarifications, I can post some detailed response on this.

PS: I will respond to your post #30, once I get cleared few points from KRS...Just being cautious not to loose the continuity of this discussion. Thanks

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

No, you have every right to ask this question. I believe in avatars from my faith POV.

But when I think about the 'free will' concept of our faith from advaitha POV, then I think that if everything is pre-ordained, what is the necessity for an 'external' God to come in as an Avatar? The only answer I can come up with is to 'teach' the bhakthas about Dharma. If this is the case, then it alters one's perspective on the reasons for avatars in the first place. After all we all are divine and just Maya is sheilding us from knowing the Truth. This is my 'mind' dilemma.

Hope I have explained.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS ji,

Are we all not avatars reincarnated from our previous births, albeit unrealized ones...

Was told fatalistic free will as preordained destiny is not beyond avatars. There are times when souls of 'higher' energy come down to play their role. It may not be to teach anything to anyone at all since its just that role that is to be played (but we learn though).

Am told all souls in a conditioned state (after being born) are not 'wholly' realized ones, meaning they know a few of their past lives and in that sense understand the workings of creation and destruction of maya.

But there are souls that know all their past lives, they can go back to the point of conception of each of their births, and in that sense they also ‘understand’ maya so much they they are in control of their time, space and everything else. Such souls can come down to play their role as an avatar. Or they can choose not to be born.

Those other souls that are not 'wholly' realized (after being born) can also chose not to be reborn (am told all souls can choose this actually) and can remain in an “unconditioned state” (the state we call ‘bliss’ for want of a better term).

At this spirit state some function as guardian gods or angles. When they had lived on earth in a body, they might have done some good things so they started getting worshipped as guardian gods, or as kaaval deivams or village deities too (though they may not necessarily be worshipped for their spirit state but instead as someone of heroic valor). But apparently in the case of Rama and Krishna it seems from their life stories that they had decidedly shown both - the spirit state plus the herioc role. So (to me) am fine with the concept of avatars.

The pagan European old world also used to call souls without a body as guardian spirits or angels. Buddhists go looking for the new Buddha after the death of the Buddha's previous body. Those that attain their consciousness become advaitha (not longer separate but merged) into Shiva. Then they are verily reincarnated as Shiva themselves in the same body. All the old world followed reincarnation and avatars some way or the other. Maybe there was reason to it all....

Am curious to hear from you on this sir.

Regards.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

Thank you for the long explanation. Again, you have confirmed my thoughts that the avatars are restricted by the laws of karma.

Then the slant is different as those souls did not get fully absorbed, for whatever reason. They must be from other lokas.

Again, I may be completely wrong here in my assumptions.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

I have responded to your posting long time back. Please see the last page. I did not know you were waiting for my response.

KRS

PS: I will respond to your post #30, once I get cleared few points from KRS...Just being cautious not to loose the continuity of this discussion. Thanks

 

[sapr333]

sapr333,

I have responded to your posting long time back. Please see the last page. I did not know you were waiting for my response.


KRS

KRS,

response is due from my end only...bit occupied yesterday.

I thought, I will respond to Vasudevan, once I get clarified & freeze on the basic points in line with Monism&advaitham.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

Thank you for the long explanation. Again, you have confirmed my thoughts that the avatars are restricted by the laws of karma.

Then the slant is different as those souls did not get fully absorbed, for whatever reason. They must be from other lokas.

Again, I may be completely wrong here in my assumptions.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS ji,

Yes it does seem in every school of thot that all creation follows a certain pattern, and that pattern of creation / transformation gets termed as "law" (again perhaps for want of a better term ? )...

Therefore, if a soul wants to take on human body it naturally follows the same pattern....just that it does not seem like there is anything called getting fully absorbed....energy seems to be in a perpetual cycle of being recycled (no one seems to know why though)...and neither is there anything called different lokas...just that the space, a vast expanse appears to get described differently by diff ppl...

Please consider my words as that of an amateur experimenter only (of a soul that has just begun its journey on the astral highways); and therefore all of it is subject to scrutiny and change or so i think, or what really i cannot seem to figure out...but am also including the understanding of experienced spirit-mediums in this, so that confidence part is coming from there..

But not sure if am sounding confused...for once, actually am not confused; but not able to put forth properly in words..

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Originally Posted by KRS
Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

Thank you for the long explanation. Again, you have confirmed my thoughts that the

1) avatars are restricted by the laws of karma.

2) Then the slant is different as those souls did not get fully absorbed, for whatever reason.

3) They must be from other lokas.

Again, I may be completely wrong here in my assumptions.

Regards,
KRS

Sorry sir, i think am not getting it across right but dunno why, am gonna try again...

1) Some souls are so much aware of creation they they are in control of or can make their creation. We need not see them as 'restricted' by anything.

2) This is the part am not sure i really understand. But in general all souls are from the source and can be seen as merging back into the source at some point or the other before taking on an aakaram shape; why they do that (taking on a shape) no one seems to know.

3) So far, am told all are descriptions of the same loka...

What wud you think abt this sir..

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

Sounds good.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sapr333]

KRS quote >>>1) avatars are restricted by the laws of karma.

HH responds >>Some souls are so much aware of creation they they are in control of or can make their creation. We need not see them as 'restricted' by anything.

If avatars are not restricted by laws of Karma, then, they themselves could be called as God (or) God coming down to earth.And scriptures say, even lord Rama had to pass through his karma.In this context, KRS' point seems to be convincing.

 

[sapr333]

KRS, I'm refering here #25.

>>Re-incarnation is different from the laws governing Karma/Phala. Till the time they attain sentience, the reincarnated souls of the animals are not governed by the Karma theory.>>

I lack bit clarity in this, hence you may find some repetitions.

If I understood right, the elevation/lowering of next birth is dependent on Karma. Then there should be rule/intelligent design, which could again be attributed to God. For eg, its a normal belief that, if some one does many things in this world, and earns bad karmic deeds, then he will be assigned to a lower-life in next karma.And there must be rule/law(which we humans may not know) by which all these promotions/demotions actions happen. Lets say, if the next birth is assigned randomly, even then, the 'Calculating machine' of Karmic deeds will have some governing body/, and I attribute this to God.

Or, let me take the old eg of Hitler... As we(humans) all have contradictory individualistic opinions about his 'KARMA", Im sure there should be an universal law, which would decide the karmic count of Hitler. Since we all cannot decide on the "Universal Moral/Karmic law", we necessarily have to rely on a higher authority for law, just like we rely on God for Asbolute Love OR All loving love. Hence I say, that Aboslute Law/Justice is governed only by God.

This gives a feel,that, just like God being 'All Loving reflection of Absolute Love', he should also have the traits of 'Absolute Law , Absolute Justice and Absolute Righteousness"! Which subsequently leads to my previous statment, that, Moral is rooted in God.

PS: I have few points still pending in #25 to be clarified. Will post them soon.

 

[sapr333]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen3.html

KRS,

I always enjoyed the theism Vs atheism debate between Willaim Crain lane & Nielson. Abstract of the debate can be found in the above link. And its very interesting to watch their debates in Google Videos/You tube

 

[happyhindu]

Couple of things from my end Sapr, as i hv bn understanding it so far..again, all of it is subject to scrutiny and change....

1) There is nothing called "laws" of karma. For that matter there is nothing called "karma" as such. Its just a pattern of occurence of conditioned matter (dubbed as so-called 'karma'). Neither avatars nor humans nor stones are "restricted" by anything. We see them as "restricted" coz it is we that are in a conditioned state (or created state) presently.

2) There is nothing called elevation / lowering of any birth. The soul stores its experiences (vasanas) and for some strange reason, the soul chooses varied experiences.

The aatma of hitler can choose to be gandhi or a victim after very many births to see what it is like (or to "live the conditioned state) to be on the other side of an experience. These experiences imprinted on the souls called vasanas are what we terming as 'karma'.

But in the conditioned state (that we are in presently) it can get "seen" as retribution or payback time. Now i am able to understand the liner karmevaguruishwara by krishna from the bhagvad gita, meaning the 'karma' alone is the guru and ishwara.

The soul has an inbuilt intelligent design, like its a creator (it has splintered off from a "source" so it carries some of the properties of the "source" in it, therefore it has the capacity to create). And when the kundalini (termed devi or the latent energy within the body) rises to meet its consciousness (termed shiva, without oneself), all of the vasanas are merged out or so-called cleaned or cleared; and the innate latent energy and the consciousness energy become one.

These vasanas are neither good nor bad though (but we can see them as so-called "good" or "bad" events based on our conditioned state). If there is nothing called "good" or "bad" ofcourse the mind is not gonna be swayed by anything. Its gonna live still, in a state of that connect with its consciousness.

Am also realising that meditation blanks out the mind and puts one in that transcendent state of connect with the consciousness but the consciousness does not travel out of the body (awareness of the energy is limited to a few inches above the head). It is certainly a far simpler process than intense regression.

Regards.

Please read this: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...a_Is_The_End_Of_Vedas/articleshow/2656514.cms