What is our point of Focus?

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Today has been a good day in Forum..it has been kind of dull for sometime and a thread on Porn as the causative factor for rape etc has made everyone alive and kicking again!LOL

So when a mind is active we can actually think of anything and everything.

Suddenly this thought came to me and I thought I will share it with everyone here.

The question is "What is our point of Focus?"

Can we focus without a point to focus on?

Sounds confusing? Keep on reading?


We humans at first do anything or any work for personal gain..the next step is we are asked to dedicate the actions to God.


Actually even in dedicating the actions to God we just shift the point of focus to outside of us..as to make it less selfish.


Then we realize that actually even that makes us do things for motive.
For God no doubt but its supposedly "better" than doing anything for ourselves..but nevertheless it's still with a motive.


So technically its not yet Karmanyevadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadacana cos the motive here is God and whatever said and done a motive is still a motive.


Then the next step is do things in auto pilot mode..that is just do our duty without thinking of anything even God..cos if just say if God was "not there" would we still do the right action?


One needs to imagine if God was "not there" too..right action should still go on

Most people do good for the fear of the Sin or Devil or fear of a bad karma and a bad next life.

Remember Khalil Gibran wrote about the the Devil and the Christian Priest where the devil was injured and at first the priest did not want to help the Devil and then the Devil explained how important the Devil is in making people fear him in order to pray or even do good and finally the priest helps him?


Likewise one need not make God the motivation factor eventually..only then we can gauge our own strength to still remain good.


Sometime giving up the concept of God helps you know your true self.

So the question is "What is our point of Focus"...dare to imagine if God was 'not there'?

Would you still remain good?

 

[krish44]

it is not fear of GOD alone that makes one remain good. it is fear of authorities [law enforcing and others]. besides
inability to do anything of our choice is due to the fear of become unstuck and become objects of ridicule and derision by relations and society at large.
falling into a cycle of duty is also a self delusion to keep going while doing good things as per ones beliefs instead of belief in god
or such beings. God or no god ,a person is what he is. he has to find a reason to be good in order to be good.
there appears to be not many incentives to be a good being denying oneself all the pleasures while fulflling various chores under the head of duty.
sensible to break free and riunning away from it all or become a drop out in somecorner of the globe without an identity.
the hippies did it in sixties and early seventies. not a bad option really

 

[Raji Ram]

............... Sometime giving up the concept of God helps you know your true self.

So the question is "What is our point of Focus"...dare to imagine if God was 'not there'?

Would you still remain good?

Dear Renu,

Are you serious about starting an Ashram soon?

Courtesy: Google images

 

[Raji Ram]

We can NEVER commit any sin IFF...

1. The policy in life is ''Live and let live''. eace:

2. The daily prayer is ''sarvE janA sukhinO bhavanthu''. ray:

 

[renuka]

dear renu,

are you serious about starting an ashram soon?

courtesy: Google images

lol!

 

[indianassault]

Renuka Madam,
For Grihasthas it doesnt matter if God isnt there. ( They have their wife ) .

 

[tks]

Dr Renu

I have no intent or focus to attack a post or expression


The opening post in my view arises out of confusion, sustains in confusion and will eventually wither away in confusion !

Motive sounds sometimes a bad word. All beings and not just human beings are driven for self surviva. Even the act of getting up in the morning we have a motive or goal to live or if we take a step towards the kitchen we have a motive to get there.

All beings are endowed with desire just like we are endowed with the need to survive.

The pursuit of security and fulfilling our desire is not we decided to follow but programmed so.

I left home when I was very young and in my home there was no requirements that I must do things for some God. If we go to a temple I will do what everyone else did and no one bothered me to do this or not do this provided I did not do anything extreme. Whatever I know about any religion was due to voluntary effort. So I am unable to relate to large number of statements about 'we are taught' etc because I was not taught so.

If someone tells me to do this for God my question would be why, and why should that God want me to do this? I was not exposed to vengeful, surrender demanding Isvara and I never had to do anything that I did not understand the reasons for.

No act by itself is good or bad. Killing another person may be good in certain situations.
In another society todays ideas of acquiring wealth without doing any work (like an investor) could be considered bad.

This idea that this God is good is meaningless too because if this God created everything then the same God created the most vile aspects of living also. The rapists and mind of rapist or sex slavery, child slavery, factory farming of animals, serial killers to name a few are God's creation too. Saying man did this is not justified since man does not have independent existence.

Good and bad are subjective to place and time and one does not need idea of God to be good or bad or lack of idea of God to 'test self' if one is good.

If the pupose / motive is to get people engaged it is happening LoL

 

[tks]

Dear Renu,

Are you serious about starting an Ashram soon?

Courtesy: Google images

It is amusing to note that almost everyone has to carry something .. I guess it must make them feel part of doing something

 

[munsaamy]

So the question is "What is our point of Focus"...dare to imagine if God was 'not there'?

Would you still remain good?

I realised long ago "there is no God". I remain good. I know that. No, I don't need any certificate from others.

Most of the times, my 'point of focus' is my immediate surroundings. Instead of trying to block them out, I focus on them. Slowly my mind lose interest and the immediate surrounding fade away.

I have not tried to think of 'nothing' yet. But I know I don't need a 'point of focus'.

 

[biswa]

Sorry folks, I dont agree that we have to ascribe every motive to God, profit or even to fear. It may be true for many people, but not for all cases.

A simple example is charity. I am certainly not a Mahatma, but I do some small charity just because I can (financially). Renuka for example may see some patients for a discount. None of this is to obtain any benefit for ourselves, but because we realize that we dont need to live just for ourselves and it actually feels good to give.

 

[biswa]

Mrs RR,

Definitely aspirational thoughts. However let's say somebody comes to your house and steals one of your sarees or one of your gold bangles. How do you think people should react?

We can NEVER commit any sin IFF...

1. The policy in life is ''Live and let live''. eace:

2. The daily prayer is ''sarvE janA sukhinO bhavanthu''. ray:

 

[renuka]

Dr Renu


Motive sounds sometimes a bad word. All beings and not just human beings are driven for self surviva. Even the act of getting up in the morning we have a motive or goal to live or if we take a step towards the kitchen we have a motive to get there.

All beings are endowed with desire just like we are endowed with the need to survive.

The pursuit of security and fulfilling our desire is not we decided to follow but programmed so.

I left home when I was very young and in my home there was no requirements that I must do things for some God. If we go to a temple I will do what everyone else did and no one bothered me to do this or not do this provided I did not do anything extreme. Whatever I know about any religion was due to voluntary effort. So I am unable to relate to large number of statements about 'we are taught' etc because I was not taught so.

If someone tells me to do this for God my question would be why, and why should that God want me to do this? I was not exposed to vengeful, surrender demanding Isvara and I never had to do anything that I did not understand the reasons for.

No act by itself is good or bad. Killing another person may be good in certain situations.
In another society todays ideas of acquiring wealth without doing any work (like an investor) could be considered bad.

This idea that this God is good is meaningless too because if this God created everything then the same God created the most vile aspects of living also. The rapists and mind of rapist or sex slavery, child slavery, factory farming of animals, serial killers to name a few are God's creation too. Saying man did this is not justified since man does not have independent existence.

Good and bad are subjective to place and time and one does not need idea of God to be good or bad or lack of idea of God to 'test self' if one is good.

If the pupose / motive is to get people engaged it is happening LoL

Dear TKS ji,

I would like to make it a little clearer..I am not endorsing the God is Good or God is Bad.

I am sure everyone knows that God is beyond Duality but God is NOT responsible for our actions.

This has to be clearly understood that the same Universal Consciousness is in a saint and in a rapist but It is not responsible for the apparent good behavior of the saint or the criminal act of
the rapist.

Bhagavad Geeta is very clear on that the Supreme Self though present in every being does not act and neither It is tainted.

So technically we can NOT hold God responsible for any of our actions...be it good or bad.


Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.

Being without beginning and devoid of (any) qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

 

[Raji Ram]

It is amusing to note that almost everyone has to carry something .. I guess it must make them feel part of doing something

These ladies carry either poorNa kumbam or flowers to welcome the Mataji!

A few mAmAs (full dress except one!!) also do the same. This is called 'poorNa kumba mariyAdhai varavERpu'!! :hail:

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

I would like to make it a little clearer..I am not endorsing the God is Good or God is Bad.

I am sure everyone knows that God is beyond Duality but God is NOT responsible for our action.


This has to be clearly understood that the same Universal Consciousness is in a saint and in a rapist but It is not responsible for the apparent good behavior of the saint and the criminal act of
the rapist.

Bhagavad Geeta is very clear on that the Supreme Self though present in every being does not act and neither It is tainted.

So technically we can NOT hold God responsible for any of our actions.

Dr Renu

Those verses in B.Gita describe something else altogether . Also it would make no sense why someone would create a situation like that .Be everywhere, watch and see what the created thing is doing.

Imagine an engineer creating a group of robots, building some algorithms for their action and watching it to see what the robot does and see 'robot is taking responsibility' - whatever that would mean. Such an engineer will need psychiatric help. Why do you want to accord this kind of reasoning for the God of the cosmos.

Holding God responsible itself is a phrase that would be meaningless - to even do so would mean each and every one of us must have independent existence which will negate the very definition of this so called God...

To me the scriptures are not the authority by themselves simply because something seems to be asserted in our mind.

It is opposite - scriptures may teach an area that is outside of our fundamental ability to learn but it has to be consistent with all our logical thinking faculty. We think those scriptures are reasonable only because the teaching is understandable and is not ludicrous.

The verse if interpreted that way will lead to many contradictions with other verses.

The simple truth we observe by our own experience is that those that take 100% responsibility for their action (not results) tend to be more successful. So one does not need to blame anyone else including so called God or even need validation via some scripture which in this case is not even applicable.

 

[munsaamy]

These ladies carry either poorNa kumbam or flowers to welcome the Mataji! walking!

A few mAmAs (full dress except one!!) also do the same. This is called 'poorNa kumba mariyAdhai varavERpu'!! :hail:

I am touched by the humility of Mataji. She is walking! :hail:

 

[Raji Ram]

.......... Definitely aspirational thoughts. However let's say somebody comes to your house and steals one of your sarees or one of your gold bangles. How do you think people should react?

Dear Biswa Sir,

If the person is close to me, then I have to think that I owe that person something, at least in my previous birth!

If the person is unknown and a gold bangle stolen, then the reaction would be similar to what most of us would react!

BTW, I had a servant maid who took away most of the small vessels from my kitchen till I noticed a set of katOris missing;

I just waited for a chance to catch her red handed and when she was pushing my saree into her bag, I fired her. Did not ask

to return the saree too!

 

[munsaamy]

Mrs RR,

Definitely aspirational thoughts. However let's say somebody comes to your house and steals one of your sarees or one of your gold bangles. How do you think people should react?

I am sure RR is capable of providing a suitable answer.

But I couldn't help but smile thinking of this answer - " Well, RR would claim the replacement value from the insurance company. She may or may not replace the articles. RR sincerely thinks, the thief stole only to feed his family and goes away chanting " sarve jana sukino bhavanthu'!"

 

[renuka]

Dr Renu

Those verses in B.Gita describe something else altogether . Also it would make no sense why someone would create a situation like that .Be everywhere, watch and see what the created thing is doing.

.

Dear TKS ji,

I have noted that this seems to be your punch dialogue these days..

.Those verses in B.Gita describe something else altogether

but you never explain what those verse should actually mean according to your opinion!LOL

BTW to a certain extent you are holding on to a rather Abrahamic concept of God where God created everything good or bad with a magic wand.

As far as I know the concept of God and actions known to us is very much like what Swami Gambhirananda explains as below:


32. Being without beginning and devoid of (any) qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

Sankara Bhashya
(Swami Gambiranda's Translation and Commentary)

If the same Self be the Self in all the bodies, then there arises the possiblity of Its association with their defects. Hence this is said:

32. Being without beginning and without qualities, O son of Kunti, this immutable, supreme Self does not act, nor is It affected [Also translated as tainted.-Tr.], although existing in the body.

Anadivat, being without beginning: Adih means cause; that which has no cause is anadih. That which has a cause undergoes loss of its own characteristics. But this One, being causeless, has no parts. This being so, It does not suffer loss.

So also, nirgunatvat, being without qualities: indeed, It is only something possessing qualities that perishes owing to the losss of its qualities. But this One, being without qualities, does not perish. Hence, ayam, this; paramatma, supreme Self; is avyayah, immutable. It suffers no depletion. Therefore It is immutable. Since this is so, therefore, api, although; sarira-sthah, existing in the body-since the perception of the Self occurs in the bodies, It is said to be 'existing in the body'; even then, It na, does not; karoti, act. From the very fact that It does not act, It na, is not; lipyate, affected by the result of any action. For, one who is an agent of action becomes affected by its result. But this One is not an agent. Hence It is not affected by any result. This is the meaning.

Objection: Who is it, again, that acts in the body and becomes affected? On the one hand, if there be some embodied being other than the supreme Self who acts and becomes affected, then it has been improper to say in, 'And also understand Me to be the Knower of the field,' etc., that the Knower of the field and God are one. Again, if there be no embodied being who is different from God, then it has to be stated who is it that acts and gets affected. Or it has to be asserted that the supreme One does not exist. [If the supreme One also acts like us, then He is no God.]

Thus, since the Upanisadic philosophy as stated by the Lord is in every way difficult to understand and difficult to explain, it has therefore been abandoned by the Vaisesikas, the Sankhyas, the Jainas and the Buddhists.

Reply: As to that, the following refutation has been stated by the Lord Himself in, 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Indeed, Nature, which is nothing but ignorance, acts and becomes affected. In this way empirical dealing becomes possible; but in reality it does not occur in the one supreme Self.

It has been accordingly shown by the Lord in various places that there is no duty to be performed by those who adhere to this philosophy of discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality, who are steadfast in Knowledge, who have spurned actions arising out of ignorance, and who are mendicants belonging to the highest Order of monks.




https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/advaitin/conversations/topics/44584

 

[SANDHYAV]

tHE POINT OF FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS '.' iT WILL SHIFT TO 'I' AND THEN OURS IN THE FOLLOWING

 

[SANDHYAV]

'.'A point is the most important while maintaining a TREE POSE in Yoga. The Pose for nurturing Balance. My apologies for the upper case/lower case.

 

[SANDHYAV]

'i'apart from the point climbing on top of a small straight line, it is I, who take and make things out of anything and everything that is said here or for that matter any GOD, literature, practices.

 

[SANDHYAV]

'ours'is a collective connectedness. for example, i pay 50k INR for an organisation in a particular religion, but cannot be that complete ours attending all the functions and formalities of that organisation! so 'ours' is detachment in attachment, if that makes sense?

 

[munsaamy]

'.'A point is the most important while maintaining a TREE POSE in Yoga. The Pose for nurturing Balance. My apologies for the upper case/lower case.

Yoga is not really needed to meditate.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

I have noted that this seems to be your punch dialogue these days.. but you never explain what those verse should actually mean according to your opinion!LOL

BTW to a certain extent you are holding on to a rather Abrahamic concept of God where God created everything good or bad with a magic wand.

As far as I know the concept of God and actions known to us is very much like what Swami Gambhirananda explains as below:


32. Being without beginning and devoid of (any) qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

Sankara Bhashya
(Swami Gambiranda's Translation and Commentary)

If the same Self be the Self in all the bodies, then there arises the possiblity of Its association with their defects. Hence this is said:

32. Being without beginning and without qualities, O son of Kunti, this immutable, supreme Self does not act, nor is It affected [Also translated as tainted.-Tr.], although existing in the body.

Anadivat, being without beginning: Adih means cause; that which has no cause is anadih. That which has a cause undergoes loss of its own characteristics. But this One, being causeless, has no parts. This being so, It does not suffer loss.

So also, nirgunatvat, being without qualities: indeed, It is only something possessing qualities that perishes owing to the losss of its qualities. But this One, being without qualities, does not perish. Hence, ayam, this; paramatma, supreme Self; is avyayah, immutable. It suffers no depletion. Therefore It is immutable. Since this is so, therefore, api, although; sarira-sthah, existing in the body-since the perception of the Self occurs in the bodies, It is said to be 'existing in the body'; even then, It na, does not; karoti, act. From the very fact that It does not act, It na, is not; lipyate, affected by the result of any action. For, one who is an agent of action becomes affected by its result. But this One is not an agent. Hence It is not affected by any result. This is the meaning.

Objection: Who is it, again, that acts in the body and becomes affected? On the one hand, if there be some embodied being other than the supreme Self who acts and becomes affected, then it has been improper to say in, 'And also understand Me to be the Knower of the field,' etc., that the Knower of the field and God are one. Again, if there be no embodied being who is different from God, then it has to be stated who is it that acts and gets affected. Or it has to be asserted that the supreme One does not exist. [If the supreme One also acts like us, then He is no God.]

Thus, since the Upanisadic philosophy as stated by the Lord is in every way difficult to understand and difficult to explain, it has therefore been abandoned by the Vaisesikas, the Sankhyas, the Jainas and the Buddhists.

Reply: As to that, the following refutation has been stated by the Lord Himself in, 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Indeed, Nature, which is nothing but ignorance, acts and becomes affected. In this way empirical dealing becomes possible; but in reality it does not occur in the one supreme Self.

It has been accordingly shown by the Lord in various places that there is no duty to be performed by those who adhere to this philosophy of discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality, who are steadfast in Knowledge, who have spurned actions arising out of ignorance, and who are mendicants belonging to the highest Order of monks.




https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/advaitin/conversations/topics/44584

First, the citation has nothing to do with the interpretation you offered . That is it easy to point out. Also it is easier to point out contradictions of a given position in a forum like this than explain for which this forum is not a suitable vehicle. To cite one such contradiction let me use what was stated in another thread recently

Sri Sangom offered a verse from chapter 11
तस्मात्त्वमुक्तिष्ठ यशो लभस्व जित्वा शत्रून्भुङ्‍क्ष्व राज्यं समृद्धम्‌ ।
मयैवैते निहताः पूर्वमेव निमित्तमात्रं भव सव्यसाचिन्‌ ॥

Here is the post

Here the same Lord says I have already killed, you are merely an instrument (to paraphrase)

Second, citation you provided says this
"Thus, since the Upanisadic philosophy as stated by the Lord is in every way difficult to understand and difficult to explain,..."

This topic area is not simple because of extent of unlearning needed and amount of focused study needed under proper teacher - often lifetimes are needed to understand such that there are no contradictions - That is also other punch lines I have used.

(I have no issue with the citation part)

Three, I did not say anything about magic wand or anything. All I said is that in discussing about Good or Bad we find in the world those are relative descriptions based on time and place. And if there is only one God who created all those Good and Bad? Why create all those vile items? In asking a question I am only trying to point out contradictions.

I will tell you a different example.

You being a Doctor may or may not have come across a patient like this. I know one such person.
He will read all kinds of stuff available and when he goes to the Doctor he will say - I am not well .. too much oil in the river, spleen may be overacting etc etc. He will say perhaps the digestive enzymes may be missing and perhaps I am not producing this enzyme.

All a Doctor can say - "OK tell me your symptoms, just answer my questions and if you want to study Medicine go to a proper Medical School".

If the person insists on saying why do you think oil is not in my liver - you may say -well liver is there, that is your genital you are pointing to trying to point out a contradiction. .

If the person insists - then you tell me where the liver is , and how it works the Doctor may say - take an anatomy class ,enroll in a program

 

[renuka]

Sri Sangom offered a verse from chapter 11
तस्मात्त्वमुक्तिष्ठ यशो लभस्व जित्वा शत्रून्भुङ्‍क्ष्व राज्यं समृद्धम्‌ ।
मयैवैते निहताः पूर्वमेव निमित्तमात्रं भव सव्यसाचिन्‌ ॥

Here is the post

Here the same Lord says I have already killed, you are merely an instrument (to paraphrase)

I was waiting for you to quote this stanza TKS ji..in fact I had seen this post of Sangom ji in Msian Airlines post but I did not reply anything there cos I did not want to sound insensitive to others who were in grief for missing loved ones.


Ok let me answer you.

God assumes a form called Kala..that is Time..Time "devours" everything eventually..devours as not in killing anyone just for fun sake but Time eventually just unfolds to us the sequence of events that is destined to happen per our Karmic dictates.

So please kindly read that text with the concept of Kala in your mind.

Yes we are our own instrument cos we act out of ignorance and the body is the instrument to carry out the action that is the reaction to the seeds we sowed.

I know you will not agree with me but this is my opinion and I am not wrong to cite the Kala concept of God here.