• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution?

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Hi Cassy,

I am frankly quite impressed with your literary skills. You have a way with words.

However, I am a being of logic. My replies will be based on what I interpret logically of the philosophy I understand. :)

But if the purpose of a journey around the world is to go home, then why leave home? So why did God leave home?

When did God leave home? He never leaves home. He descends WITH His abode, associates, paraphernalia to perform His pastimes.

Turn it around "God is you", God is you on a tour and he wants to enjoy it, for he is only discovering his magnificent Self, through you. If you really want to unite with God the quick way, than the path of adharma is the quicker one. Seek total desperation and God will terminate you for you desire for self-destruction. Because God likes to enjoy his trips, and you are no fun.

God is me...I did not get that.

Nowhere am I implying that we have to merge WITH God. Unity means to exist FOR God...infinite individuals serving that ONE God with their DIVERSE emotions/feelings. It is not merging with God. Be where you are, do what you do...reunite with God in emotions...at heart!


Basically I see religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and many Hindu samprayas too as attempts of suicide of the self. Lets get it over with and reunite with God. Those people are in such a hurry to end it. Lets break the chain of rebirth now. Only unhappy people can think like this, people that have not found God. The intellectuals that rather think than go on the path of devotion. God lives in their mind, not in their heart. And so they keep longing for God. Lets end this suffering, says Buddha, it is unbearable. Let us end this suffering says Jesus, I come to rescue you. But hindu Sages live on and on and on, happy.

To me, Buddha pointed towards realizing the soul...not annihilating it by merging with God.

Christ said 'I am son of God.' Nothing about merging with God.

About breaking the chain of rebirth...

Even if I commit spiritual suicide...merge in God's personal bodily effulgence - (Bramha jyoti); I will have to be re-born.

Dharma = service = nature of soul. When I am suspended like a particle in Bramha jyoti, want of service, will cause me to fall down and be reborn.

I am a bhakt, God lives in my heart and I am truly happy. Why commit spiritual suicide? The path of Dharm makes me happy. I still enjoy all the experiences: joy, wondering, pain, sadness, relief, yes even despair at times. They are the flavors of this existence. Some are powerful and must be used with care. It is only because we put to much pepper and salt in the soup that it becomes uneatable. Then we no longer want to eat soup. Harmony means balance all the ingredients. Then we feel like a young child on a school trip, enjoying it to the fullest. Then we give God the pleasure he seeks in existence. God is not looking for a way out.

That is how I see it.

You are right...and here is also the answer. All the experiences: joy, wondering, pain, sadness, relief, despair; through loving services - in a passive state, as a servant, as a friend, as a parent or as a lover; when are directed towards giving pleasure to God. It is then we will be WITH God even when we are NOT WITH God. That state of God consciousness is liberation from cycle of repeated birth-and-death...even while I am repeatedly being born and dying. That is the goal...the highest perfection of human life. That is the way I see it.
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear cassandra ,

As I see it ... please take no offense of my ignorance... Buddha, Jesus, they teach paths that lead to faillure. That is why they are no Hindu avatars of God. Hindu avatars of God like Rama and Krishna teach easier, pleasant paths. They actually come to make life lighter, more pleasant, to enjoy it to the fullest. To embrace life, not to denounce it.

if as you say you are ignorant ? why then are you speaking of things which you have no knowledge ????

buddha teaches a path which leads buddhists to liberation , as does jesus with his folowers .
I see no failure in the teaching of either buddha or jesus , I see only that they provide a worthwhile faith system for different kinds of person at different points in time .

may I remind you of bhagavad gita ch . 4 .... v . 7

when ever and where ever there is a decline in in religious practices , oh decendant of bharata , and a predominant rise of irriligion , at that time I my self decend .

this I belive confirms that the lord decends at times of need and as the commonly accepted dasavataras of which lord buddha is one , however there are certainly many other instances that the lord decends as stated above "when ever there is a decline in religious practices"


and for you to say that "gods like rama and krsna teach easier more pleasant paths " ...."to make life lighter , more plesant "....."to enjoy it to the fullest"...."to embrace life not denounce it "

when the bhagavad gita culminates in a chapter titled the perfection of renunciation , I had allways taken that to suggest that krsna was suggesting that we" give up activities that are based on material desire " 18 ..2

but you seem to advocate that we are here for a party ???


Hindu avatars do not come to make life more difficult and teach renunciation,
krsna did .... ch 18 bhagavad gita !

self-mutilation,
buddha taught against self mortification .


Simply look at the life of Buddha, he almost killed himself in renunciation. All his attempts to realize God failed. His actions failed so dramatically that it let later Buddhist to teach non-action (Zen). The path of Buddha leads to failure. In the end he sat under a tree totally disillusioned, total "disillusion" (end of illusion) brought him Gods mercy. That is trying to do things the hard way. "Real" Hindu Avatars make life pleasant and easy by proper guide lines (Dharm). They do not create monasteries were people can exercise in suffering. People create these. That is how this ignorant person sees it ...
prehaps this ignorant person you speak of would like to become a little wiser in which case , may I suggest reading shastra with an open mind and a willingness to learn .

and please I beg of you refrain from passing illinformed judgement on the intentions of lord buddha .
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
To me, Buddha pointed towards realizing the soul...not annihilating it by merging with God.

One of the basic ideas of the Lord Buddha is anatman "not-self" or the illusion of "self". So Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity like a soul but teaches about a stream of consciousness. Also the Buddha did not talk about God. So merging with God was not a teaching of the Lord Buddha.

Christ said 'I am son of God.' Nothing about merging with God.

Jesus said
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
"Real" Hindu Avatars make life pleasant and easy by proper guide lines (Dharm). They do not create monasteries were people can exercise in suffering. People create these.

Adi Sankara who is seen millions as an Avatar of Shiva set up monasteries in the four corners of India. All types of Hindu sects have monasteries now.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
One of the basic ideas of the Lord Buddha is anatman "not-self" or the illusion of "self". So Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity like a soul but teaches about a stream of consciousness. Also the Buddha did not talk about God. So merging with God was not a teaching of the Lord Buddha.

Even within Buddhism, there are two opinions on 'anataman'. 'Theravada Buddhism' & 'Mahayana Buddhism'. If consciousness exists, then soul must exist just like if light exists, the source of light must exist.

Bhagvad Gita teaches us about soul:

avināśi tu tad viddhi
yena sarvam idaḿ tatam
vināśam avyayasyāsya
na kaścit kartum arhati

That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.B.G.2.17


This verse more clearly explains the real nature of the soul, which is spread all over the body. Anyone can understand what is spread all over the body: it is consciousness. Everyone is conscious of the pains and pleasures of the body in part or as a whole. This spreading of consciousness is limited within one's own body. The pains and pleasures of one body are unknown to another. Therefore, each and every body is the embodiment of an individual soul, and the symptom of the soul's presence is perceived as individual consciousness. This soul is described as one ten-thousandth part of the upper portion of the hair point in size.

The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.9) confirms this:

bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ
sa cānantyāya kalpate

"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul."

Similarly the same version is stated:

keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatāḿśaḥ sādṛśātmakaḥ
jīvaḥ sūkṣma-svarūpo 'yaḿ
sańkhyātīto hi cit-kaṇaḥ
"There are innumerable particles of spiritual atoms, which are measured as one ten-thousandth of the upper portion of the hair."[Cc. Madya 19.140]

Therefore, the individual particle of spirit soul is a spiritual atom smaller than the material atoms, and such atoms are innumerable. This very small spiritual spark is the basic principle of the material body, and the influence of such a spiritual spark is spread all over the body as the influence of the active principle of some medicine spreads throughout the body. This current of the spirit soul is felt all over the body as consciousness, and that is the proof of the presence of the soul. Any layman can understand that the material body minus consciousness is a dead body, and this consciousness cannot be revived in the body by any means of material administration. Therefore, consciousness is not due to any amount of material combination, but to the spirit soul.

In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9) the measurement of the atomic spirit soul is further explained:

eṣo 'ṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo
yasmin prāṇaḥ pañcadhā saḿviveśa
prāṇaiś cittaḿ sarvam otaḿ prajānāḿ
yasmin viśuddhe vibhavaty eṣa ātmā​

"The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna and udāna), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited."

The haṭha-yoga system is meant for controlling the five kinds of air encircling the pure soul by different kinds of sitting postures — not for any material profit, but for liberation of the minute soul from the entanglement of the material atmosphere.
So the constitution of the atomic soul is admitted in all Vedic literatures, and it is also actually felt in the practical experience of any sane man. Only the insane man can think of this atomic soul as all-pervading viṣṇu-tattva.
The influence of the atomic soul can be spread all over a particular body.
According to the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, this atomic soul is situated in the heart of every living entity, and because the measurement of the atomic soul is beyond the power of appreciation of the material scientists, some of them assert foolishly that there is no soul.


Jesus said
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30

Bhagvad Gita teaches us:

na tv evāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ
na tvaḿ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param​

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
B.G. 2.12

In the Vedas, in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad as well as in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace.

nityo nityānāḿ cetanaś cetanānām
eko bahūnāḿ yo vidadhāti kāmān
tam ātma-sthaḿ ye 'nupaśyanti dhīrās
teṣāḿ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām​

The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge. The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned and in their liberated situations. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord's eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone.
The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa's is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much — even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa's individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gītā has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gītā is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gītā. When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the Gītā loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gītā that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee's approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
Even within Buddhism, there are two opinions on 'anataman'. 'Theravada Buddhism' & 'Mahayana Buddhism'. If consciousness exists, then soul must exist just like if light exists, the source of light must exist..

Yes, there is more then one view there are many. But this is what the great wiki says about 'Mahayana views.

The Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language and expression of emptiness (śūnyatā)Ampersand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have never heard a Buddhist talking about realizing God. I would be interested if you could show me that it was a common belief in sects of Buddhism.

Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.

I don't think my views, fit the views of Mayavadi philosophy. Since I am a Shakta and don't for the most part follow Advaita. So I don't know why you are posting this to me.

Also you should Identify were your copy and paste comes from. RF takes a dim view of this type of thing.
 
Last edited:

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Yes, there is more then one view there are many. But this is what the great wiki says about 'Mahayana views.

The Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language and expression of emptiness (śūnyatā)Ampersand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, and 'Theravada Buddhism' takes the opposite view about soul's existence :)

What I had quoted from B.G. comes word-to-word from: Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 2 Verse 17

I have never heard a Buddhist talking about realizing God. I would be interested if you could show me that it was a common belief in sects of Buddhism.

Where did I mention anything about Buddhists talking about realizing God. I said realizing 'soul' not realizing 'God'. Kindly do not shove words down my throat! :)

I don't think my views, fit the views of Mayavadi philosophy. Since I am a Shakta and not an Advaita. So I don't know why you are posting this to me.

Also you should Identify were your copy and pastes come from. It seems you have gotten parts of your above posts from a few different places. RF takes a dim view of this type of thing.

Two things:
1. I have not anywhere implied that you share Mayavadi's views/philosophy.
2. Please do not ASSUME that I have taken parts from different places & make it personal by unsolicited and baseless remarks like 'RF takes a dim view of this type of thing.'

Word-to-word Source:
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 2 Verse 12
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Thanks for identifying your source. You need to do that every time you copy and paste. I do it all the time. Its in the RF rules.

You are welcome! For first 15 posts you cannot paste URL of an external link. Thus I was unable to do so previously. Its also an RF rule.
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear phrabu ji

One of the basic ideas of the Lord Buddha is anatman "not-self" or the illusion of "self". So Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity like a soul but teaches about a stream of consciousness. Also the Buddha did not talk about God. So merging with God was not a teaching of the Lord Buddha.

as you say , and I agree , ..."one of the basic teachings "....there is allso the question commonly raised in buddhism of conventional and ultimate realitys ....where I agree that lord buddha did not on a conventional level talk about god .....but neither did he deny the existance of god ....buddhism is a path ...and in that respect lord buddha taught on the path ...leaving the goal to our realization .....

but, within mahayana schools there are many practices where by the practitioner concerns him , her self constantly with the visualisation of the forms of divinity which are simply not termed god , but represent the exact same qualitys as their vedic counterparts .

and for your pleasure I quote wikipidia....
18th century Chinese statue of Vajradhāra


Vajradhara (Sanskrit: वज्रधार Vajradhāra, Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་འཆང། rdo rje 'chang (Dorje Chang);Javanese: Kabajradharan; Japanese: 執金剛; Chinese: 金剛總持 English: Diamond-holder) is the ultimate primordial Buddha, or Adi Buddha, according to the Gelug and Kagyu schools of Tibetan Buddhism. In the evolution of Indian Buddhism, Vajradhara gradually displaced Samantabhadra, who remains the 'Primordial Buddha' in the Nyingma, or "Ancient School." However the two are metaphysically equivalent. Achieving the 'state of vajradhara' is synonymous with complete realisation.


Tibetan thangka of Vajradhara
not that I agree allways with wikipidia , as it is merely a representation of collected information and thought ,
and does not it self perport to be any thing else !

but here wikipedia gives a breif description of vajradhara , the primordial buddha .

it is true that in many recent schools of budddhism now choose to refer to the adi buddha as a representation of ....
however I would suggest closer examination of this subject .
with out necisarily accepting westernised interpretations ....

but to return to your comment ..... "so merging with god is not a teaching of lord buddha" ......but with in mahayana it is very much a practice :)
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
Yes, there is more then one view there are many. But this is what the great wiki says about 'Mahayana views.

The Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language and expression of emptiness (śūnyatā)Ampersand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as you say there is more than one veiw !!!!! ....or dare I say levels of realizations !

I have never heard a Buddhist talking about realizing God.
yes you have ..... me ..:D

I would be interested if you could show me that it was a common belief in sects of Buddhism.
I think we need to discuss this outside of the question of evolution ... but

forget sects and lets examine the adi buddha :yes:
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Before anything, let us come on the same page. I am saying:
THE PURPOSE OF SCRIPTURES IS TO KNOW GOD.
TO ENGAGE IN HIS TRANSCENDENTAL LOVING SERVICE IS THE ESSENCE OF SCRIPTURES.
THERE IS NO OTHER HIGHER PURPOSE OF SCRIPTURES.

Forgive me when I say it, but yes, if you think you know better than God Himself and the revealed scriptures, then we are not going to see eye to eye here.

The part that you placed in capitals I have no issue with. I was taking in your post very well until you wrote the part I have bolded. I do not appreciate discussions with people who use this kind of tactic to win their arguments. It is childish. Please refrain from speaking in that manner with me in the future.


I have given you the verse of Padma Purana cited by Srila Prabhupada, which is proof enough to establish the validity of the statement beyond the scope of doubt. You can also find the same here:
Uncategorized | Dharmasastra3's Blog | Page 8

You consider a quote from Prabhupada to be enough proof because you believe Prabhupada to be a realised or all-knowing personality. I do not. When you are debating with someone, you need to provide evidence that will actually convince them. There are so many 'Prabhupada said' that Prabhupada never said and there are things that Prabhupada said which conflict with the majority of Hindu religions. I personally do not consider Prabhupada to be all-knowing. I believe he has shakti and was used as an instrument by God to bring Knowledge of Veda to the world, but I do not agree with everything Prabhupada taught. I have my reasons and you will have to accept that I have reasons, even if you heartily disagree.

But I do appreciate that you provided this other website. Still though, it would not surprise me if this is just someone quoting from Prabhupada's 'reference' because I still cannot find this verse in the Padma Purana. It would be great to have a verse number/reference number to make it easier to find.

At this point I neither think that it is or isn't true. I will believe it when I see it from the original source.

The physical become extinct but the number of species 'levels of consciousness' are constant at 8.4 million in the ecosystem.

Please note the following:

- A UNIVERSE houses 8.4 million species.
- 8.4 million SPECIES means 8.4 million LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

When the ecological condition changes and a physically manifest body disappear (becomes extinct), then THAT SOUL can:
1. Continue to exist in same ‘LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS’ in a BEFORE KNOWN/UNKNOWN PHYSICAL BODY. This is ‘PSUDO EVOLUTION.’ The number of SPECIES is maintained at 8.4 million.
2. Soul can EVOLVE/DE-EVOLVE into a ‘different level of consciousness’ in a BEFORE KNOWN/UNKNOWN PHYSICAL BODY. This is EVOLUTION/DE-EVOLUTION. This real EVOLUTION/DE-EVOLUTION is not known to science. Here also the number of SPECIES is maintained at 8.4 million.

I am not arguing against this. I believe in the spiritual evolution taught in Hinduism. I will have to see the quote in scripture about the exact number but the number really isn't a concern of mine.


I agree with you. On a deeper level, when Evolutionary theory deals with ‘physical evolution’, which is actually ‘no evolution’, there is no meaning to Evolutionary Theory.

I am not sure that I understand your meaning.


What you are saying here is what I am alos saying and agree with. However, I think you are confusing PHYSICAL ADAPTATION for EVOLUTION. What does the ToE say about man coming from monkey? Please explain.

Physical adaptation is a part of evolution. Evolution, as a subject of science, is the gradual changes that occur to the physical body and the physical world. ToE does not say that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that humans share a common ancestor with other monkey species. ToE says that humans belong to the primate species, which all varieties of ape and monkey belong to. 'Monkeys' are not the grandfathers of humans, they are the cousins of humans. The common ancestor that humans and other primates share is no longer in existence. All that is left of them are the fossils.
 
Last edited:

Cassandra

Active Member
dear cassandra ,
if as you say you are ignorant ? why then are you speaking of things which you have no knowledge ????

buddha teaches a path which leads buddhists to liberation , as does jesus with his folowers .
I see no failure in the teaching of either buddha or jesus , I see only that they provide a worthwhile faith system for different kinds of person at different points in time .

may I remind you of bhagavad gita ch . 4 .... v . 7

when ever and where ever there is a decline in in religious practices , oh decendant of bharata , and a predominant rise of irriligion , at that time I my self decend .

this I belive confirms that the lord decends at times of need and as the commonly accepted dasavataras of which lord buddha is one , however there are certainly many other instances that the lord decends as stated above "when ever there is a decline in religious practices"


and for you to say that "gods like rama and krsna teach easier more pleasant paths " ...."to make life lighter , more plesant "....."to enjoy it to the fullest"...."to embrace life not denounce it "

when the bhagavad gita culminates in a chapter titled the perfection of renunciation , I had allways taken that to suggest that krsna was suggesting that we" give up activities that are based on material desire " 18 ..2

but you seem to advocate that we are here for a party ???


krsna did .... ch 18 bhagavad gita !

buddha taught against self mortification .



prehaps this ignorant person you speak of would like to become a little wiser in which case , may I suggest reading shastra with an open mind and a willingness to learn .

and please I beg of you refrain from passing illinformed judgement on the intentions of lord buddha .
Namaste Ratikala,

Being ignorant, I speak freely, giving my views not held back by restraints others might experience. Being ignorant has many advantages, one is that one can learn. A white page can still be written.

So let me summarize your words, so I understand this:
1 Jesus teaches same path as Krishna and Buddha, making Krishna and Buddha more or less superfluous.
2 Krishna teaches us to make life difficult.

Those are glim world views. But I guess for people following books it is mandatory as you show. And to your question. Yes I think enjoying life is the highest sacrifice we can give God, because I think God is here to party. Practicing suffering for no good reason, I see as adharmic.
Shastra, I do not find inspirational, personally

By the way, does Mohamed fall in the category of Avatar too?
 
Last edited:

Cassandra

Active Member
Namaste Vrindavana Das,

Hi Cassy,

I am frankly quite impressed with your literary skills. You have a way with words.
Thank you, you are kind . In a clear mind things come naturally.

However, I am a being of logic. My replies will be based on what I interpret logically of the philosophy I understand. :)

When did God leave home? He never leaves home. He descends WITH His abode, associates, paraphernalia to perform His pastimes.
What I meant with this hyperbole is: Why did God create the universe? Or rather why does he repeatedly. Why would he, if it did not give him pleasure? Or is God not that "logical"?

God is me...I did not get that.
"That Tvam Asi": You are That (God)
Or
You = God <-> God = you
That is applying the rules of logic

Nowhere am I implying that we have to merge WITH God. Unity means to exist FOR God...infinite individuals serving that ONE God with their DIVERSE emotions/feelings. It is not merging with God. Be where you are, do what you do...reunite with God in emotions...at heart!
So we are to be God's slaves, like in Islam? Total submission? Why is God so oppressive? Is there a logical reason?

To me, Buddha pointed towards realizing the soul...not annihilating it by merging with God.

Christ said 'I am son of God.' Nothing about merging with God.
Buddha knows neither God nor Atman. Is it not dangerous to equate "realizing the soul" when the definition of soul is so different? I mean logically speaking?

About breaking the chain of rebirth...

Even if I commit spiritual suicide...merge in God's personal bodily effulgence - (Bramha jyoti); I will have to be re-born.

Dharma = service = nature of soul. When I am suspended like a particle in Bramha jyoti, want of service, will cause me to fall down and be reborn.
I called it "spiritual suicide" to set it apart from normal suicide. In Buddhism there is no God, so there is no realizing God. So to escape one commits what I call spiritual suicide.

You are right...and here is also the answer. All the experiences: joy, wondering, pain, sadness, relief, despair; through loving services - in a passive state, as a servant, as a friend, as a parent or as a lover; when are directed towards giving pleasure to God. It is then we will be WITH God even when we are NOT WITH God. That state of God consciousness is liberation from cycle of repeated birth-and-death...even while I am repeatedly being born and dying. That is the goal...the highest perfection of human life. That is the way I see it.
I wonder why we would have to pleasure God. Why is that? What does he need that for. To caress his God size ego? We have to make the King happy? Is that not a bit disappointing?
 
Last edited:

Cassandra

Active Member
Namaste Madhuri,

About this description
As soon as Brahma thought of creation, Tamoguni (full of darkness) creatures were the first to
appear. Absence of knowledge and presence of evils like attachment, anger etc. were the main
virtues of these creatures. These creatures include lower organisms, trees, shrubs, creepers,
plants and grasses. These together constitute the primitive world. Their creation was followed by
the appearance of animals and birds, which are devoid of wisdom and are full of ego. They are
also unaware of the nature of another organism of their status.
Still unsatisfied with His creation, Lord created the next world, which has a somewhat elevated
position. The living beings that were produced in this world had internal and external knowledge,
power of reflection and loved physical comforts. Though this creation pleased the Lord, He was
still unsatisfied. So He created the next world, which was situated at a somewhat lower position.
This new world had excess of all the three virtues. Human beings populate this world and
because of excess of vices, they are full of sorrow but at the same time, highly active, have
internal and external knowledge and are able to attain their goals.
Cassandra,
yes this is a description of creation of the material universe/world.
How does the verse contradict evolution?
We seem to think differently here.

As I see it, it says here Brahma made all beings at once. He created a complete world. Is does not say Brahma created the world egg. Out of that egg the world slowly evolved.

I personally do not think Brahma creates any material. I would see it like this: Brahma creates the principle (immortal Goddess) of Rose, Shiva creates the expression of Rose, Vishnu enjoys the impression of Rose.

I think Brahma lays his creations in the universal consciousness of Shiva. I think that is why it says: "As soon as Brahma thought of creation". And not: "As soon as Brahma did/materialized his creation.

What is your view on this?
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
Hi Ratikala

Being ignorant, I speak freely, giving my views not held back by restraints others might experience. Being ignorant has many advantages, one is that one can learn. A white page can still be written.
then blaspheme less and listen more , then you will have something worthwhile commiting to the blank page .

So let me summarize your words, so I understand this:
1 Jesus teaches same path as Krishna and Buddha, making Krishna and Buddha more or less superfluous.
2 Krishna teaches us to make life difficult.
if you wish to summarise ? do not twist out of all recognition before doing so !!!

to re cap ...
krsna , buddha and jesus teach according to time place and circumstance , each appear for a particular purpouse , for a particular people , at a particular time ... each of which is different . therefore neither is supurfluous ,
and each teach an aspect of reality .



Those are glim world views. But I guess for people following books it is mandatory as you show. And to your question. Yes I think enjoying life is the highest sacrifice we can give God, because I think God is here to party, practicing suffering for no good reason, I see as adharmic.
Shastra I find very boring personally, I am not yet ready for that kind of punishment
reality is not as glim ??? as you seem to think

but concidering that I find shastra both beautifull and highly interesting ,
I,ll leave you to your party
 

Cassandra

Active Member
Friend Cassandra,
Thank you for those beautifully flowers!
Am sure you had asked permission from the plants to pluck them [flowers] as they too are beings who may not understand your language but do understand the feelings of another being.

Love & rgds
Namaste Zenzero

I did not pluck these flowers. They were still on the plant when I showed them to you. Nor would I call a flower a being but rather a expression of one. Beauty wants to be admired, that is the purpose of beauty. Hindus have never felt any inhibition to pluck flowers, since it does not kill the plant.

The human being easily get hurt, in it is a fool that wants to be caressed and preferably hurt. Lies hurt, truth hurts, life hurts, death hurts. Feeling hurt is its greatest joy, it will never pass on an opportunity to do that. When caressed it points the finger at itself, when hurt on others. Any gift it regards beneath her imagined grandeur, it will reject. Is It not a fool that takes this fool seriously?

Since we are all born free with whatever *gunas* it be; we may travel separately with only those friends who are in oneness [for that moment of togetherness outside the gunas] to finally realize and understand that the source and destiny of each form is the same consciousness!
Let assume this is so, should we spend thoughts on it? Everything that pertains to past or future is a dream. Where we came from, and where we will go, is the web the mind weaves. No longer are we free as born. Why spin these webs of illusion?

I am neither romantic nor sentimental. A Romantic lives between paradise lost and paradise regained. He weeps but not for joy. A flower blossoms with inexplicable joy, it has no past and no future. No memories, no worries, om expectations. And neither has God. God has neither past nor future, no beginning and no end, no cause and no effect. No means and no meaning is in God. Going from source to destiny is like going from Nothing to Nothing, only in between exist everything, either joy or illusions.
 
Last edited:

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friend Cassandra,

Hindus have never felt any inhibition to pluck flowers, since it does not kill the plant.
What is it pointing at??? am sure friends here who prefer the use of the label *hindus* will understand it better!
should we spend thoughts on it?
Sorry, thoughts are delusions and so they [thoughts] hardly find any space here!
No longer are we free as born
That is your perception, keep dreaming!
either joy or illusions.
There is place for either except THAT which is also labelled *SAT-CHIT-ANANDA* by followers of SANATAN DHARMA!; unless you follow a dharma unknown to humankind.
Best Wishes.
Love & rgds
 
Last edited:
Top