Dear Srimathi HH Ji,
You are very correct in your examples. Our scriptures say that the karma and it's phala are mainly to 'age' us in our spiritual lives. The brilliance of our religion is that different Sambradhayams sprang up to appeal to different proclivities and mind sets and spiritual ages of the souls.
What I said about 'Maya', I said in terms of what some people say. I myself, being attracted to the concept of Advaitha, believe that it is true in my spiritual world.
When someone asked Ramana Maharishi whether the Gods like Shiva and Vishnu actually existed, He said that they did exist because people believed they did.
I do not know the answer to your last question. If I 'knew' the answer, I wouldn't be posting in this Forum. Does it really matter? I leave such heavy intellectual metaphysics discussions to others, who claim they know it all.
Namaskarams,
KRS
You are very correct in your examples. Our scriptures say that the karma and it's phala are mainly to 'age' us in our spiritual lives. The brilliance of our religion is that different Sambradhayams sprang up to appeal to different proclivities and mind sets and spiritual ages of the souls.
What I said about 'Maya', I said in terms of what some people say. I myself, being attracted to the concept of Advaitha, believe that it is true in my spiritual world.
When someone asked Ramana Maharishi whether the Gods like Shiva and Vishnu actually existed, He said that they did exist because people believed they did.
I do not know the answer to your last question. If I 'knew' the answer, I wouldn't be posting in this Forum. Does it really matter? I leave such heavy intellectual metaphysics discussions to others, who claim they know it all.
Namaskarams,
KRS
Sri KRS-ji,
As a beginner, am saying this:
The topic of maya as you have rightly said troubles many.
To a physicist all that appears here may look like real. It exists. And it would be difficult for him to write every single thing off as an illusion or reduce it non-existentiality. To him brahman may more likely be saguna.
To a man cutting up a dead body in a mortuary all that appears here may look like surreal. He thinks something more might exist that what is seen. It would be difficult for him to write off stuff as only 'the seen'. To him brahman may more likely be nirguna.
To a yogi looking at both saguna and nirguna within his self, all that appears around him may seem to be the manifestation of nirguna mana in saguna aakara. He might say various siddhis makes one acquire the possibility of taking on any physical form. Can be take on the form of full roopam of Mahavishnu ? Can ? How about the other stuff - can he be the 'Narayana' that floats on water? The Narayanaupanishad says 'nishkalo niranjano nirvikalpo niraakhyatah: (nira-khyata = non-cognitive? beyond congnition?) shudho dev eko narayanah:, na dvitiyosti kaschit (there is no second?). Would this be advaitha or qualified advaitha? I hope sri mmji wud answer this. KRSji, i hope you would answer this too sir. And others too.
[Am adding this note for MMji:
There are times when i make the most stupidest of all comments - to bring out info from the other person. There are also certian times when i say things the other person wants to hear - to appease or understand the other person better. In either case, its coz there is nothing personal to hold on to. We are here today, gone tomorrow. Nothing lasts. I say this to let you know that I may be making difficult comments on this thread in future that may not be pleasing to hear. Kindly bear with me coz the idea is merely to understand, not to establish anything]