YogiSource.com my account | view cart | customer service
 Search:    
Welcome to the new Yoga.com Forums home!
For future visits, link to "http://www.YogiSource.com/forums".
Make a new bookmark.
Tell your friends so they can find us and you!

Coming soon ... exciting new changes for our website, now at YogiSource.com.

Search | Statistics | User Listing View All Forums
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )



What is God
Moderators: Moderators

Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Yoga -> Philosophy and ReligionMessage format
 
naveen182
Posted 2007-08-04 4:03 PM (#93484)
Subject: What is God


Hi,

For hundreds of years (or even thousands?) humans are trying to solve the mystery of God. Some people say that it is only an idea (such as Love, Truth etc) but some people say that it is very real (a thinking higher Power). How can we rule out that all these concepts, opinions, experiences, enlightenment are nothing but just a higher state of human mind? If the enlightened people are really finding the Truth, why do they differ from each other? Like Sri Aurobindo contradicts Buddha about Nirvana etc.

Are there any instances where the communication with God is not just associated with a blissful state of mind?






Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-08-04 10:05 PM (#93496 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God


What you are asking about is "Philosophy". And, what you are trying to get at is "Experience". All who are discussing and arguing and contradicting are doing so in relation to "Philosophy". And, that is correct to do so. Those who are experienced know that it is ONE and the SAME thing.

ekam sat sadvipraa bahudaa vadanti.... Upanishad.

Those who have experience and who choose to express it, again talk Philosophy in a way which tries to explain their experience. Experience can not be described exactly in words.

For example, a mother can not described exactly what mother is to a one who has not become mother yet. However, all mothers describe their idea of motherhood in a different way. However, the motherhood is exactly same as experienced by all mothers. (I am talking this without being a mother!!!!).

When it comes to Philosophy, it comes to logic, knowledge, langauge and if applicable experience.

When it comes experience, it ONLY comes to Experience. And, there is nothing to talk.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
tweeva
Posted 2007-08-06 9:43 AM (#93587 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God



Veteran

Posts: 101
100
Very interesting question

One keeps trying to apply logic to a subject that is beyond human comprehension and cannot be defined or captured in words. But hey, we're only human aren't we?
All that is said, written down or thought about what some call God, it is and it is not, by definition.
Consider the following poem:


The Blind Man and the Elephant

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant~(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation~Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, ~ At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant ~ Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here?
So very round and smooth and sharp? ~ To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant ~ Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, ~ Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like ~ Is mighty plain," quoth her;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant ~ Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most; ~ Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant ~ Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail ~ That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a rope!

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion ~ Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right ~ And all were in the wrong!

Moral

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

-John Godfrey Saxe



Please do not misinterpret me: I would not dare to compare the Buddha with a Blind Man (oops, I'm afraid I just did)

We should not take the words (especially not the transcripts) of an "enlightened person" too literally, as this is applying logic . We should rather let the words (and silences) "resonate" within ourselves to discover their raison d'etre.

God is. It is beyond our comprehension. It can only be experienced.

Just an opinion of (etc)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
naveen182
Posted 2007-08-06 11:49 AM (#93615 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God


kulkarnn and tweeva,

Thank you very much for your wonderful responses.

Both the responses pretty much convey the same message. Different mothers describing the idea of motherhood differently and blind persons describing the elephant differently.

If what you said is true, can I say the following?

If a champion enlightened person like Buddha can be blind (no no even I do not dare to call him anything, but just for the sake of our discussion), then what is the surity that we are touching an elephant in the first place? May be it is a tree? In reality a blind person will know that it is an elephant only when a normal person tells it is. If enlightened persons are blind, then who can tell the Truth?

How do we know that all the experiences are not just some chemical changes in our brain? It can be God or it can be just creation of our own mind. Can be an elephant or a tree.


If down the road, let us say in thousand years, what if the humans explore the brain so much that they can actually transform a normal person into a Buddha or Ramakrishna Paramahamsa in the operation theater? Sounds weird, but my intention is not to disgrace these great souls.





Top of the page Bottom of the page
SCThornley
Posted 2007-08-06 11:59 AM (#93616 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God


I like to consider that reality is God, but one's perception corrupts the purity of it, so through practice we might consider more of what God is.
Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-08-06 12:34 PM (#93624 - in reply to #93616)
Subject: RE: What is God




Words (thoughts, ideas, concepts, philosophy, religion etc) are to God

what a menu is to a meal.

Edited by jimg 2007-08-06 12:35 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-08-06 5:07 PM (#93641 - in reply to #93615)
Subject: RE: What is God


I do not know where you are coming from. There is no doubt lot of imagination in your question. But, I shall try my best. See ===> below.
naveen182 - 2007-08-06 11:49 AM

kulkarnn and tweeva,

Thank you very much for your wonderful responses.

Both the responses pretty much convey the same message. Different mothers describing the idea of motherhood differently and blind persons describing the elephant differently.

If what you said is true, can I say the following?

If a champion enlightened person like Buddha can be blind (no no even I do not dare to call him anything, but just for the sake of our discussion), then what is the surity that we are touching an elephant in the first place? May be it is a tree? In reality a blind person will know that it is an elephant only when a normal person tells it is. If enlightened persons are blind, then who can tell the Truth?
===> First, I wish to make correction. You should not use the word 'champion' which is generally used in a competitive spirit.

===> But, your question is very relevant. If the original person was blind, it will be a blind leading other blinds. But, even if the original person was Enlightened, the others will not realize that until they themselves become realized. And, that is why 'whether the realization state really exists or not' is an element which can ONLY be resolved by one process, that is called Trust, Faith, Shraddha, Belief, Devotion, whatever you can term it. Without that one can not practice, and without practice one shall not experience, and unless one experiences, one shall not realize, and unless one realizes, one does not know the original person was Realized or not.



How do we know that all the experiences are not just some chemical changes in our brain? It can be God or it can be just creation of our own mind. Can be an elephant or a tree.
===> This statement mundane. Because, that assumes Chemical Process describes or defines everything. And, it is already known that knowledge of chemical processes have not solved the problems.



If down the road, let us say in thousand years, what if the humans explore the brain so much that they can actually transform a normal person into a Buddha or Ramakrishna Paramahamsa in the operation theater? Sounds weird, but my intention is not to disgrace these great souls.

===> Do not worry about disgracing them. They are so great that they can never be disgraced. Your statement here is an assumption about possibility of exploration of human brian. And, that exploration so far has failed to transform the person from evil to oridinary or ordinary to extra ordinary. But, actually in most cases it has gone in the opposite direction.




Top of the page Bottom of the page
jonnie
Posted 2007-08-07 12:12 AM (#93663 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God


I always find it interesting that when faced with the mystery of God, the general instinct of the East is to bow down and worship, while in the West we have this need to attempt to deconstruct, analyse, measure and attempt to solve the mystery without realising that it can't be solved.

Jonathon
Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-08-07 12:17 PM (#93690 - in reply to #93663)
Subject: RE: What is God


The East was already analyzing, measuring and attempting to solve the mystery of God when the West was still bowing down and worshiping trees. There is no Eastern or Western instinct. There is only human instinct, and that is common to us all, both in ancient times and right now. People have always approched the mystery of God from different perspectives. If this were not true, then why would the the Bhagavad Gita mention both Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
jonnie
Posted 2007-08-07 2:04 PM (#93697 - in reply to #93690)
Subject: RE: What is God


Hi Jim,

While the Gita does mention both Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga, I'm not sure that either discpline involves 'analyzing, measuring and attempting to solve the mystery of God'.

Bhakti Yoga involves devotion to God, while Jnana Yoga teaches us to differentiate between what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (Maya).

So a more appropriate description of Jnana Yoga is to determine what ISN"T God.

Jonathon
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-08-07 2:29 PM (#93699 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God


Dear jimg:
What I notice or feel is:

What Jonnie wrote about east verses west is: what he or we are observing in the present times. That is obvious from the questionaire in the original post. You shall notice by analysing this very bulletin board which has thousands of posts by this time, that Easterners are not getting that type of questions as much as Westerners.

What you are saying is related to past time. But, even then, there is a difference in Bowing down to trees and solving the mystery of God. I do not like the term 'solving mystery of God'. But, even if I decide to use it, in the context of the original post, I think it would mean 'Self Realization' to me.

Now, what you quoted using Shrimad Bhagavadgita is not applicable here, exactly. See this:

- First in Bhagavadgita, the Bhakti and Jnana refer to two Paths to follow to the same goal. They are not attempts to solve the mystery of God.

- These two paths are not inventive in a way. The verse which opens this path in Shrimad BG states: puraa proktaa mayaanagha... jnaanayogena sankhyaanaam and karmayogena yoginaam. In SBG, yoga is the science of practice where Bhakti is one of them. Jnana is the culmination of mental state which results from such practice and then the nature of the practice becomes discriminative as described by Jonnie. Above all, puraa proktaa mayaanagha... means I myself (Shree Krisna, the God, or incarnation) already stated firmly (not in innovative way or finding way) two paths dependingon the tendencies of the Spiritual Seeker. Thus, they are not attempts to find mystery of God, but already stated firm paths which one has trade depending on their tendency, NOT choice. A person who is not ready for Jnanayoga shall not be able to succeed in that path. And, that is what is happening with a) formless worships, b) self enquiry c) living in the presence without having to do any practice, etc.

I do not mean to offend, but am only stating my view.

Peace
Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-08-07 3:53 PM (#93703 - in reply to #93697)
Subject: RE: What is God


Hi Jonathon,
Firstly, I very much like your description of Jnana Yoga. Secondly, my point was that there are different "paths" with the devotional (Bhakti) and the philosophical (Jnana) being two time honored tradition in both the East and the West. There have always been both philosophers and mystics in every culture as we are all one, humans, not competing ideologies or cultures. We only view ourselves as belonging to a particular ideology or culture as we are seeking security in that belief. This comes from the primitive need for identification with the tribe as this offered security. Since we no longer live in that setting, the desire for tribal identification only leads to close-mindedness, fundamentalism, war, suffering and even genocide. Don't we all gain a lot more from acknowledging how we are the same rather than pointing out superficial differences?
Namaste,
Jim
Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-08-07 6:07 PM (#93712 - in reply to #93699)
Subject: RE: What is God


kulkarnn - 2007-08-07 2:29 PM

I do not like the term 'solving mystery of God'. But, even if I decide to use it, in the context of the original post, I think it would mean 'Self Realization' to me.

- First in Bhagavadgita, the Bhakti and Jnana refer to two Paths to follow to the same goal. They are not attempts to solve the mystery of God.

Hi Neel,
Isn't the "mystery of God" the same as 'Self Realization' as you say? Isn't the goal of Bhagavadgita "Self Realization"? That is how I understand it from the various English translations but they may be misleading, as I understand that translations are also interpretations.
Please clarify.
Thanks,
Jim

Top of the page Bottom of the page
jonnie
Posted 2007-08-07 11:27 PM (#93727 - in reply to #93703)
Subject: RE: What is God


jimg - 2007-08-08 11:53 PM

Hi Jonathon,
Firstly, I very much like your description of Jnana Yoga. Secondly, my point was that there are different "paths" with the devotional (Bhakti) and the philosophical (Jnana) being two time honored tradition in both the East and the West. There have always been both philosophers and mystics in every culture as we are all one, humans, not competing ideologies or cultures. We only view ourselves as belonging to a particular ideology or culture as we are seeking security in that belief. This comes from the primitive need for identification with the tribe as this offered security. Since we no longer live in that setting, the desire for tribal identification only leads to close-mindedness, fundamentalism, war, suffering and even genocide. Don't we all gain a lot more from acknowledging how we are the same rather than pointing out superficial differences?
Namaste,
Jim


Hi Jim,

Then we are in agreement then.

Though I would add that practical Advaita and theoretical Advaita are very different disciplines.

In theoretical Advaita, the Self is the only reality, there is no path and we are all already awakened.

Though in practical Advaita the student knows that there is a long way to go before the truth of these statements can become our living truth.

There is no Path, but only for those who have Completed it.

Jonathon


Edited by jonnie 2007-08-07 11:28 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-08-07 11:46 PM (#93732 - in reply to #93727)
Subject: RE: What is God


jonnie - 2007-08-07 11:27 PM

[
There is no Path, but only for those who have Completed it.

Jonathon


Excellent!!!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
jonnie
Posted 2007-08-07 11:51 PM (#93734 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God


Thankyou.

Self Realisation is the reason I practise Yoga, though I still have a long way to go.

Jonathon
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-08-07 11:57 PM (#93735 - in reply to #93703)
Subject: RE: What is God


Dear Jim: Actually, this statement is NOT hundred percent true. As I wrote above, there is something called Experience of Truth/God/ETC. And, there is something called Philosophy. Please see my initial responses. What I said to naveen was: In the experience there is no difference. Only in Philosophy, there is always a difference.

Now, in response to your statement that clinging to ideology comes from tribal background of seeking security and such (whatever wording you have used) and comparing that once debating one's philosophy, they are two different things. In the true philosophical debate, there is NO fanaticism, and wars. As you can see that those who cling to 'Advaita' or even 'Dvaita' philosophies of India have never had created wars as you indicated. Actually, West has seen more wars as you shall agree, regardless of our equal love for the entire humanity. Agreed? If you disagree here, I have nothing further to say. But, the problems of war and such are not due to Philosophical idealogy, but due to making another person accept it by force, such as has been done by Romans, Greeks, and Muslims, etc..


jimg - 2007-08-07 3:53 PM

Hi Jonathon,
Firstly, I very much like your description of Jnana Yoga. Secondly, my point was that there are different "paths" with the devotional (Bhakti) and the philosophical (Jnana) being two time honored tradition in both the East and the West. There have always been both philosophers and mystics in every culture as we are all one, humans, not competing ideologies or cultures. We only view ourselves as belonging to a particular ideology or culture as we are seeking security in that belief. This comes from the primitive need for identification with the tribe as this offered security. Since we no longer live in that setting, the desire for tribal identification only leads to close-mindedness, fundamentalism, war, suffering and even genocide. Don't we all gain a lot more from acknowledging how we are the same rather than pointing out superficial differences?
Namaste,
Jim
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-08-08 12:13 AM (#93736 - in reply to #93712)
Subject: RE: What is God


Hi Jim: In this post, you have enacted a small portion of my previous response. Please read the entire response and its context. And, then relate it to the original post. Also, add this line to the previous response: Shrimad Bhagavadgita is a Philosophical Text (NOT religious, it is used as religious by many at later times) which summarizes the Philosophy of Upanishads, not of any other East and West and similarities, etc. And, in Bhgagavadgita all paths are divided into Yoga (also called as Karmayoga) and Jnana. In SBG, yoga does not mean what we call as Yoga on Yoga.com or even in Hathayogapradipika, or anywhere else. It is a combination of all Spiritual Practices. And, this practice is also called Yajna. And this practice can be any combination of Karma, Bhakti, Raja (Mediatation), Pooja, ETC. And, Jnana in SBG does not mean Jnanayoga as defined now a days as path of discrimination. It means the path which results automatically after Yoga is practiced, not our Yoga, but the one in SBG>

SBG is a very fluid text and it is extremely easy to read and sing. But, it is extremely difficult to comprehend as the meaning of words are to be taken properly in context and they have to be carried throughout the study. On the other hand, Patanjali Yoga Sutras is not a very easy text to read or sing, but the meanings are rather easy once you know them, I mean relative to SBG.


Let me repeat: Shrimad Bhagavadgita is much more comprehensive and fluid text, but it is more difficult. Whereas, Shree Patanjala Yogadarashan is relatively easier to comprehend, but is limited only to certain Yogic practices and philosophies.

What Jim is probably talking about is Spirituality which can be practiced by anybody and anywhere. And, of course the Self Realization is same at any place or with any person. But, that is not Philosophy. And, what Jonnie wrote about East and West is true in terms of Philosoophy. And, philosophical idealogy does not always create fanaticism or wars. And, original question is pertaining to philosophies. ETC. Philosophy tries to explain God. Explaining God is different from realizing it.

jimg - 2007-08-07 6:07 PM

kulkarnn - 2007-08-07 2:29 PM

I do not like the term 'solving mystery of God'. But, even if I decide to use it, in the context of the original post, I think it would mean 'Self Realization' to me.

- First in Bhagavadgita, the Bhakti and Jnana refer to two Paths to follow to the same goal. They are not attempts to solve the mystery of God.

Hi Neel,
Isn't the "mystery of God" the same as 'Self Realization' as you say? Isn't the goal of Bhagavadgita "Self Realization"? That is how I understand it from the various English translations but they may be misleading, as I understand that translations are also interpretations.
Please clarify.
Thanks,
Jim

Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-08-08 12:49 PM (#93773 - in reply to #93735)
Subject: RE: What is God


kulkarnn - 2007-08-07 11:57 PM

Now, in response to your statement that clinging to ideology comes from tribal background of seeking security and such (whatever wording you have used) and comparing that once debating one's philosophy, they are two different things. In the true philosophical debate, there is NO fanaticism, and wars. As you can see that those who cling to 'Advaita' or even 'Dvaita' philosophies of India have never had created wars as you indicated. Actually, West has seen more wars as you shall agree, regardless of our equal love for the entire humanity. Agreed? If you disagree here, I have nothing further to say. But, the problems of war and such are not due to Philosophical idealogy, but due to making another person accept it by force, such as has been done by Romans, Greeks, and Muslims, etc..


Neel,
Please let me clarify as I probably wasn't clear. I am not saying that this or that ideology or culture is the reason for war. What I am saying is that the identification with a particular culture or ideology, the seeing the culture or ideology as MY culture or MY ideology is what brings me and the others who are the same together (the tribe), but inherent in that "togetherness" (that US) is the animosity towards everything that is not of MY/OUR culture and everyone that does not agree to MY/OUR ideology. This "instinct" is a result of our tribal past. As long as you have MY/OUR beliefs, MY/OUR religion, MY/OUR ideology, MY/OUR culture etc, you have ME/US and THEM. This Weltanschauung (view of the world, way of seeing, philosophical basis), this concept of ME/US and THEM is the basis, the cause and the necessary ingredient for violence, war and genocide. "True philosophical debate" is in my mind not about winning someone else over to my point of view, but rather discussing various points of view so that everyone ends up richer. It is a win/win not a win/lose situation; otherwise it is verbal war and everyone loses. Please don't forget that Hindus and Muslims are killing each other in Kashmir and Hindus and Buddhists are killing each other in Sri Lanka. What was Asoka doing when he converted to Buddhism? We are all people and we are not better or worse than anyone else. It is the "we are better than those others" view that leads to war. I am not defending the "West's" history of war and violence (as it is appalling), just pointing out that war and violence are a global reality and that the seed of this reality is the concept of ME and US as apposed to THEM.
Namaste,
Jim
Top of the page Bottom of the page
naveen182
Posted 2007-08-08 1:57 PM (#93781 - in reply to #93641)
Subject: RE: What is God


Hi Kulkarnn,

I apologize. My ignorance and on top of that my inability to communicate properly (usually it is different than what I wanted to say ) is complicating my points. But I thank you very much for your answers.

Ok, I will try to present my point again. Please bear with my inappropriate usage of words.

We have two things. One is our destination and the second one is our path to achieve that destination.

This destination can be called anything. Self-realization, God realization, Nirvana, Enlightenment etc. I really do not know the specific differences between these words, but I think it does not really matter for our discussion. Basically it is the wonderful state that great people like Buddha, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana maharshi had achieved.

The path can also be called anything. Self inquiry, meditation, yoga, different religions etc.


It is known to us that by following these different paths, it is possible to reach the wonderful destination we discussed above.


It is good so far. Now let us forget about the destination and the path for a while. If we look at the universe with the billions of stars and the forces that keep them in order, and also this wonder called human body and mind, we know that there is a force behind all the creation. Spritual people call it God, and materialists call it just matter and energy (Science believes that all the fundamental forces/energies, gravitational, electro-magnetic,and strong and weak nuclear forces are in fact only one force at higher energy levels). So, whether it is called God, or just a higher energy, everybody agrees that these is some force behind the creation.


Now we again have two things. One is the destination that is achieved by following the spiritual or religious path, second one is the force that created this universe and life.

My question is how these two things are treated as same. If we need to equate two things, we need to compare the properties of them, and then come to a conclusion. But when we discuss about the destination, it is always said that it cannot be described, it cannot be expressed in words. When we do not know the complete nature of the destination, how are we able to conclude that it is the God? When I was talking about brian chemical reactions
in my earlier post, what I meant was that the wonerful state that was achieved following the spiritual path could only be happening because of many years of meditation practice and the changes it was causing in the brain. It may or may not have anything to do with the creator of the universe. How is the link between these two established?

Don't know if I make any sense or not
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-08-08 2:41 PM (#93787 - in reply to #93773)
Subject: RE: What is God


I see. I agree that ME and MINE and Superiority Complex can create violence and war. But, I do not know get what that has to do with context of original post. But, anyway, I accept that part. However, the killing between Muslims and Indians is NOT a correct example. Indians have NEVER killed Muslims out of My Ideology and My Superiority. What has happened is: They are defending themselves. You can clearly see this. I do not know what is the situation in Shree Lanka. But, I am sure that Buddhist will not kill anyone without needing to defend themselves.

Actually, Buddhist commited a mistake (in my personal opinon only) of not defending when Communist Chinese tried to eradicate them from Tibet.

However, killing by Romans, killing by Muslims over the world, that by British when the Sun was shining too high on them, etc. are not the examples of the same killing. In the Shrimad Bhagavadgita, which you quoted, Arjuna is about to kill his own kith and kin, for the justice as a necessary evil.


jimg - 2007-08-08 12:49 PM

kulkarnn - 2007-08-07 11:57 PM

Now, in response to your statement that clinging to ideology comes from tribal background of seeking security and such (whatever wording you have used) and comparing that once debating one's philosophy, they are two different things. In the true philosophical debate, there is NO fanaticism, and wars. As you can see that those who cling to 'Advaita' or even 'Dvaita' philosophies of India have never had created wars as you indicated. Actually, West has seen more wars as you shall agree, regardless of our equal love for the entire humanity. Agreed? If you disagree here, I have nothing further to say. But, the problems of war and such are not due to Philosophical idealogy, but due to making another person accept it by force, such as has been done by Romans, Greeks, and Muslims, etc..


Neel,
Please let me clarify as I probably wasn't clear. I am not saying that this or that ideology or culture is the reason for war. What I am saying is that the identification with a particular culture or ideology, the seeing the culture or ideology as MY culture or MY ideology is what brings me and the others who are the same together (the tribe), but inherent in that "togetherness" (that US) is the animosity towards everything that is not of MY/OUR culture and everyone that does not agree to MY/OUR ideology. This "instinct" is a result of our tribal past. As long as you have MY/OUR beliefs, MY/OUR religion, MY/OUR ideology, MY/OUR culture etc, you have ME/US and THEM. This Weltanschauung (view of the world, way of seeing, philosophical basis), this concept of ME/US and THEM is the basis, the cause and the necessary ingredient for violence, war and genocide. "True philosophical debate" is in my mind not about winning someone else over to my point of view, but rather discussing various points of view so that everyone ends up richer. It is a win/win not a win/lose situation; otherwise it is verbal war and everyone loses. Please don't forget that Hindus and Muslims are killing each other in Kashmir and Hindus and Buddhists are killing each other in Sri Lanka. What was Asoka doing when he converted to Buddhism? We are all people and we are not better or worse than anyone else. It is the "we are better than those others" view that leads to war. I am not defending the "West's" history of war and violence (as it is appalling), just pointing out that war and violence are a global reality and that the seed of this reality is the concept of ME and US as apposed to THEM.
Namaste,
Jim
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-08-08 2:54 PM (#93790 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God


Dear Naveen. Thanks for elaboration.

Now we again have two things. One is the destination that is achieved by following the spiritual or religious path, second one is the force that created this universe and life.
===> No, they are actually only one thing. It is the same force/creator/brahman/god which created universe and also energies, and matter, and which is realized by doing Spiritual Practice.
The way it is expressed or realized in Spirituality is: There is one force which is beyond description, which is the final goal, called Brahman. The same force has another side which is expressed called prakruti (special creation pra-special, kruti - creation). And, then Prakruti is the first manifestation which later manifests into mind, intellect, and gross mater and energies.

My question is how these two things are treated as same.
The first thing is formless and when it manifests it becomes a form.

If we need to equate two things, we need to compare the properties of them, and then come to a conclusion. But when we discuss about the destination, it is always said that it cannot be described, it cannot be expressed in words. When we do not know the complete nature of the destination, how are we able to conclude that it is the God?
===> Your question is valid, and that I answered in the first response. This is because: Those who previously realized told us so and we have to believe in it. When, we follow the process, we get their.

When I was talking about brian chemical reactions in my earlier post, what I meant was that the wonerful state that was achieved following the spiritual path could only be happening because of many years of meditation practice and the changes it was causing in the brain. It may or may not have anything to do with the creator of the universe. How is the link between these two established?
===> This is because, mind is beyond the brain. The brain can not exist without the mind. But, a mind can exist without a brain. For example, a incompletely satisfied mind without a body is called Ghost. And, completely satisfied mind in the body is called Jivanmukta (liberated while living). And, one's mind can be put into another person's body, 'chittasya parashariraaveshaH' .. Patanjali Chapter 3. And, your former destination, that is Brahman is beyond the Mind. That is why it can not be described. And, the one who has reached there does not have to be reborn. A liberated soul.

Don't know if I make any sense or not
Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-08-08 4:07 PM (#93804 - in reply to #93781)
Subject: RE: What is God


Hi Naveen,
What you say makes a lot of sense to me and I think that you are asking important questions, possibly the most fundamental question of all. You asked: "It may or may not have anything to do with the creator of the universe. How is the link between these two established?" My answer to this question is: either you need faith in the answer or "path" of another, or you need to find out for yourself. Either way, that link (if it exists) must be experienced as it has to be (by definition) beyond words, ideas, philosophies, religions etc. If that experience is beyond the ability of words to communicate, you really cannot tell whether it is God or not as you can only make this distinction with words. Since all concepts of "enlightenment" or "God" are words, and therefore projections of the unelightened mind, short of experiencing the "real thing", you really don't know whether it exists or not. How do you know that it is the "real thing" that you experienced? You don't. You can believe anything that you want, and if you believe strongly enough, you can convince yourself of anything. Since verbal criteria cannot explain or communicate the non-verbal, I think that there is no final answer to your question. There are, however, a wide array of experiences and insights possible as a result of asking it.
Regards,
Jim
Top of the page Bottom of the page
SCThornley
Posted 2007-08-08 4:17 PM (#93805 - in reply to #93484)
Subject: RE: What is God


The ugly part of reality is still reality

you don't have to accept it

but what is, is


Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-08-10 5:14 PM (#93953 - in reply to #93805)
Subject: RE: What is God


SCThornley:" The ugly part of reality is still reality
you don't have to accept it
but what is, is"

Absolutely, but if you see the cause of that ugliness in yourself through self awareness, you will understand it and it will no longer influence your actions. If on the other hand you see the ugliness (in yourself or others), decide that it is wrong and therefore suppress it in yourself, it is still there and is still influencing your actions but you no longer see it as it is suppressed.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread


(Delete all cookies set by this site)