God Vs Awareness

[param]

The happiness losses its significance in absence of misery

The continuous happiness becomes misery. The happiness has its value only when it is temporary and is interrupted by misery. The continuous eating of sweets, the continuous scenes of happiness in cinema, the continuous winter etc., will bore you and turn themselves into misery finally. The profit of even little money gives happiness to a poor man but the profit of even lot of money does not give happiness to a rich man. The happiness losses its significance in absence of misery and the continuous happiness itself gets converted finally into misery. Therefore, the continuity of happiness is impossible.

The bliss can be continuous because it is infinitely multiplied intensity of happiness and the very nature of bliss is continuity. Such bliss can come only from God and it can be neither from the soul nor from the world. The soul gives only temporary absence of happiness and misery called as peace. The world gives both happiness and misery and none of these two is continuous. If you reach the state of God, which is called as “Saadharmya” in Gita, then only you can derive the bliss from the world in which souls form a part only. Such state can be obtained only from the true spiritual knowledge given by Satguru along with His grace.


At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

[param]

How to control bad qualities.

It is foolish to think to get rid of the bad qualities completely. By spiritual efforts, you can control these bad qualities (Rajas and Tamas) to certain extent and this is also essential because uncontrolled bad qualities disturb the balance of the society. In such case God will punish them. Control is possible but complete eradication is impossible in the case of these bad qualities. Control is boasted as eradication. Therefore, after achieving the control by the detachment from the worldly bonds, these qualities remaining in the soul should be diverted towards the Lord. The Lord is pleased by the basic love existing in these qualities.

The selfless love is like sweet milk and the bad quality is like a ceramic cup. The selfish love is like salt water and the good quality is like a golden cup. The milk is paid but not the golden cup. The sage Shuka says that if the devotion exists, the nature of the quality is not important at all. This was the answer given by the sage to Parikshit in this context (Jarabuddhyapi…., Kimutadhokshajapriyah…Bhagavatam). Here you must be very careful to understand that the already existing sin is diverted by the Lord and the Lord did not generate the sin. Wealth from waste means extraction of wealth from the existing waste.

It does not mean that to extract wealth, waste must be created! Similarly, you can explain the non-vegetarian food of Jesus. People cannot be controlled to avoid the non-vegetarian food. It is already existing which is uncontrollable. Jesus tried to divert this at least towards the God. He advised that one should thank God for providing such non-vegetarian food instead of taking it directly. He showed the dry fish to God with gratefulness. Veda says that you should offer the flesh of the killed animal to God in the sacrifice (Yajna). This does not mean that Veda is asking you to kill the animal. Anyway you are going to kill the animal to eat it and you cannot be controlled under any circumstances. In such case, Veda says that you should offer the flesh to God and eat it.

Shankara says that the scripture is based on the existing nature of the human being and is not generating the same nature (Jnapakam Natu Karakam). Even if Krishna did not exist, such nature is existing in Kali Yuga. Even if Jesus did not exist, such non-vegetarian habit exists in the world. God comes through a medium having the same common qualities of human beings to be close with them. By such common qualities, the Lord encourages them also to have a straight path to God from their qualities without any change. If such encouragement is not given, the sinners will go deeply in the path of sins only, since the path to God is opposite to the sin (Apichet Sa Duracharah, Apichedasi Papebhyah, Sarva Dharman –Gita).

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[param]

True Essence of Yoga


Yoga is the most prestigious field of spiritualism. People think about 6 wheels (Chakras) or lotus flowers present in the spinal card, which are not seen by the eyes. They are imaginary and so they carry some inner meaning. When you say a face as a moon, fools search for moon in that face. But, wise people see similarity in the face and moon. Similarly, wheels and lotus flowers should not be searched in the spinal card. Spinal card is the main nerve, representing mind, which is the base of love.

All these wheels or lotus flowers are the bonds of love in the various relatives like parents, wife or husband, children etc. They are compared to wheels or the revolving whirlpools in the ocean, which attract a swimmer and drown him. Similarly, these love wheels are compared to lotus flowers, since the lotus flowers attract the bee by sweet fragrance and bind it. Similarly, these love flowers attract any one and bind them. “Kundalini” is the mind which is the energy travelling as waves like a serpent, should cross all these love wheels connected to 7th lotus flower in the head called “Sahasrara”, which is Buddhi or intelligence that takes the decision, which is the firm love on God.

Bhagavat Gita is called as the main scripture of Yoga (Yoga-Sastra). Why there is not even single reference to these wheels or lotus flowers in anywhere in Gita or even in Upanishats? Since they are not real, they are not even mentioned. The author of the Gita was Krishna, who was called Master of Yoga (Yogeswara). Krishna also says that the real yoga was lost since long (Sa kaleneha mahata….). This means that in the beginning, Sages in India knew the real yoga and loved God only crossing all their family bonds. In due course of time only, this true yoga was lost. Why? The middle age Indians were unable to cross their family bonds and so failed to succeed in Yoga.

They wanted to cover their in ability by twisting the very concept of yoga. The family bonds were removed from the concept and only wheels or lotus flowers are left fixed. Now, they close the eyes and say that they have seen the lotus flowers or wheels, which are only imaginary. Now they cross these wheels by their imaginary “Kundalini” and say that they have succeeded in Yoga. These blind teachers are also not to be blamed, because they were trained like that by their blind teachers. This misinterpretation was done long time back and hence, even at the time of Krishna, He told that yoga was lost since a long time.

We cannot catch those original culprits, who were the top most twisting masters and so the present tradition also cannot be blamed. Only rectification is the way left over. Some say that they see light, which is only an imagination. After all, the mind is a form of energy and on its concentration imaginary light can be imagined. Instead of such a week light, you better see a strong light with your open eyes. What is the use of these imaginary lights and colours, without achieving the Lord through your love, which excels the various worldly, loves.

I pity the foreigners, who are trapped in this false imaginary line of yoga, who are wasting their precious lifetime and energy. In fact, they are the best to succeed in yoga, if the reality of the yoga is exposed. Their family bonds are very weak and their love towards God is real, which is proved by their huge sacrifice of money to God’s work. Money is the fruit of work and its sacrifice for God’s work is “Karma phala tyaga” as mentioned in Gita. Again, the middle age Indians twisted this word “Karma phala tyaga” as sacrifice of the fruit of the work like praying God instead of sacrifice of money.

The reason was that these Indians were unable to sacrifice money to God due to their strong love on their children. Foreigners ask their children to earn after certain age. Indians store money even for ten generations and still continue to store only. Since prayers, meditation and knowledge are very much diverted to God, India was blessed by God with good language, good mind and good knowledge.

Since foreigners are good in sacrifice, God blessed them with good wealth. Even Indian spiritual centres were strongly funded by foreigners only. Swami Vivekananda cried, “Why my India suffers with poverty in spite of so much spiritual knowledge?” Sacrifice of money (Karma phala tyaga) and sacrifice of work (karma Sanyasa) put together constitute the God’s service, which is the real Yoga (real proof of love) called “Karma yoga” in Gita. Foreigners are the best in this karma yoga and so they easily succeed in yoga. Throughout Gita, this karma yoga was explained as yoga and wheels or lotus flowers are not at all mentioned.

[xexon]

I've been a yogi most of my life. Minus the religious aspects of it.

For me, there is nothing between this waking consciousness and "God". There are no deities to appease. No rituals to perform. No rules for that matter.

What exists is an awareness that all things, including my human identity, are parts of a whole.

I can look at the world through human eyes, interact with it, while at the same time remaining aware of that is all a manifestation of a singular conscious energy of which I am.

Is this not the true essence of yoga?



x

[param]

I've been a yogi most of my life. Minus the religious aspects of it.

For me, there is nothing between this waking consciousness and "God". There are no deities to appease. No rituals to perform. No rules for that matter.

What exists is an awareness that all things, including my human identity, are parts of a whole.

I can look at the world through human eyes, interact with it, while at the same time remaining aware of that is all a manifestation of a singular conscious energy of which I am.

Is this not the true essence of yoga?



x

Awareness is most precious form of cosmic energy but it has got its own demerits
The awareness is the most subtle form of cosmic energy and is given ultimate value. It is more valuable than any inert form of inert cosmic energy. Awareness is most precious form of cosmic energy. This is the unique merit of awareness. Due to this the three Acharyas preferred awareness to be the best medium of God. But awareness has its own defects. Awareness is not an independent entity like the inert cosmic energy. It is a special work form of the inert energy. It is the consequence or the result or the product of inert energy in association with the functioning machine called as nervous system. It is a specific product of the basic inert cosmic energy. The other specific products of the basic inert cosmic energy are light, heat, sound, electricity, magnetism, etc., The basic inert cosmic energy is ‘Mula Maya’, which is the basic material of this Universe. The above consequent forms of Energy are ‘Maha Maya’. Awareness is one of the daughters of ‘Mula Maya’. When you say that God wishes or thinks, it really means that the unimaginable God wishes or thinks.

The unimaginable God (Para Brahman) need not be awareness to wish or think. He is the source of the entire Universe, which constitutes several entities and works or qualities. Awareness is an entity and wishing or thinking is a specific work or quality. Even the association of an entity with a specific work or quality is also due to God. God can dissociate any entity from its associated quality or work. Before God, the fire could not burn even a dry blade of grass. This event is said in Veda. The Omni-potent God can do anything and hence God wished to create this world. Due to wish, you need not conclude God as awareness applying the worldly logic, which fails in Him. A common man may not understand this due to the failure of worldly logic, because his mind is always trained in the worldly logic. For the sake of such ordinary people, the three Acharyas have selected the mediated God (God embedded in awareness) and described God as the awareness. One should be careful that a specific bit of awareness charged by God only can be treated as God like a specific wire electrified is treated as electricity. The selfish human beings have extrapolated this and treated every bit of awareness as God. This is wrong because every wire cannot be treated as electricity. Only in a specific electric wire, the wire is electricity and the electricity is wire. This equation fails if it leaves that specific wire.

[param]

For the existence of God to be proved, the imaginable medium is necessary

When a miracle takes place, there are two entities. One is the imaginable medium that stands as the basis and the other is the unimaginable entity i.e., conveyed about its existence. A tender boy called as ‘Krishna’ and a big hill called as ‘Govardhana’ together stand as the imaginable medium. When this big hill was lifted by the tender boy, the unimaginable event shows the existence of some unimaginable entity in the boy. The nature of the unimaginable entity cannot be understood, but its existence is established through this event. If the boy or hill is absent this unimaginable event cannot take place and the existence of unimaginable entity in the boy cannot be identified. Therefore, even for the existence of God to be proved, the imaginable medium is necessary. The boy with a physical body is not much valuable because there is a general repulsion due to jealousy and ego between the human beings. The awareness is invisible and very subtle. When the medium is invisible the point of jealousy disappears. Therefore, the Acharyas have selected the awareness alone without the physical body as the medium of God for the sake of psychological satisfaction. But for this purpose the awareness without a physical body does not exist at all. On deep analysis one can easily understand that the awareness taken as God is nothing but a specific human incarnation because there is no awareness which is continuous. It is only a temporary psychological trick of the spiritual preacher for the sake of beginners affected by jealousy and ego.

[param]

Proof for existence of unimaginable God beyond the boundary of space


The boundary of the Universe need not be made of the same material (five elements). A metallic wheel may have a plastic ring around its edge. Therefore, the boundary of the Universe need not be made of the same imaginable material. The boundary is unimaginable means that the boundary is made of unimaginable material i.e., God. Even if you say that the diameter of the Universe is some billions of light years, is there a compound wall in the edge of the boundary? If there is such wall what is present beyond that wall? If you say that space is present beyond that wall, space is also a part of the Universe (one of the five elements). The theory of bending of the space around object proves that space is the most subtle energy. Therefore, the diameter of the Universe is infinite.

The theory of constant expansion of Universe is also meaningless because expansion of any material requires the existence of space different from the material. When space or subtle energy is the basic material of the Universe, the word ‘expansion’ becomes ridiculous. The infinity of the Universe stands for the existence of unimaginable entity beyond the Universe existing from the boundary of Universe. Unless you accept the unimaginable region beyond the boundary of Universe, you cannot speak of the end of imaginable boundary of the Universe. All this discussion will clearly establish the existence of unimaginable region or God beyond the Universe.

[param]

The unimaginable God can never be touched even by your intelligence or logic

The unimaginable God can never be touched even by your intelligence or logic. When you say that God wished to create the world, you have not touched the absolute God. The God in your statement is only the absolute God embedded in the awareness. The awareness was created by Him in the beginning and He entered that awareness. Awareness is the medium (Upadhi) for God here. Now ‘God Thinks’ means that the awareness controlled by God thinks. You can go up to this point only which is the extreme edge. All the three Acharyaas went up to this point only. The medium indicates the possessor of the medium. The wire indicates the electricity in it. You can call the wire as electricity or the electricity as the wire. Similarly, in such case you can call God as awareness or awareness as God. But every wire is not electric wire. Similarly, every bit of awareness (living being) is not charged by God and hence cannot be called as God.

[param]

God is not awareness

God created the awareness as an entity and created the process of thinking as a quality or work separately. By the order of God this entity (awareness) and quality or work (thinking) are associated. If God wishes awareness may dissociate with such work. A patient in coma has awareness but cannot think. An inert computer, which has no awareness, thinks like a human being. Therefore, the association of awareness and thinking is not constant even in the worldly examples. Even without the wish of God the dissociation is seen. Therefore, when there is no constant association between these two, how can you conclude that God is awareness since He thought of creating the Universe? You can say that generally there is association between these two.

Based on this you can conclude that an item is awareness through the process of thinking. You must be careful about the exceptional case of computer (robot). When even robot violates your general conclusion, why not God, who is beyond the worldly logic violate this conclusion? God can think even without being awareness, because He is the creator of awareness as well as the creator of the very process of thinking. Veda says that God is beyond worldly logic (Naishaa Tarkena, Atarkayah).

[param]

The excellent proof that God is not awareness

There is only one God as per Veda (Ekameva Advitiyam Brahma) but the awareness is in multiple bits called as living beings. There is only one Ajay but the red shirts are several. If there is only one red shirt like one Ajay, the constant association is valid in both directions. It means wherever there is Ajay there is red shirt and wherever there is red shirt Ajay exists there. Similarly, if there is only one bit of awareness like one God, we can draw the logic of saying wherever there is God there is awareness and wherever there is awareness there is God. In such case we can say that God is awareness and awareness is God. But in practical experience (Anubhava Pramana) the awareness is discontinuous existing in the form of several living beings in the world. If the awareness is continuous and homogenous, there should be no inert item in the creation.

In such case the air and earth should talk. When you put the leg on the earth the earth should file a case in the court for insulting the earth with leg. Similarly, the air should react when you spit in the air. The Advaita philosophers bring a simile of conversion of mind (awareness) into imaginary world or dream. Based on the simile they say that the inert world is also a modification of the awareness. In the imaginary world or dream the inert items like a hill, a tree, etc., are also modifications of awareness. Similarly, they maintain that the inert items in the world are also modifications of the awareness. This is meaningless because there is a direct proof (Pratyaksha Pramana) for the conversion of mind into imaginary world or dream. As you create the imaginary world more and more, which is a process of thinking, the awareness or mind gets exhausted. Your mind becomes weak and you get tired. You will take some food to supply the energy. If your total mind is ten calories of nervous energy, you feel energetic. But after spending some time in imagination (creating the imaginary world), let us say eight calories are spent. You become tired with the remaining two calories of energy. A point will come when you cannot think further with headache.
The nervous system which converts inert energy into awareness gets exhausted resulting in headache. If you say that such awareness is God, God must have been reduced in quantity by creating this world. God remains constant even after the process of creation. This is not the case with mental awareness. Therefore, the awareness and dream cannot stand even as a simile in this aspect!! You say that the awareness is totally God!! You can take this as a simile for God and creation as the mind is completely free to create, maintain and dissolve the dream, God is free to create, maintain and dissolve the world.

In this aspect the above example can stand as a simile. A simile stands in a particular aspect only and not in all aspects. If the simile is similar in all aspects, there is no difference between the simile and the object compared. You can compare the awareness in one human being to the awareness in another human being in all aspects and say that the awareness in both human beings is one and the same. Here also the similarity is qualitative. The awareness in two human beings is divided in two quantities by the boundaries of their bodies. The awareness in one human being may be more (twenty calories) and the awareness in another human being may be less (ten calories) in a particular time. Even in a single human being the awareness may vary in quantity from time to time. In deep sleep the quantity of awareness becomes zero.

[xexon]

How about you stopping your spam fest here and say something?

This multiposting is uncalled for.


x

[famewalk]

There is only one God as per Veda (Ekameva Advitiyam Brahma) but the awareness is in multiple bits called as living beings.

Well then if the one God were beyond awareness why do we persist we can buy information for and about Him? The many Gods, to me, must be free of any charge, any horendess effort to know about them.

One of them will and shall occur as the solution that that were the true God for vacuous suffering experience of where and how I was born onto some god (only God can tell me I was alive by Him). That means I am within awareness for the unbought one God of the universe.

[BlackBillBlake]

God is not awareness

God created the awareness as an entity and created the process of thinking as a quality or work separately. By the order of God this entity (awareness) and quality or work (thinking) are associated. If God wishes awareness may dissociate with such work. A patient in coma has awareness but cannot think. An inert computer, which has no awareness, thinks like a human being. Therefore, the association of awareness and thinking is not constant even in the worldly examples. Even without the wish of God the dissociation is seen. Therefore, when there is no constant association between these two, how can you conclude that God is awareness since He thought of creating the Universe? You can say that generally there is association between these two.

Based on this you can conclude that an item is awareness through the process of thinking. You must be careful about the exceptional case of computer (robot). When even robot violates your general conclusion, why not God, who is beyond the worldly logic violate this conclusion? God can think even without being awareness, because He is the creator of awareness as well as the creator of the very process of thinking. Veda says that God is beyond worldly logic (Naishaa Tarkena, Atarkayah).

If God isn't awareness, then how did He know what He was creating? This is simple idiocy.
Also, if you expect people to trawl through this stuff of yours, you'd do better to avaoid acting like you're spamming up the board.

[themnax]

God is not awareness

God created the awareness as an entity and created the process of thinking as a quality or work separately. By the order of God this entity (awareness) and quality or work (thinking) are associated. If God wishes awareness may dissociate with such work. A patient in coma has awareness but cannot think. An inert computer, which has no awareness, thinks like a human being. Therefore, the association of awareness and thinking is not constant even in the worldly examples. Even without the wish of God the dissociation is seen. Therefore, when there is no constant association between these two, how can you conclude that God is awareness since He thought of creating the Universe? You can say that generally there is association between these two.

Based on this you can conclude that an item is awareness through the process of thinking. You must be careful about the exceptional case of computer (robot). When even robot violates your general conclusion, why not God, who is beyond the worldly logic violate this conclusion? God can think even without being awareness, because He is the creator of awareness as well as the creator of the very process of thinking. Veda says that God is beyond worldly logic (Naishaa Tarkena, Atarkayah).

and precisely how does a non-awairness "think"?
i'm sure i must be missing something here somewhere.

=^^=
.../\...

[ÐÑÇämþër]

There is no logical way to prove that God even exists. There is no way to speak about the purpose of this world. Our logic has to operate only within sense of our perception. We cannot extend the logic beyond what we see with our senses. Awareness is as much a sense as physical feeling or emotional feeling. Finding God through such things as awareness is indirectly aimed toward God.

[BlackBillBlake]

There is no logical way to prove that God even exists. There is no way to speak about the purpose of this world. Our logic has to operate only within sense of our perception. We cannot extend the logic beyond what we see with our senses..

Yoga is aimed at a level of awareness above the merely logical. A level of supra-sensible perception and knowledge.

Also there is no way to prove by logic that God does not exist.

[ÐÑÇämþër]

Very true

[ÐÑÇämþër]

Very trueEhhhh, I apologize. Logically speaking, it can't be true...we don't know.

I should have said that statement is valid.

[param]

There is no logical way to prove that God even exists. There is no way to speak about the purpose of this world. Our logic has to operate only within sense of our perception. We cannot extend the logic beyond what we see with our senses. Awareness is as much a sense as physical feeling or emotional feeling. Finding God through such things as awareness is indirectly aimed toward God.

ÐÑÇämþër;

Building is there. Implies Builder should be there. Creation is there. Creator should be there. I can see the building, which is in front of my eyes, but builder need not stand in front of the building. He will be in his own job. If you want to meet the builder, you should definitely put effort to locate the builder and see him. Likewise Creation is there in front of our eyes. But have we put anytime effort to locate and identify the creator? Instead of that, with least effort we can propagate to others also that God is not there. They are not only blinded, they are making others also blinded. Some people who are theists may become prey for the propagation of this ignorance also unfortunately. The greatest sin on the earth is to be unfaithful.

To identify the builder you should know the identification marks, where he lives, what he does etc.. and we have to enquire if we don't know. This is to say that knowledge is required to identify any person. This knowledge is called divine knowledge if the aim is to identify the Lord, which actually only is to be propagated. Lord created this universe for the enjoyment without any selfish motive and we human beings are enjoying the creation. Like through nice parents, wife, children, beautiful nature consisting of pleasant looking mountains, rivers, sea, nature, changing weather etc.

If we cannot please the Lord, the human life is incomplete. We serve our family members by spending our hard earned money and also physically. Are we not serving family as Servant, and these family members are nearly equal to us. Where as, Lord is omnipotent and requires no help from us, many times satisfied our desires, saved us from mishaps etc. and if we cannot bow our head in front of Him, it is very ridiculous. It is very great honour to serve Him, this is the path followed by His real devotees. These real devotees could overcome ego and always wants to serve Him as servant.

Jesus preached the gospel and His followers participated in His mission as servants for further propagation of divine knowledge. These great devotees never hesitated to serve Lord Jesus and their names have also been known even today.

At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[param]

There is no logical way to prove that God even exists. There is no way to speak about the purpose of this world. Our logic has to operate only within sense of our perception. We cannot extend the logic beyond what we see with our senses. Awareness is as much a sense as physical feeling or emotional feeling. Finding God through such things as awareness is indirectly aimed toward God.

The straight answer for that, no need of quoting scriptures etc, because he will say that it is some theoretical imagination. The only proof for God is the human incarnation coming into the world, and straightly performing the unimingable miracle and by that He proves the existence of the unimaginable God and also He preaches about the unimaginable God. You are unable to know the unimaginable miracle and He is performing. Neither you analyze nor you perform the miracle. Thus human incarnation is the authority. Jesus told I came to fulfill the statements. The scriptures are fulfilled by the arrival of the human incarnation. Jesus arose a person who died three days back, no body can do it, that is not possible for an ordinary man. The same Jesus told there is God. You could not analyze this miracle and you could not under stand the miracle, and hence the performer of the miracle is the sole authority in this field. Either you should also perform the miracle and say God does not exist. But you should do it in genuine way.

Some body acts as if he is dead and ask him to rise; not like that not magic. If you can also do and say God doesn’t exits. Then we will agree and we will say that all these scriptures are just bogus. That is why these scientists and atheist fight with miracles. They are only catching their throat. They are always enemies to the miracles. That is the only hard nut for them, if they cross that hard nut then they have won. Scriptures alone cannot stand, unless something is demonstrated it is not proved. That is I why Jesus told I came to fulfill the statement of scripture. I demonstrate or perform the theoretical knowledge preached in the scriptures. Only human incarnation’s miracle is the only answer for these atheist and scientists.

[param]

If God isn't awareness, then how did He know what He was creating? This is simple idiocy.
Also, if you expect people to trawl through this stuff of yours, you'd do better to avaoid acting like you're spamming up the board.

BlackBillBlake;

Veda says that God wished to create this world (Sa Ekshata..). People thought that this Vedic statement means that God is awareness and not inert energy or matter because awareness alone can wish. This means that the medium of God is not inert. This means that the medium of God is awareness. The final conclusion is that God enters a living being as the medium and neither the inert statues nor the inert light etc.,(energy). Veda never speaks about the nature of original God because Veda has already spoken elaborately that the nature of God is unimaginable. The Vedic statements regarding the nature of the medium are misunderstood to be the statements regarding the nature of original God.

In Veda it is said that God wished to create this world (Sa ekshata..). People thought that God must be awareness due to the will, because awareness alone can wish. It is also said that God burns all the creation in the end as per Brahma Sutra (Attaa charaachara….). This does not mean that God is the inert fire.

The creation contains various items. Each item is having certain prescribed qualities. All the items and their qualities are generated from God only. By the will of God only, a quality exists in a particular item. No item has any inherent quality by itself. It is by the order of God only that an item has a particular quality. If God wishes the qualities may change. By the will of God fire may become cold and water may become hot. In the world you are recognizing the item by its quality thinking as if that quality is inherent of that item only. The worldly logic is not standard because it is based on the will of God only.

This worldly logic cannot be applied to the case of God, who is omnipotent to change the quality of any item. God being the source of all the qualities, God can posses any quality and due to that God need not be that item possessing the quality as seen in this world. Without being awareness, God can wish. Without being fire, God can burn anything. Hence, you should not apply the logic of identifying items by their qualities to God as in the case of this world. A quality indicates the potential work of the item. Burning is the quality and also is the potential work of the item. Therefore, God can have any quality and is potent to do any work.

Veda says that God can run without legs and can catch without hands (Apaani Paado….). According to the worldly logic, the item that runs must have legs and the item that catches must have hands. But God runs without legs and catches without hands. This means that God is beyond the worldly logic and hence is unimaginable.

[param]

God is the permanently unknowable region even for the intelligence enriched with science and logic.

The Universe is infinite with unimaginable beginning and unimaginable end. This means the cause from which the Universe started and the same cause in which the Universe ends on dissolution is the unimaginable God. Mud is the beginning stage of the pot and also the end stage since the pot ends in the mud on destruction. The Universe exhibits the unimaginable God by its unimaginable limits of beginning and end. The space is generated from God and the dissolution of space can only show the real nature of its cause (God).

When the chain is dissolved in fire, then only the gold lump, which is the cause of the chain, appears in its original form. But even if you imagine for millions of years, you can never imagine the dissolution of space and therefore you can never imagine the original nature of God. God is beyond space and God is the permanently unknowable region even for the intelligence enriched with science and logic.

Hence, God is a permanent wonder and the creation consists of some knowable regions of knowledge without any wonder and also some temporarily unimaginable regions with temporary wonder. Now the word Maya can be used for the wonder, which is both permanent (God) and which is temporary also (the deeper layers of the world up to the space).

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[param]

How can God be unimaginable?

If a student comes and asks the preacher “What is God?” and the preacher says, “God is Unimaginable”; then the student asks again “How God created this world?” and the preacher says, “The process of creation is unimaginable”; the student will think that the preacher does not know the answers for his questions and will leave the preacher. This is the practical problem in revealing the absolute truth. The preacher should say the answers in positive way and the answers should satisfy the logical faculty of the student. Now you should analyze the basis of such logical faculty of the student. The basis is the observation of this world containing all imaginable items only. Hence all his logic is based on the observation of the nature of imaginable items and the relationships between the imaginable items only. This means that the preacher should say that God is an imaginable item and the imaginable process of generation of the imaginable world from imaginable God is in imaginable way only. Every sentence of the preacher should be imaginable to the student and then only the student gets satisfied.

The introduction of the word “Unimaginable” by the preacher leads the student to think that the preacher is ignorant. Hence to satisfy the student and to solve this practical problem, the preacher has to make certain assumptions and should preach about God through hypothesis only and not through real theory.

The reality is that the unimaginable God created the world through unimaginable way.

But to satisfy the student the hypothesis introduced here is that God is pure awareness. Here the infinite ocean of pure awareness is an assumption created because there is no proof of such ocean of awareness anywhere because you can find only the infinite ocean of inert energy. The infinite ocean of awareness is created by the preacher and such ocean charged by God can be treated as God Himself like the live wire treated as current. Now the student is satisfied.

Similarly, the creation of world from God should be also done through the imaginable way answering all the objections through imaginable ways only. This makes again the creation of another assumption for the process of creating the world by God. The assumption here is that a second unimaginable item called as the power of God is created which is modified into the world. Since the power is negligible, the world is negligible and maintains the existence of single God or Brahman. It is like the dream of a person created by the modification of the mind and the mind is negligible compared to the materialistic person. In course of time to satisfy the logic of students, changes in the hypothesis are made by Ramanuja and Madhva who introduced the assumption of a separate material, which is modified as the world without any connection to God.

The hypothetical assumptions can be varied for the sake of preaching the truth to the students in order to satisfy their logic developed from the observation of the world containing only imaginable items. This does not mean that the theories are different.

There is only one real theory that both God and the link between God and world are unimaginable.

But the preaching requires complete elimination of the word unimaginable and the whole preaching should continue with the assumptions of imaginable items and imaginable relationships between those imaginable items only. In such case all the assumptions are not true at all in the absolute sense. In such case you need not misunderstand that the three Acharyas are differing from each other with different theories of truth. The same truth is explained in different ways with different created assumptions of hypothesis for the sake of understanding of various types of mentalities of the students which are always based on the constant observation of imaginable items only (Ekam Sat Viprah bahudha vadanti…..Veda).

The final truth is known to Anjaneya who did not like to preach the truth through assumptions and hence kept silent in preaching. He showed the essence of all the divine knowledge through action (Karma) only because Karma can only be real and fruitful. His recognition of contemporary human incarnation and practical service to Him is the essence of the message of Anjaneya. For those who cannot accept the human incarnation, Shankara preached the divine knowledge with several assumptions and the most powerful assumption is that the soul itself is God. Shankara preached atheists and this powerful assumption attracted them to come and at least here the subject. All the Acharayas followed this method of preaching by assumptions to various levels of students who are based on the logic of imaginable items only.

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[param]

The link between God and World is unimaginable

God is unimaginable. The link between the soul and world with God is also unimaginable because a link between two imaginable items only becomes imaginable.

The actions of God are also unimaginable since the actions of imaginable items are only imaginable. The only imaginable region is about all the items of the world and relationships between those items and the dead boundary of this world (imaginable region) is space. In this imaginable region there may be some temporary unimaginable regions, which are not analyzed today but one day or other those regions will be analyzed by the science. The unimaginable region for an ignorant person may be simultaneously imaginable to a scholar like the technology of an electronic instrument. Of course, even today, there are certain unimaginable regions even for scholars in the deeper planes of the science of world. Such planes will be known to scholars (Scientists) after some time by the grace of God, because such planes are within the limits of the space. The scientist is misled at this precise point.

Some time back, he did not know certain deeper planes of the world. Now he succeeded in analyzing those unknown planes. Due to this, scientist becomes blind with ego. Based on this success, he feels that he will analyze the final truth of the unimaginable limits of infinite space (world) in future on some day. This is not correct. The reason for this is that the planes which were not known to him and which are now known to him are within the limits of space only. Still, there are more deeper planes which are not known as on today. In the case of these planes, I assure the success for the scientist because these planes are also within the limits of space. But he should know that on any day he cannot cross the dead limits of space and God is beyond such space.

Since God is the generator of space (Atmana Akashah..Veda), we can touch the edge of God only in the unimaginable limits of the space. We can say that once we have touched the limits of space we have touched God.

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[killuminati]

God IS the world.

God is vibrations acting at different frequencies and durations.

[BlackBillBlake]

The Veda also says God is SAT CHIT ANANDA - Ie, God not only has awareness, but is awareness.

[param]

The Veda also says God is SAT CHIT ANANDA - Ie, God not only has awareness, but is awareness.

The word Sat denotes the existence of the primordial energy in the deep sleep storing the information. The word chit denotes the awareness functioning in the states of awakening and dream. The word Ananda is intensive happiness received at the end of the deep sleep and in the beginning of the awakened state. Thus Sat-chit-ananda are the characteristics of the primordial energy only called as Atman or Brahman and not the characteristics of the original unimaginable God because the characteristics of the unimaginable God are also unimaginable.

[param]

The pure awareness (soul) is not God

The word Maya has another meaning also. It means that which does not exist (Ya Ma Sa Maya). This does not mean that the temporarily wonderful deeper layers of Prakruti (universe) do not exist. If you say like that, it contradicts the practical experience of the world. This also does not mean that the permanently wonderful God does not exist because it contradicts the scriptures and also the proof of the scriptures given by God descending through human form. Then what is the place of application of this alternative meaning? We have said that God generated the world and that God is both designer (Nimitta) and material cause (Upadanam) of the world.

If God is the material cause, a portion of God must have been modified into the world and in such case God is a little lesser than what He was. This is impossible (Purnamevaavashishyate…..Veda). If God remained the same even after the creation, the world should have been totally unreal because the material in the world must be unreal since it was not supplied from God. In such case there is no entertainment for God from the non-existent world. Even for God world has to exist for the sake of entertainment with real material in it.

In such case if the bloody soul says that the world is non-existent for it, it is highly mock, since the soul itself is a part of the creation. Thanks to science for the investigation of robot by which it is clearly proved that the pure awareness is simply a special work form of the inert energy working in a special technology. This helped a lot to understand that the pure awareness is only an item of the creation and not the creator beyond the space.

To remove this contradiction neither we can accept the real modification of God nor accept a separate independently existing material of the world, which is not generated from God. The followers of Ramanuja mocked at the concept of Shankara on this point that said that God is the material cause of the world. In order to avoid such criticism, Shankara has already told that God is the material cause through His power called as Maya. Hence, the power of God (Maya) is modified and not the original God.

The solar energy captured by the photochemical cell is modified into electrical energy and this does not mean that the sun is modified into electricity. Therefore, the third item (power of God) is now created as the meaning of the word Maya. The power of God is also wonderful and is also a permanently unimaginable item like God, which is beyond space and can never be analyzed by the science.

The follower of Ramanuja is again mocked by the followers of Madhva (along with the followers of Shankara also) who objected the modification of power of God. When the modification of power of God is treated as body of God by Ramanuja, the modification of the body of God is also equally objectionable like the modification of God directly. Ramanuja treated the modification product of the power of God as the body of God. In such case, the changes in the inert world and the sins of the souls also affect the body of God since Ramanuja treated souls also as a part of the body. In order to avoid all this criticism totally, Madhva treated the material of the world as a separate independent item like mud and God is treated as only the pot maker (designer). This ended the criticism finally and the process of creation is explained well without any objection to all the devotees.

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[param]

Best suitable item for explaining unimaginable God is Awareness

Since, there is full freedom in selecting any knowable item to represent God, the best suitable item for explaining the status of the unimaginable God is awareness according to Shankara. As long as the awareness stands as the simile, there is no harm in selecting it to represent God even though it is not eternal. If awareness serves the purpose of explanation of the actions of God, we need not worry about its longevity. The age of a doctor is immaterial if he is capable of doing the surgery needed by the patient. It becomes an irrelevant point.

The awareness (Soul) is like the current and Jeeva, a bundle of very strong qualities is like the chip of information. Jeeva is eternal because even during the deep sleep the information is stored in the inert chip, which is expressed as it is even after the deep sleep. Jeeva is eternal even during the time of death and after death also he is eternal since he leaves the gross body. In the beginning of Gita, the Lord described about this eternal Jeeva only and not about the awareness, which is born and dies daily (Athachainam..).

The Lord referred to the ordinary human being only and hence it is not the context of a realized soul, which is a fresh disc without any information, which was erased by lot of effort. There is no much difference between a fresh inert disc and inert current except that the former is matter and the latter is energy (the concept of storing information by energy is also indicated by the electro magnetic disc). Since matter and energy are essentially one and the same, you can call both these together as a realized soul. But once the information recorded on the chip exists, such chip of information (Jeeva) predominates and hence is mainly referred in any ordinary human being. You have superimposed the information (Jeeva) on the disc (Atman) and hence the disc also means information only. The gross body is superimposed on Jeeva and Jeeva is superimposed on Atman. The gross body (Deha) is separated from Jeeva and Atman but Jeeva and Atman are not separated and are together called as the possessor of the gross body (Dehi).

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[param]

Reasons for selecting awareness as the representative for God

What made Shankara to select the awareness as the representative for God? God created this world for entertainment and therefore God must be treated as awareness to enjoy His own creation as in the case of a daydreamer who enjoys his own imaginary world. The mud cannot enjoy the beauty of pot though the pot is its own creation because mud is inert. I know you will immediately exploit this point without any patience and straightly say that the awareness is God. There are several opposing points for this, which are like the temporary life of awareness, the dependability of awareness on food, air and nervous system etc. Such opposing points will immediately control you from drawing such hasty conclusion. You must remember that awareness is only a representative of God to explain certain actions of God like entertainment etc. God can enjoy the creation-dream without being awareness.

Do not forget that God is omnipotent. Do not bind God by your rules of physical world and its consequent logic. If God is a worldly item, definable by the four dimensional space-time model, certainly your logic is valid. If I say some scene entertains a worldly object, certainly you can say that the object cannot be inert. The actions of unimaginable God are also unimaginable as stated by Veda “Apanipado….” which means that God can run without legs and can catch without hands. If you apply the same worldly logic, you will object to this and say that God must have legs and hands to run and catch. Similarly, when we say that God is wishing to create the world or when we say that God is enjoying His creation, you should accept that God wishes and enjoys without being awareness. Therefore, do not try to make God imaginable or knowable by applying the logic of the physical world. Veda clearly says that He is beyond logic (Atarkyah….., Naisha tarkena…etc.,).

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[param]

Awareness selected by Shankara to represent God exists in lower living beings like birds and animals

The awareness selected by Shankara to represent God exists in lower living beings like birds and animals, average living beings like human beings and high living being like Human Incarnation. The awareness in birds and animals is ruled out because the birds and animals cannot create an imaginary world for entertainment like a daydreamer. Their logic is very much limited and minimum pertaining to search for food shelter only. The average living being like a human being can imagine a world of its own and enjoy it with full control in a daydream. Therefore, the animals and birds are filtered from the doctrine of Shankara. The human being can be also in a state of simple awareness without imagination like a bird or animal. Hence, the bird or animal is also included in the human being where as the human being does not cover the range of animals or birds. You need not worry about ten rupees in a note of twenty rupees because ten rupees are included in twenty rupees.

By the same logic, if you proceed to a superhuman being like Krishna, the ordinary human being is also included in the superhuman being. The doctrine of Shanakra based on awareness and its imagination exists in the superhuman being also. In the ordinary human being the doctrine of Shankara is purely theoretical only because neither the awareness in the human being is actually God, nor the imaginary world in the human being is actually the world. Therefore, the ordinary human being stands only as a simile for the concept of Shankara and as usual the concept is forgotten and the simile remains as the concept. The bride escaped from the house and the rose flower exists in her place ready for marriage! If you go to the case of the superhuman being, God charges his awareness and His imagination is exactly the physical world. Here you are finding the bride with rose color looking like a rose flower. The concept and simile merged with each other. The simile acts as the medium to convey the concept.

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[param]

God Vs Awareness

God being the Creator of all entities, all properties and all works and also being the Designer of their specific associations, cannot be concluded to be mere awareness due to the work form of wish.

Simply based on the wish to create the world, you should not decide that God is awareness. God can do everything, whereas the awareness cannot do everything. God can wish anything and also can burn anything simultaneously. Awareness can only think anything but cannot burn anything. If you say that God is awareness, since God wished, you have to say that God is fire since He burns anything. God is the source of all items, all qualities and all works in the creation. By the order of God only, a specific item is associated with a specific quality and corresponding specific work. The fire is an entity. Its quality is heat. Its work is to burn anything.

The fire is associated with the property of heat and the work of burning only by the will of the Lord. If God wishes, the fire is no more hot and cannot burn anything. If God wishes, the water gets the property of heat and starts burning everything. You can identify the entity through the specific property or specific work based on the already sanction of God. Since God is the creator of all entities, all properties and all works, God can attain any quality and can do any work. In such a case, you have to conclude that God is every item in this creation. The Brahma Sutra (Ikshateh…) means, that God enters the item qualified by awareness. It means that God does not enter into a non-living being. The awareness is the broad step of the address of God existing in the specific medium. This is the basic point where Advaitins slipped and their basic confusion continued throughout their philosophy.

[param]

The Veda also says God is SAT CHIT ANANDA - Ie, God not only has awareness, but is awareness.

The word ‘Sat’, meaning the existence, denotes the basic inert energy, which was created by God in the beginning. It is the power of the God, which is wonderful and hence is called as Maya, which did not contain any design of the world. Before the creation of this power, God alone existed (Ekameva… the Veda). This inert energy developed the design of the world, when it is associated with its special form called as awareness. The association of any property with any item is only due to God and should not be claimed as the characteristic of any entity. Any property becomes characteristic of any item as long as God wishes. This was proved by God to all angles in the Veda, where God appeared as Yaksha. Thus the energy (sat) acquired this property of awareness (chit) by the will of God only. Since I used the statement “will of God”, you should not say that God is awareness. God is unimaginable and is the source of all items and all associated or characteristic properties. God need not be awareness to wish. This logic applies to all the items of the creation. If some created item wished, you can say that, that item should be awareness. God is the source of awareness. Awareness is only a property or a special work form of energy. Both the energy and awareness are created by God. God is the root source.

‘Sat’, which is the inert energy existed in the beginning before the first creation (Sadeva – the Veda). It is also called as ‘Asat’ (Asadvaa Idam - the Veda) because the design was absent in it. When the ‘sat’ acquired ‘chit’ property, the design of the world was created in it (Tatovai sadajayata – the Veda). The first word ‘sat’ denotes the inert energy. It is also called as ‘asat’ due to absence of design. The second word ‘sat’ denotes the design, when the energy acquired the ‘chit’ property. All this is about the stage before the first creation.

[param]

God IS the world.

God is vibrations acting at different frequencies and durations.

God does not live in this world but enters the world for the requirement of a few devotees


(God does not live in this world but enters the world for the requirement of a few devotees, being omnipotent, but preaching benefits all).

God is beyond creation and hence God does not exist in the world as supported by Veda (Neti Neti..), Gita (Natvaham teshu…) and Christian scripture which says that God does not live in this world. This only means that everything and every body in the world is not God. But this does not mean that God will not enter the world. Veda says that God enters the world (Tadevaanupraavishat). If you say that somebody is not residing in the city of Bombay, it does not mean that he will never visit Bombay. However, the above scriptural statements deny your all pervading God! The visit of God into this world is justified by the requirement and desire of certain top devotees.

If you object the entry of God by rule, you are opposing the omni potency of God. Suppose you object the entry of God by establishing the lack of requirement for any devotee, it is also absurd. You may not require the entry of God but how can you deny the requirement of others, who need entry of the God for the sake of personal service? The entry of God is not for the sake of all human beings but it is for the requirement of a few devotees. You cannot generalize the policy of requirement to all the human beings. However, even though God comes to satisfy a few devotees only, He preaches the spiritual knowledge that benefits all. You can be also benefited by taking Him in the level of preacher only through personal discussions.

[param]

God IS the world.

God is vibrations acting at different frequencies and durations.

The analysis of any item of creation, cannot even touch God

The link between unimaginable and imaginable does not exist in the world and since it is unimaginable, the support of creation is not touched.

The link between two imaginable items is imaginable as available in the creation. The link between two unimaginable items is unimaginable but such a link is meaningless since the two unimaginable items can be conveniently merged into one unimaginable item. The link between an unimaginable item and an imaginable item is also unimaginable because of the non-availability of such a link in creation. Therefore, self analysis or for that matter, the analysis of any other item of creation, cannot even touch God. Therefore, taking God as the support of the entire creation, you cannot make efforts to touch God by going down through any item of creation, applying deep analysis. There is no doubt that God is the basic support of the entire creation. But since there is no direct touch of God with the creation, due to the unimaginable link between God and creation, God cannot be touched by penetrating the unimaginable link. The ultimate item that can be touched by the deep analysis is only the primordial energy (cosmic energy). But since this primordial energy is inert, it cannot be treated as God.

[param]

God IS the world.

God is vibrations acting at different frequencies and durations.

Neither did God enter the world, nor did any characteristic of God enter the world


The temptation to touch the cause through the analysis of the effect fails in the case of unimaginable God and imaginable world. Even the Brahma Sutras and Shankara have given a suitable simile of a magic master here.

There is a temptation for everybody to think that there is a possibility of touching God through the analysis of creation because God is the cause and the world is the effect. This temptation is justified if the cause and effect are linked to each other by logic as in the case of mud and the pot, or gold and the chain, etc. The cause and effect in the world are both imaginable items. The characteristics of the cause are seen in the effect also since the cause spontaneously enters the effect during the very process of creation.

But in the case of God, neither did God enter the world, nor did any characteristic of God enter the world. Therefore, the temptation is never fulfilled in the case of God. As already said, the simile is the magic master and the magic (castle) created by him. Neither the magic master nor any characteristic of him exists in the magic created. Shankara has given this example (Maayaaviva vijrumbhayatyapi…). Even the Brahma Sutras refer to this example (Atmanichaivam vichitraah…)

[BlackBillBlake]

The word Sat denotes the existence of the primordial energy in the deep sleep storing the information. The word chit denotes the awareness functioning in the states of awakening and dream. The word Ananda is intensive happiness received at the end of the deep sleep and in the beginning of the awakened state. Thus Sat-chit-ananda are the characteristics of the primordial energy only called as Atman or Brahman and not the characteristics of the original unimaginable God because the characteristics of the unimaginable God are also unimaginable.

If you look closer into this you will find that Satchidananda denotes the Supreme Divine - ie your unimaginable God. BTW - do you think the Atman is 'imaginable'? Because once again, if so, take another look.

I'd also advise that the quantity of posts you are making here is somewhat excessive. This forum is supposed to be for discussion, not propaganda on behalf of a particular sect or guru.

[killuminati]

I guess we'll agree do disagree.
some things you said I vibe with, but some I don't. "nor did any characteristic of God enter the world"? Love is in the world, that to me makes that statement void.

what do you think God is?

[param]

I guess we'll agree do disagree.
some things you said I vibe with, but some I don't. "nor did any characteristic of God enter the world"? Love is in the world, that to me makes that statement void.

what do you think God is?


killuminati;

The special knowledge has two components, one is knowledge and
other is unimaginable nature of God

God is certainly unimaginable, – but God can be experienced by anyone.
When you experience unimaginable – nature, God is experienced.
Experience does not mean that you - have understood unimaginable God.
When you say that the solution of – a problem is unimaginable to you,
Does it not mean that you have – experienced it as unimaginable item?
The characteristic of God is – unimaginable nature, it is experienced,
It means unimaginable God is – experienced, experience does not
Contradict unimaginable nature, - after all, you can say that something is
Unimaginable when you experience that – it is unimaginable to you.
Knowledge is constantly associated – characteristic of God for identity,
But knowledge exists in scholar also, - God is isolated from scholar by
The specialty of knowledge of God – that cannot be seen anywhere.
This specialty of knowledge comes – from unimaginable nature of God.

The unimaginable nature of God – is mixed with the knowledge and
The knowledge becomes special – or unimaginable or wonderful.
The special knowledge has - two components, one is knowledge and
The other is unimaginable nature of God, - both are experienced items.
Knowledge is quality or Sattvam, - it is imaginable and experienced.
Such knowledge mixed with unimaginable – nature of God becomes
Unimaginable knowledge and both are – items of experience only.
Knowledge remains imaginable, - but the unimaginable nature
Makes it wonderful and this is – called as Prajnanam by Veda.
The point in His knowledge is – clear and imaginable to you.

But you have not heard that point – anywhere in the world before.
Hence the point is imaginable by virtue – of its knowledge component.
By virtue of the unimaginable component – it is unheard anywhere.
You have not imagined that point – so far and this is unimaginable.
This does not mean that the point – itself is unimaginable to you.

For example you have read - Ramayana and Bhagavatam before,
You know that Gopikas worshipped – Krishna and Hanuman worshipped
Rama, now you start worshipping – Rama and Krishna as statues.
But the point there is that Gopikas – did not worship statue of Rama,
Hanuman did not worship statue – of Vamana, past human incarnation.
It means that you have to worship – your contemporary human incarnation.
This point is understood now by you, - it is very simple to understand.
But you have not imagined this point – so far, so it was unimaginable.
Both components are experienced, - no objection of experience to
The unimaginable component - as said above, hence total Prajnanam
Being experienced by you results – in the experience of God, speaking
Prajnanam through your contemporary – human incarnation, the Satguru.

[param]

BTW - do you think the Atman is 'imaginable'? Because once again, if so, take another look.


“Veda and Gita say that the soul can be visualized by very careful analysis and vision (Drusyate Tvagrayaa…, Pasyanti Jnana Chakshushah….). After all, the soul is only pure awareness which is the nervous energy flowing in the nerves. Today we have very sophisticated instruments through which we can see this nervous energy flowing in nerves as waves. The soul is essentially the inert energy only. Ofcourse, the chip of the information (Jeeva) existing in the brain is specific for an individual i.e., accumulated from several births. Your body is like computer.

The electricity flowing in the computer (Power) is the awareness or the soul. The information fed into the computer (Programme) is specific and is called as the individual soul or Jeeva. Therefore, you can see the soul in its essential form as energy. At the time of death this chip of information (Jeeva) comes out of the body. When the radio station transmits some speech in to the space, it travels in the space with a specific frequency and it is essentially energy only. But when it enters the radio the speech is heard. Similarly, the individual soul on entering a new alive body again transmits the information. Therefore, the soul or individual soul can be visualized as the energy only.

When it enters another system (another human body), it behaves like the soul or individual soul which is the specific work form of energy. If you take the soul or individual soul as the specific form of energy only, it cannot be isolated like energy. You cannot take the photo of grinding work. The machine, the current, the motion of the rod that grinds the grains (Kinetic energy), grains etc., can be visualized. But none of these is the grinding work. The grinding work depends on all these components and we can see its effect as the flour of grains. The actual specific work cannot be visualized but can be experienced. By this point people have misunderstood that the soul is God because God is also not visible but can be experienced.

But the difference is that God is independent, whereas the awareness (Specific form of work) depends on the brain, nervous system, food, oxygen and proper oxidation of food to release energy etc. Awareness is unreal by itself when isolated from all the components. God is the completely independent and ultimate absolute reality. A scientist told that the life energy is like the sound produced from the drum and stick. The sound is essentially mechanical energy and is neither the drum, nor the stick, nor the beat (Kinetic energy) nor the ear-drum that experiences the sound.

Every item of the creation is a relative reality (Mithya) like the awareness except God. You can visualize the sound as energy waves but those waves are not sound. Only the effect of those waves is sound. Such effect is not self-existent independent item. Its existence is a compounded effect of all the parts of the system. Therefore, the soul in the form of inert energy can be visualized, which is its original form i.e., remaining in the state of deep sleep”.

[gdkumar]

Hare Krishna!

Dear Param,

Joining date 16.08.08, total number of posts 91 !

I am sorry, even after so many posts I could not get to your exact points. It seems utter confusion has covered everything. Probably, effect of reading the Vedas and not understanding even a bit of it !

Dear, if God is not awareness, what else is ? If He is Nirakar, He is Sakar as well through His creations. Param, you are God but minus the awareness of being Him as one of His countless Sakar forms. Your hands, feet, head , ... everything is His. Still would we say He does not have awareness.

He is Chaitanya, Param-Chaitanyamay, He is Sat-Chidanandamay. As Sakar He is everything, He is all pervading Nirakar as well.

Read less, practise more is the answer to all the questions and confusions. Practise and know the truth by yourself. No Veda, No Gita, No Guru can take you to the truth. Only God's Compassion and Grace can do that and that you receive only when you sincerely try to practise to know Him.

Love,

Kumar.

[BlackBillBlake]

Dear Friend - don't you see how by posting such an excessive amount you are acting as your own worst enemy?
People will see the large amount of posts and take the view that this constitutes spamming. It doesn't matter how wonderful you think what you have to say may be, the approach is certain to put people off before they've even looked. You won't impress anyone by trying to force them to look at this stuff, but it's more likely that they will think you lack courtesy.
This then will reflect on whatever guru you are trying to draw to our attention in a negative way.

So please use your awareness, whether or not you believe it comes from God. A little bit of sensitivity might not go amiss either.

[param]

Hare Krishna!



Dear, if God is not awareness, what else is ? If He is Nirakar, He is Sakar as well through His creations. Param, you are God but minus the umar.

kumar;

God is neither formless nor has form. In the creation both formless objects like air and form-full objects like earth exist. Because of this reason God is neither formless nor form-full since both are imaginable. Veda says that God is unimaginable. But God comes in human form, which is useful to the humanity in all directions. But such unimaginable God comes in human form in every human generation. The main aim of the human form is preaching Divine Knowledge. That is why God has taken a human form which is very much useful to the humanity in various angles. You have to worship such form taken by God. He is not your servant to come in the form you desire. In Gita the Lord said that He will approach the devotee in the same path as the devotee approaches. This does not mean that He will take the form as you like. You can take any form you like which can be a representative of God (Pratika) but God does not exist in it.

[param]

Dear Friend - don't you see how by posting such an excessive amount you are acting as your own worst enemy?
People will see the large amount of posts and take the view that this constitutes spamming. It doesn't matter how wonderful you think what you have to say may be, the approach is certain to put people off before they've even looked. You won't impress anyone by trying to force them to look at this stuff, but it's more likely that they will think you lack courtesy.
This then will reflect on whatever guru you are trying to draw to our attention in a negative way.

So please use your awareness, whether or not you believe it comes from God. A little bit of sensitivity might not go amiss either.

Noted your concern!

[BlackBillBlake]

In the creation both formless objects like air and form-full objects like earth exist.

This is incorrect. So far as our ordinary sensory apparatus goes, it might appear that air is formless. However, science has extended the reach of our senses to some limited degree, and we can say with certainty that air has a definite form, just as do other gases and mixtures of gases which exist in the cosmos.
Furthermore, these gasses each have their exact molecular form.

For long ages yogis have been saying that our senses are continually decieving us; and modern science has shown this to be true.
What looks to us on the surface, or as a result of naive observation very simple, turns out to be very complex.

The balance of gasses in the air is in fact extremely important. Currently, the rise in levels of C02 is a huge cause for concern as regards our future as a race on this planet.
Thus not only does air have a definite form, but that form is maintained in a fine balance in order to support physical life on earth in all its huge array of diversity.

God, on the other hand, is both with and without form - He is Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. He has no form, yet all forms. He is nowhere and yet He is everywhere and in everything.

Air is not a good metaphor for the formless. Personally I doubt that the formless is imaginable by anyone. It may be concievable, but that is a different thing. It simply means we have a word, a tag which has no actual referent in our experience. To imgagine a thing means more to give it some actual form for our own inner awareness.The experience of the formless would be a divine grace.

[param]

.rd, a tag which has no actual referent in our experience. To imgagine a thing means more to give it some actual form for our own inner awareness.The experience of the formless would be a divine grace.

BlackBillBlake;

All the worldly items have dimensions of the space and hence are not beyond space. If the items are beyond space, they will be also unimaginable. But all the items of the world are imaginable only. No imaginable item can be a simile to the unimaginable God. Hence, a complete simile for God is absent in this world. A simile among the worldly items also is never perfect in all aspects. The face is compared to the moon. Moon increases and decreases in the month but the face has no such increase and decrease. An imaginable item cannot be a perfect simile to another imaginable item in the world. Then, how can you bring a perfect simile from the imaginable items to the unimaginable God? Of course, God enters into an imaginable item as medium. In that case the medium itself is said to be God as the live wire is said to be the current itself. Here also the medium is treated as God but actually the medium is not God directly.

All the non-God items are worldly objects, which are parts of creation. All these items are known first and then only their existence is mentioned. When you say that a pot exists, it means that you are stating the existence since you know the pot already. Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already. If you do not know anything about an item, you will not say that it exists. Hence, the existence always requires the prior knowledge of the item. But God is beyond world and is unimaginable since God is not known. Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items. Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense. This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat).

[BlackBillBlake]

Well if God is not known, I'd suggest getting to know Him might well be the best solution.
Then we won't have to rely on imprecise metaphors or imagination anymore, nor be tied to just one guru or set of doctrines.

[liquidlight]

param ... i agree with blackbillblake, you are filling the forums with your beliefs. Simply copying scripture. You've said too mutch already without regard to whether others are even interested - This is spamming and is against the rules of posting on these forums. Maybe you could take these few complaints as a cross section of the whole and understand that we don't wish you to continue posting in the excessive way you have been until now.
You have noted our concern but have you understood?

[param]

Well if God is not known, I'd suggest getting to know Him might well be the best solution.
Then we won't have to rely on imprecise metaphors or imagination anymore, nor be tied to just one guru or set of doctrines.

Even though God is unimaginable He comes in human form to give His presence to us in every human generation. The unimaginable God needs the imaginable human form as a medium for expressing Himself to His devotees. In the case of human incarnation of God also, you have only understood the existence of the unimaginable God and you have not imagined the nature of God as in the case of the limits of the Universe. You have only seen that the limits of space are beyond the sight and this does not mean that you have seen the limits of space. In all these examples, Maya (Unimaginable item) exists in the imaginable items to give a proof for its existence just like the unperceivable electricity exists in the perceivable metallic wire to give experience of its existence. The wire with electricity can be treated as the electricity itself and there is no other way than this to perceive the electricity. The electricity has to be treated as the wire containing electricity. But every wire is not electricity.

Therefore, the unimaginable Maya has to be treated as the imaginable world, which shows the unimaginable limits. This does not mean that every imaginable item in the world with definite limits is Maya. Therefore, this world can be treated as Maya (Mayamtu Prakrutim….Gita). Here the word Prakruti stands for the world with unimaginable limits and it does not stand for any imaginable item in the world with definite limits. Similarly, the person charged by God (human incarnation) can be treated as God but not every person. The world with unimaginable limits and human incarnation with unimaginable miracles can be treated as God (Viswam Vishnuh.., Vasudevah Sarvamiti…..) and this does not mean that the world or the human body of human incarnation itself is God (Avyaktam Vyaktimapannam…Gita).

[famewalk]

The marraige in Hinduism made the world just absolutely. And the Ganges River will dry up one day and heav your skeletal remains onto the parched Global Warmed Earth.:cheers2:

[Meagain]

Awareness requires something to be aware and something to be aware of.
Therefore it is dual in nature and cannot be Ultimate Reality.

However, Ultimate Reality plays the game of awareness and things to be aware of in a number of different stages.

At the Ultimate level awareness will disappear along with things and objects.

[gdkumar]

Hare Krishna !

From Param ...

"God is neither formless nor has form. In the creation both formless objects like air and form-full objects like earth exist. Because of this reason God is neither formless nor form-full since both are imaginable. Veda says that God is unimaginable. But God comes in human form, which is useful to the humanity in all directions. But such unimaginable God comes in human form in every human generation. The main aim of the human form is preaching Divine Knowledge. That is why God has taken a human form which is very much useful to the humanity in various angles. You have to worship such form taken by God. He is not your servant to come in the form you desire. In Gita the Lord said that He will approach the devotee in the same path as the devotee approaches. This does not mean that He will take the form as you like. You can take any form you like which can be a representative of God (Pratika) but God does not exist in it."

God is neither having form, nor He is formless, He is unimaginable, can be a representative of Himself in human form without existing in it .........Eh !... what's happening ? It is all very funny and silly !

Dear Param, there is something terribly wrong somewhere. Do you mean to say that we should give a damn to the word 'God' and stop bothering ourselves looking for Him. Why worship and look for Him as He is so incapable that God cannot make himself imaginable to us, cannot have form, cannot become a small tortoise, a dwarf, a fish, a Rama or Krishna... not even a small baby. Why worship and break our head and heart when He can become only a representative in a form but cannot become the form Himself. If He has limits then it is better we live and let Him live peacefully. In The Gita Lord Krishna said He was God himself.... it is all false !

Please dear, let us live with the truth that He is the limitless absolute with all compassion for us. From time immemorial He himself has had come to us in all conceivable forms to bring us up with love and care. If He does not wish He is everything that you said and if He does He is so close to us, in the tiniest and the largest revealations.

Love,

Kumar

[BlackBillBlake]

At the Ultimate level awareness will disappear along with things and objects.

So what will be left? Unconsciousness? A void? It would seem so by definition.

To me this seems nihilistic.

[Meagain]

Hi BBB,

The point is awareness can only exist in the realm of objects. No objects, nothing to be aware of. When you are aware it must be through one of the six senses, touch, smell, taste, sound, seeing, or mind. And those senses need an object to function. (The object of mind is thoughts and ideas.) Take away these senses and objects and you also take away awareness.

Now, when we die the senses are terminated. So what is left to be aware of, or with? The only possible answer would be Ultimate Reality, or God, or whatever you wish to call it.
Now if Ultimate Reality, which is non dual, becomes aware of itself, duality has arisen and we have subject and object, awareness and that which is aware; the beginning of the universe.
There is no nihilism as nihilism is a dualistic concept. You cannot have nothing without something.
Same with unconscious, and void.

[BlackBillBlake]

I see what you mean, but I think the ultimate reality is conscious of itself, so its self relation solves the problem of awareness with no object.

If we say the absolute has no self relation, then its hard to see how it could have any relation with anything else, such as the cosmos of which we assume it is the source.
Even if we say the cosmos is an illusion (which I don't think it is) it's still very difficult to say how it could have arisen from a relationless absolute.

[Meagain]

First: I think the problem lies with the terms consciousness and awareness. We are using them on two different levels. Individual consciousness (awareness) and Ultimate consciousness (awareness).
Now if consciousness never has an object, it is a word we can no longer take literally, for consciousness without an object transcends duality. It is the quiddity of all appearances, ubiquitous and unique, and we can only call it non-duality or the principle of consciousness. -John LevyAs to the second part: Ultimate Reality seems to be divided into all sorts of dualities such as you and I, but these are illusions as there is only The One. If the absolute becomes conscious of itself then there must be a change in that consciousness, which by definition (Ultimate Reality) is impossible. But we know that objects do appear in this consciousness so they must be one and the same thing.

For the third: The cosmos is an illusion (a very good one) as can be seen by the seeming appearance of objects to consciousness. (Remember consciousness and objects are really one and then same). There can be no objects arising in reality, and so they are an illusion, for something to arise it must come from something else. But if it comes from something else then it is that thing and not the thing that has arisen. If it arises of its own then it comes from nothing and nothing can not produce something as it would not be nothing but something to begin with. If it is one thing to begin with and then changes into something else, how can this happen as the two are then unrelated separate things? If they are related they must touch at some point and therefore are one and the same.

The same goes for dissolving.

So nothing arises, exists, or dissolves.
Illusion.

[BlackBillBlake]

Or nihilism. Comes to the same thing.

[BlackBillBlake]

Perhaps I'd better enlarge on that.

I mean if the world is an illusion with nothing behind it, then what's left? Only a kind of stoic resignation I'd assume.

To quote King Lear 'nothing will come of nothing'.

[Meagain]

I don't know, Nihilism sort of denies meaning, a greater power then displayed by the human condition, etc.

By stoic resignation I assume you mean that there is no meaning to life so just resign yourself the the fates?
I don't know a lot about Stoicism but I do know the common usage of the word today is not the same as the actual Stoic beliefs and practices of old.

When I say that the world is an illusion I really need to explain what I mean in detail. This takes time and becomes very complicated. So let me just say that we each construct the world and we are each other. There is only one condition that varies and it varies constantly. The world is constructed every time you have a thought and disappears at the end of each thought. The time between thoughts is not noticed as it is outside of time as when you sleep a deep sleep time disappears. We each construct the world with our thoughts. Of course in my last post I said nothing arises, exists, or dispels......

Anyway what's left is the illusion and the constructor of the illusion, which are the same.

[BlackBillBlake]

I don't know, Nihilism sort of denies meaning, a greater power then displayed by the human condition, etc.

By stoic resignation I assume you mean that there is no meaning to life so just resign yourself the the fates?
I don't know a lot about Stoicism but I do know the common usage of the word today is not the same as the actual Stoic beliefs and practices of old.

When I say that the world is an illusion I really need to explain what I mean in detail. This takes time and becomes very complicated. So let me just say that we each construct the world and we are each other. There is only one condition that varies and it varies constantly. The world is constructed every time you have a thought and disappears at the end of each thought. The time between thoughts is not noticed as it is outside of time as when you sleep a deep sleep time disappears. We each construct the world with our thoughts. Of course in my last post I said nothing arises, exists, or dispels......

Anyway what's left is the illusion and the constructor of the illusion, which are the same.

I don't think we construct the world with our thought or our minds. The universe existed for long ages prior to the emergence of the human form or mind on this small planet, so who was constructing it then?

I said 'nihilism' because if the supreme is not conscious, then it is really nothing - a nihil or void. If the supreme is not conscious, then our powers would be greater then those of God.

As for illusion - I think the world is real, but we have a false view of it, hence the illusion.

[Jedi]

I don't think we construct the world with our thought or our minds. The universe existed for long ages prior to the emergence of the human form or mind on this small planet, so who was constructing it then?

good question, :D

[Meagain]

We are speaking of consciousness, which has many forms, one of which is the human form. Within the human form we have ego consciousness. This is the everyday, everyman form of consciousness. We also have the human form of consciousness that is not separated from its environment. This form is contained in the human form and its related environment.
The root consciousness of man has always existed and will continue to exist outside of time.
You are viewing time from the position of a human being on Earth, which appears to flow in a linear fashion. But time is relative, as the great man said. We construct linear time and label the past, present, and future.
If I may sound religious; God, everything, everybody, and every time exist now. You are mistaking the human brain for consciousness. IMO.

[BlackBillBlake]

We are speaking of consciousness, which has many forms, one of which is the human form. Within the human form we have ego consciousness. This is the everyday, everyman form of consciousness. We also have the human form of consciousness that is not separated from its environment. This form is contained in the human form and its related environment.
The root consciousness of man has always existed and will continue to exist outside of time.


I don't think human consciousness exists prior to or outside of the human form. The eternal consciousness is not human consciousness.
By the 'root consciousness' I assume you mean something like the atman - but the atman is not the individual human consciousness, and it is unborn.
The actual form, the individuality, is part of the prakriti or nature. This exists totally independently of human beings.
Consciousness itself has no forms at all(or no forms here in the material world). It is that which knows form, or indeed, formlessness.
This is explained in the Bhagavad Gita, where we have the teaching of purusha (the knower) and prakriti (nature - that which is known). Mind, ego, body are all part of prakriti.


You are viewing time from the position of a human being on Earth, which appears to flow in a linear fashion. But time is relative, as the great man said. We construct linear time and label the past, present, and future.
If I may sound religious; God, everything, everybody, and every time exist now. You are mistaking the human brain for consciousness. IMO
.

I don't think the individual human being exists in all times. God exists both inside and outside of time. He is the source of time and all creation.
The soul which uses this present body may well be eternal, but not the form it uses.

Time has to flow in a linear way in the universe, or we'd simply have chaos. Part of that includes the gradual evolution of life and the human form within time and within the cosmos.
I'd say you are mistaking the human consciousness for the divine consciousness of which it is only a miniscule fragment.

[BlackBillBlake]

good question, :D

..a clue to my answer - it begins with 'K' and ends with 'A'.....:D

[neodude1212]

Awareness requires something to be aware and something to be aware of.
Therefore it is dual in nature and cannot be Ultimate Reality.


Can't awareness simply be aware of awareness?

aware of itself?

[Meagain]

Hey Bill,
Thanks for continuing to reply to my ramblings!
I don't think human consciousness exists prior to or outside of the human form.I was referring to the fact that human consciousness is a continuum of consciousness in general which begins in its Ultimate form and moves to involution, when it submerges in material substance, and then through evolution to the human form where it can become self aware.
The eternal consciousness is not human consciousness.Human consciousness is one aspect of the eternal consciousness. It is the part of eternal consciousness that has the capacity to become aware of itself.
By the 'root consciousness' I assume you mean something like the atman - but the atman is not the individual human consciousness, and it is unborn.Actually I was thinking more of Brahman.
The actual form, the individuality, is part of the prakriti or nature. This exists totally independently of human beings. Prakriti,in my understanding, is that which gives form to all individuals, while purusha is the inner witness to that form. So while we could say that prakriti exists independently it must connect at some point when the human form develops.
By root consciousness I was referring more to Brahman or purusha.
I don't think the individual human being exists in all times.The point I am making is that the concept of time, past, present, and future is just that; a concept.
Time has to flow in a linear way in the universe, or we'd simply have chaos.Time flows in certain directions and at certain rates depending on different factors, according to quantum and relativity theory.
I'd say you are mistaking the human consciousness for the divine consciousness of which it is only a miniscule fragment.Sorry, I am not expressing my ideas very well. But, I am saying that they are the same. There is no fragmentation, only the illusion of fragmentation.

Dude,
Can awareness be aware of awareness? I guess so.
But it would have to be an enlightened individual that was aware.

[famewalk]

That's good: that's good. But is the holism of time essentially already there in the finitism of Life? Or is the continuum of Consciousness, as it were (woo..ooh) moving to Involution, the ground to the Hole, positively free vis. a vis the Creative Consciousness (evolution is the foundation of Freedom)?

Multiplication of holes in Time are at filling the whole sequence of Evolution, or is the evolution a posited sequencing of involuting Holisms of essentially created Time?

I believe that Hinduism is rather Neo-platonist.

[BlackBillBlake]

Hey Bill,
Thanks for continuing to reply to my ramblings!
I was referring to the fact that human consciousness is a continuum of consciousness in general which begins in its Ultimate form and moves to involution, when it submerges in material substance, and then through evolution to the human form where it can become self aware.
Human consciousness is one aspect of the eternal consciousness. It is the part of eternal consciousness that has the capacity to become aware of itself.
Actually I was thinking more of Brahman.



It's an interesting discussion - I'm happy to continue to posit my own ramblings in contrast to your own...:D

Brahman and Atman are the same thing considered from different angles.

No doubt human consciousness is an aspect of the divine consciousness, but only an aspect. To become aware of the divine consciousness would take one beyond the merely human.

Prakriti,in my understanding, is that which gives form to all individuals, while purusha is the inner witness to that form. So while we could say that prakriti exists independently it must connect at some point when the human form develops.

Sorry, I've lost the thread here. I can say that the philosophy of purusha/prakriti is part of a system known as sankhya, which says they are a permanant duality. The Gita rejects this ultimate duality, and says that prakriti has emerged from purusha, although the point of their seeming separation is impossible to pin down.
It's more complex than that though, because Krishna mentions 2 prakritis - the lower prakriti, mula prakriti, which really comprises everything we percieve here, body, life, mind, and the higher prakriti, para-prakriti, which is a higher nature of which only the seer has any inkling. It probabaly represents a higher mode of being, superior to our being here in the physical world.



By root consciousness I was referring more to Brahman or purusha.


The 3 dualities of purusha/prakriti, brahman/maya, and ishwara/shakti are really the same thing, again seem from slightly different angles.


The point I am making is that the concept of time, past, present, and future is just that; a concept.
Time flows in certain directions and at certain rates depending on different factors, according to quantum and relativity theory.


It is more than a concept I would say, because even during the period prior to the appearance of human beings with conceptual minds, time must still have flowed in exactly the same way otherwise other non-rational creatures could not have lived.
Without time, there could be no concepts.




Sorry, I am not expressing my ideas very well. But, I am saying that they are the same. There is no fragmentation, only the illusion of fragmentation.



A very persistent illusion though!



Dude,
Can awareness be aware of awareness? I guess so.
But it would have to be an enlightened individual that was aware
.

I think we're all aware that we are aware. And certainly, I think that we can come to realize a higher consciousness.

[BlackBillBlake]

I believe that Hinduism is rather Neo-platonist.

Or was Plotinus under an Indian influence, even indirectly? That would seem rather more likely.

[neodude1212]

Ok, so if awareness can simply be aware of itself, then there is no subject/object duality, just realization of itself, so why can't consciousness be the ultimate reality?

[BlackBillBlake]

Ok, so if awareness can simply be aware of itself, then there is no subject/object duality, just realization of itself, so why can't consciousness be the ultimate reality?

Sat Chit Ananda - Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Ultimate reality.

[param]

If God isn't awareness, then how did He know what He was creating? This is simple idiocy.
Also, if you expect people to trawl through this stuff of yours, you'd do better to avaoid acting like you're spamming up the board.

God can do every thing without being that
(God is beyond the worldly logic).


(God being the source of all items and their properties of the creation, God can do every thing without being that. Items have specific properties by His order only. God is beyond the worldly logic).

The creation contains various items. Each item is having certain prescribed qualities. All the items and their qualities are generated from God only. By the will of God only, a quality exists in a particular item. No item has any inherent quality by itself. It is by the order of God only that an item has a particular quality. If God wishes the qualities may change. By the will of God fire may become cold and water may become hot. In the world you are recognizing the item by its quality thinking as if that quality is inherent of that item only. The worldly logic is not standard because it is based on the will of God only.

This worldly logic cannot be applied to the case of God, who is omnipotent to change the quality of any item. God being the source of all the qualities, God can posses any quality and due to that God need not be that item possessing the quality as seen in this world. Without being awareness, God can wish. Without being fire, God can burn anything. Hence, you should not apply the logic of identifying items by their qualities to God as in the case of this world. A quality indicates the potential work of the item. Burning is the quality and also is the potential work of the item. Therefore, God can have any quality and is potent to do any work.

[param]

If God isn't awareness, then how did He know what He was creating? This is simple idiocy.
Also, if you expect people to trawl through this stuff of yours, you'd do better to avaoid acting like you're spamming up the board.


Veda says that God can run without legs and can catch without hands

(Veda says that God can have the quality to do the potential work without being the corresponding item).

Veda says that God can run without legs and can catch without hands (Apaani Paado….). According to the worldly logic, the item that runs must have legs and the item that catches must have hands. But God runs without legs and catches without hands. This means that God is beyond the worldly logic and hence is unimaginable.

[param]

If God isn't awareness, then how did He know what He was creating? This is simple idiocy.
Also, if you expect people to trawl through this stuff of yours, you'd do better to avaoid acting like you're spamming up the board.

God is not awareness

(When God is said to have will, the medium is awareness. This does not mean that God is awareness. If that is so, God is said to be burner of all the creation in the end. This does not mean that God is fire).

In Veda it is said that God wished to create this world (Sa ekshata..). People thought that God must be awareness due to the will, because awareness alone can wish. It is also said that God burns all the creation in the end as per Brahma Sutra (Attaa charaachara….). This does not mean that God is the inert fire.

[mariecstasy]

I am sorry. I did not read the thread so if this has been said, stone me.

How come it says God vs. Awareness.........isn't the ultimate definition of God, Awareness....or least it is to me.

[BlackBillBlake]

I am sorry. I did not read the thread so if this has been said, stone me.

How come it says God vs. Awareness.........isn't the ultimate definition of God, Awareness....or least it is to me.

It isn't for Param, or his guru evidently.

No need for a stoning though.....:D

[BlackBillBlake]

Veda says that God can run without legs and can catch without hands

(Veda says that God can have the quality to do the potential work without being the corresponding item).

Veda says that God can run without legs and can catch without hands (Apaani Paado….). According to the worldly logic, the item that runs must have legs and the item that catches must have hands. But God runs without legs and catches without hands. This means that God is beyond the worldly logic and hence is unimaginable.

So what? The Satchidananda Brahman is obviously beyond the reach of mere logic......however, that doesn't mean that because God is 'un-imaginable' He is not consciousness. Pure consciousness is 'un-imaginable'.

All you seem to be doing here is re-stating over and again that logic is inadequate to know God. But nothing at all which gives credence to the idea that God is unconscious.

[SvgGrdnBeauty]

God is not awareness

(When God is said to have will, the medium is awareness. This does not mean that God is awareness. If that is so, God is said to be burner of all the creation in the end. This does not mean that God is fire).

In Veda it is said that God wished to create this world (Sa ekshata..). People thought that God must be awareness due to the will, because awareness alone can wish. It is also said that God burns all the creation in the end as per Brahma Sutra (Attaa charaachara….). This does not mean that God is the inert fire.

This doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. How can you limit what God is and isn't ? Brahman is everything and nothing at all. It is existence, knowledge, bliss...pure consciousness.... as soon as you limit it...it is ignorance... correct me if I'm wrong everyone... but to give Brahman attributes (saguna) is because we are limited beings due to ignorance and it helps us to finally begin to grasp Ultimate Reality, if through a characteristic of the Divine such as my beautiful Lord Krishna...

...but there is nowhere where God is not...even the name God is a limitation... SatChitAnanda, Cosmic Consciousness (as Yoganandaji would say), Ultimate Reality... and even so those are limiting...how can you ever describe a vastness soo vast that even the sages of the Upanishads had to use negatives to say what it was *not* because they couldn't describe what exactly it *is*

[BlackBillBlake]

This doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. How can you limit what God is and isn't ? Brahman is everything and nothing at all. It is existence, knowledge, bliss...pure consciousness.... as soon as you limit it...it is ignorance... correct me if I'm wrong everyone... but to give Brahman attributes (saguna) is because we are limited beings due to ignorance and it helps us to finally begin to grasp Ultimate Reality, if through a characteristic of the Divine such as my beautiful Lord Krishna...

...but there is nowhere where God is not...even the name God is a limitation... SatChitAnanda, Cosmic Consciousness (as Yoganandaji would say), Ultimate Reality... and even so those are limiting...how can you ever describe a vastness soo vast that even the sages of the Upanishads had to use negatives to say what it was *not* because they couldn't describe what exactly it *is*

Yep. Only thing I'd say is that it isn't that the saguna brahman exists because we project qualities onto God - saguna brahman and nirguna brahman are two aspects - both exist wholly indepentently of human thought or existence. At least, that's my view of it. Others, whom I believe take too much of a 'psychological' position, would no doubt differ.

If we say for instance 'God is Love', that isn't to limit God - because the Love of God is in every way as inconcievable as God Himeslf. We can come to feel it, we can know it in a spiritual experience beyond the intellectual mind, but never to analyse it so that it is known by the rational side of our being.

The Rishis gave various descriptions - some are negative some positive. Later on Avatars, who are no doubt greater than the greatest of Rishis, came here as God's self-revelation.
Not that I am decrying the Rishis - they paved the way for everything IMO.

Since you mention Krishna, I'd better add that IMO the concept of the Purushotama, the Supreme Divine Person, is higher and more complete than the Nirguna Brahman.:)

[BlackBillBlake]

From the Bhagavad Gita - Ch. 15.

16. There are two Purushas (spiritual beings) in this world, the immutable (and impersonal) and the mutable (and personal); the mutable is all these existences, the Kutastha (the high-seated consciousness of the Brahmic status) is called the immutable.
17. But other than these two is that highest spirit called the supreme Self, who enters the three worlds and upbears them, the imperishable Lord.
18. Since I am beyond the mutable and am greater and higher even than the immutable, in the world and the Veda I am proclaimed as the Purushottama (the supreme Self).
19. He who undeluded thus has knowledge of Me as the Purushottama, adores Me (has bhakti for Me) with all-knowledge and in every way of his natural being.
20. Thus by Me the most secret shastra (the supreme teaching and science) has been told, O sinless one. Absolutely to know it is to be perfected in understanding and successful in the supreme sense, O Bharata.

as translated by
Sri Aurobindo

(my italics)

[Meagain]

Bill,
Brahman and Atman are the same thing considered from different angles.Of course.
No doubt human consciousness is an aspect of the divine consciousness, but only an aspect. To become aware of the divine consciousness would take one beyond the merely human.No, the gift of being human is the capacity to know the divine while still being in this body.

On prakriti and purusha:
I am not real familiar with these terms but I can see, IMO, what they refer to. Prakriti is the material realm, along with the individual mind and body. You may divide it up into different levels if you wish, the lower is the common mental state of man, the higher the enlightened man. Purusha is the witness. The term "Witness" is used in many schools to denote him who sees all, the all seeing eye, the one who is left when all else is stripped away. It is the fundamental being covered over by the ego.
The 3 dualities of purusha/prakriti, brahman/maya, and ishwara/shakti are really the same thing, again seem from slightly different angles.But we are talking about thier relationship, so we must divide. We know in truth that there is only one.

On time:
It is more than a concept I would say,Everything is a concept. because even during the period prior to the appearance of human beings with conceptual minds, time must still have flowed in exactly the same way otherwise other non-rational creatures could not have lived.True it flows all kind of ways, depending on your point of view.
Without time, there could be no concepts.Time is needed for human brains to work.

mariecstasy,
In My opinion god is sometimes called consciousness, but God is beyond consciousness as consciousness must have something to be conscious of and God is not dual in nature.

[BlackBillBlake]

Bill,
Of course.
No, the gift of being human is the capacity to know the divine while still being in this body.

On prakriti and purusha:
I am not real familiar with these terms but I can see, IMO, what they refer to. Prakriti is the material realm, along with the individual mind and body. You may divide it up into different levels if you wish, the lower is the common mental state of man, the higher the enlightened man. Purusha is the witness. The term "Witness" is used in many schools to denote him who sees all, the all seeing eye, the one who is left when all else is stripped away. It is the fundamental being covered over by the ego.
But we are talking about thier relationship, so we must divide. We know in truth that there is only one.

On time:
Everything is a concept. True it flows all kind of ways, depending on your point of view.
Time is needed for human brains to work.

.

Well I think I've said all I can here. Can't think of much to add. Of course, I have my way of seeing it all, which may be different in the way I formulate things than others, but I'm not saying my view is the only correct one. I think that one can see it in different ways from different angles, and there is validity in different views.:)


Just say though that it is only to the thinking, discursive mind/intellect that everything is a concept. The whole purpose of yoga on one level is to move beyond the conceptual into a direct relation with reality.
To know the divine, rather than just have ideas about it.