Logical Understanding and Applications of Spirituality- Discussions

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Renuka,

I will come to it. Prana is basically energy of life which I believe is at the intersection of space and time.

Not really...Prana exists even before space and time...therefore it can not be at the intersection.

Space is like an oyster and Prana is like a rain drop that activates it and the pearl of creation comes into existence.

Prana too comes with an activating frequency but there is hardly any mention in any text I had read about its frequency.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

'Boost" is the secret of Energy REF: Sachin Tendulkar !

If a spiritual tag is needed - Ref. to Ram Dev - Patanjali has one - Alovera based!

 

[sravna]

Not really...Prana exists even before space and time...therefore it can not be at the intersection.

Space is like an oyster and Prana is like a rain drop that activates it and the pearl of creation comes into existence.

Prana too comes with an activating frequency but there is hardly any mention in any text I had read about its frequency.

Dear Renuka,

Prana is the connecting energy of mind and body. So at macrocosm it makes sense it connects space and time.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Prana is the connecting energy of mind and body. So at macrocosm it makes sense it connects space and time.

Its in between mind and body no doubt as the Pranamaya Kosha lies in between the Annamaya and Manomaya Kosha.

But that does not mean at a macrocosmic level Space and Time is analogous to Mind and Body.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Actually Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Adi Shankara goes very detail on Prana..but that book itself is so thick and I do not have the attention span to read it further more the constant debating style of opponents in the book sort of de-rails the facts.

 

[sravna]

Its in between mind and body no doubt as the Pranamaya Kosha lies in between the Annamaya and Manomaya Kosha.

But that does not mean at a macrocosmic level Space and Time is analogous to Mind and Body.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Actually Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Adi Shankara goes very detail on Prana..but that book itself is so thick and I do not have the attention span to read it further more the constant debating style of opponents in the book sort of de-rails the facts.

Dear Renuka,

I will write about it. There is some incongruence between the way spirituality understands space and time and the way science understands it. I will try to clarify.

 

[sravna]

BTW Sravna...what are your references for your hypothesis.

I have not read any mention of references in your posts.

Dear Renuka,

There is no specific reference. My reference is all the knowledge of the past. I am just trying to see coherence.

 

[raysundar]

Anything that cannot be explained by scientific theories or validated by experiments ca be considered as Spiritual. Spiritual is a soulful observation of someone without any scientific basis or proof. In fact E=mc^2 itself was itself at first a spiritual revelation of Einstein, until it was later proven to be true by other scientist who took his equation seriously and pursued it. It did have a logical predecessor in the energy conservation of moving masses and their interactions and relative energies. The equation postulates the ultimate energy or the Supreme Power(which we coincidentally call as God!)

 

[raysundar]

E=mc^2 scientifically or spirtually either way it explains.

 

[raysundar]

Energy=mv^2 is always positive. The mass that is you is always positive and the irrespective of which way you are headed v^2 is always positive. The only energy that may be considered as negative may be latent or something that is waiting to happen. Even that when it starts to happen is positive energy. The war mongering people like terrorists as well as peach loving people come forth with positive energies. Except one is destructive and the other is constructive.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

There is no specific reference. My reference is all the knowledge of the past. I am just trying to see coherence.

Dear Sravna,

There has to be references...even religious text like Jeevan Mukti Viveka by Vidyaranya has footnotes references to prove or to disprove a point whenever there is an objection to any shloka.There is extensive reference to the Bhagavad Geeta/Upanishads/Patanjali Yoga etc.

In this case you are presenting both science and spirituality...you need to provide references as to prove or disprove.

 

[raysundar]

Science adapts it theories according to newer experimental results. Religion and Spirituality instead instead wait for experimental results to modify themselves to their justify original dogmatic "Truths". Miracles will always keep happening to upholds the "Truths" given in religious scriptures. Science is always the realm of possibilities while religion and spirituality remain the realm of impossibilities that are proven possible only via miracles. People go to a doctor for ordinarily known cures whereas they pray to God for the incurable to be cured.

 

[renuka]

Suppose we do not believe in God but can we be still moral? Definitely, we can be moral without acknowledging an omnipotent and omniscient entity. That also has to be done on faith and that was the role of religions like Buddhism and Jainism which did not teach the idea of creator God but definitely laid emphasis on righteous behavior.

So if we try to think beyond the superficial dissimilarities of religion, the powerful spiritual message that would be seen is that one needs to lead a righteous and disciplined life and elevate oneself mentally. The timing of the birth of major religions will throw more light on this and the emphasis of each varied according to place and time though the inner message is the same

.


Dear Sravna,

I had seen an experiment once on Nat Geo...where a group of pre schoolers were told to complete as task...and they should not cheat and they would left alone to complete a task of placing something which I do not fully remember.

Then the very same children were told to repeat the task again but a doll was placed there and they were told this doll is an angel and can watch who is cheating.

Ok when the children were left alone without an angel doll...some were cheating as seen on CCTV but the same children did not cheat when the angel doll was there.

Now these are kids..3-4 yrs old...yet the tendency to cheat was there and the fear of not to cheat was there when they thought they were being watched.

I guess religion and God evolved mainly from FEAR and not entirely from great thinking.

Even in the Vedas we can see the gradual evolution of various forms of fear of the forces of nature and finally we get Vedanta where the fear factor is removed.

The greatest test would be removing fear and even removing the concept of God and even spirituality.."would one still remain righteous if all these were removed?"

I feel many would fail..cos many adhere to religion,culture and ethics/moral as a herd mentality becos they fear repercussions of being ostracized by the members of their tribe ..not that they are truly brave to leave behind everything known to them and test themselves.

That is why we see people with very fragile thresholds and feel threatened easily when faced with situations that are not in line with their moral code...they fear they would get tempted and prefer not to know what is in their minds.

Through fear we humans know nothing.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Religion and concept of God are not based on fear. Those who founded the religions were definitely not such people but some fear factor crept in and I believe there is a need for it because with no fear for irresponsible or unrighteous actions, the world would be a chaos.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Dear Renuka,

Religion and concept of God are not based on fear. Those who founded the religions were definitely not such people but some fear factor crept in and I believe there is a need for it because with no fear for irresponsible or unrighteous actions, the world would be a chaos.

Fear is the key!
Bayam before bhakti is bayabakthi makes you religious!

 

[sravna]

Folks,

With some modifications in what I am presenting, I am planning to start a course on helping people to possess spiritual perspectives. It just does not come by reading but also by practice. In a spiritual perspective you see everything in a positive light and try to be in harmony with your nature. That is you do not force something on yourself but believe in freely expressing yourself. It is when one is true to one's nature, all the positive aspects of a person emerge. It is not easy to resist the force of environment but something I think is achievable.

To start with one needs to believe in the benefits of spiritual perspectives and understand that it can transform their quality of life beyond recognition. For that one needs to understand the logic and truth in spiritual knowledge and appreciate its utility in day to day living and also in getting long term benefits. That is the reason I try to use logic in my presentations to convince people but people are welcome to question it and debate.


In the future posts I will continue trying to develop a frame work based on which the abundant spiritual knowledge available to us can be understood and used. The idea is the acceptance of spiritual knowledge should just not be on faith because that is not good enough for the current times. Once the knowledge is accepted, people can think of putting it to practical use. I think it is only our imagination that can limit the use of the knowledge.

Logical understanding of spiritual knowledge removes blocks in seeing the truth and aids one in the spiritual journey and to form spiritual perspectives. It also as I keep emphasizing has practical utility.

Let us keep our mind open to alternate perspectives of our experiences and try to benefit from them.

It is my sincere wish that people find this initiative useful

 

[sravna]

Dear Folks,

It is the duty of all those who believe in God and understand he concept of God in the right spirit i.,e., God as some one who dwells within us, to help remove the sense of awe and fear that God and even Godmen invoke. It is really sad that people look at God not in the right perspective and have a lot of misconceptions. The result is they are not able to employ their own inner power to their benefit.

The point is one should fight against exploitation in the name of God and against presenting God and divine knowledge in the wrong way. Misinformation and misleading of the gullible is really bad. So the fight is two fold, one against people who exploit others in the name of religion and God and against those who methodically try to wean people away from God and anything divine for their own benefits.

The divine and the divine knowledge needs to be presented in the right way so that God is seen as a friendly and caring figure and not one who needs to be feared or appeased. It seems to me the concept of inner self as God is the closest to reality and would be a good presentation of God.

 

[renuka]

If according to religions the purpose of creation of physical world by God is to make beings in that world to understand His glory and reunite with Him .

Dear Sravna,

I know this is what is commonly thought but I kind of beg to differ.

If God wants beings to understand His Glory wont that make Him a Narcissistic personality?

Why would He want to give his own creation a run around just to make them realize His "Glory"?

Such a concept of a God that seeks feedback from His fans does not jive well with the concept of Advaita.

Even if we look from it from a Dualistic point of view..such a God would seem like one who seeks attention,approval and praise.

Not a true God in that case.

If God is going to be seeking everyone to know His glory...I rather remain human..cos there are some humans who do not seek to be glorified.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

I will talk from the perspective of advaita. According to advaita we are not different from God in essence. So in effect we are trying to understand our own glory which is the strength of unity during what is played out as a game.

Makes sense?

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I will talk from the perspective of advaita. According to advaita we are not different from God in essence. So in effect we are trying to understand our own glory which is the strength of unity during what is played out as a game.

Makes sense?

Dear Sravna,

Do any of us try to understand our own glory?

I feel only a narcissist does that.

Trying to figure out our own Mahima only increases the Ahamkara..in fact if we dwell deeper within ourselves we start to realize that we are nothing but a mere insignificant speck.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Do any of us try to understand our own glory?

I feel only a narcissist does that.

Trying to figure out our own Mahima only increases the Ahamkara..in fact if we dwell deeper within ourselves we start to realize that we are nothing but a mere insignificant speck.

Dear Renuka,

Understanding our own glory is nothing but understanding our strengths. There is nothing wrong in that. That is the way also for self improvement.

Finally you understand you are everything. There is no ego in it. It is just the realization of truth.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Understanding our own glory is nothing but understanding our strengths. There is nothing wrong in that. That is the way also for self improvement.

Finally you understand you are everything. There is no ego in it. It is just the realization of truth.

Dear Sravna,

If strength exists that means weakness too exists...can weakness too be part of our Glory?

If we just call our strength and weaknesses as Attributes there would no need for the word Glory and Ahamkara too wont have fertile grounds to sprout.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

If strength exists that means weakness too exists...can weakness too be part of our Glory?

If we just call our strength and weaknesses as Attributes there would no need for the word Glory and Ahamkara too wont have fertile grounds to sprout.

Dear Renuka,

The more you know yourself the less your ego becomes. So by the time you know yourself completely, the ego would have totally vanished. Ego exists only when you do not understand yourself properly. Since your inner self is God, you are full of strengths. It is only by gradual understanding of that you progress and keep overcoming your weaknesses.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

The more you know yourself the less your ego becomes. So by the time you know yourself completely, the ego would have totally vanished. Ego exists only when you do not understand yourself properly. Since your inner self is God, you are full of strengths. It is only by gradual understanding of that you progress and keep overcoming your weaknesses.

Dear Sravna,

Strength is still an attribute....Inner Self is sans attributes.

So can we try to imagine a state which is not stained with duality of the strength and weakness kind?

That is why its hard to decipher Brahman..everything exists in Brahman...yet nothing stains Brahman.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Strength is still an attribute....Inner Self is sans attributes.

So can we try to imagine a state which is not stained with duality of the strength and weakness kind?

That is why its hard to decipher Brahman..everything exists in Brahman...yet nothing stains Brahman.

Dear Renuka,

Let us try to talk in a general way without the influence of advaita. Once the general understanding becomes better, understanding of all philosophies become better.

Don't you call yourself as strong when you are fully adequate? Duality comes in only as long as there is inadequacy. So the strength I am talking about is one when you are fully adequate by yourself which is the state of brahman as said in advaita.

A number of people mistakenly take the position that brahman can possess no attributes in a literal sense. I believe the real case is brahman does not possess anything in excess or in deficiency and so there is nothing that projects itself as an attribute. That is the way I think one should understand the nirguna state.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,



Don't you call yourself as strong when you are fully adequate? Duality comes in only as long as there is inadequacy. So the strength I am talking about is one when you are fully adequate by yourself which is the state of brahman as said in advaita.

.

Dear Sravna,

I do not call myself strong when I am feel fully "adequate"..does adequate even exists?

Strength is our perception..to reach that state we have to tide thru a series of weaknesses in our mind.

Even the feeling of victory can come with regret later.

Many soldiers who have fought bravely in wars in the past regret that they had to resort to killing.

As a human I might from time to time feel that I have some strength to face any situation but when that slight puffed up feeling comes a small cockroach can bring my ego down cos I can scream the roof down if a cockroach flies around me!LOL

So what strength yaar...can I fight a Lion? Can I fight forces of Nature?

Nope..I can't...we can't even fight our own emotions sometimes.

Technically...strength or weakness..both are merely momentary.