Para Brahman

[Aupmanyav]

Well, I cannot refute this. Technically correct, rules.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Sayak ji

What I write below is my own understanding and other Hindus may disagree:-

not so mush to dissagree but to refine from a Truely Hindu perspective , ...The Mahabarata is a tretise on Dharma , looking at it from a material perspective one may naturaly come to the conclusion that it is as you describe ''an epic on the philosophy of living within the context of war'' ...yet it is more than this , ....

Mahabharata is an epic on the philosophy of living within the context of War and Peace. The closest analog is indeed Tolstoy's War and Peace (by 2nd favorite book after the Mahabharata). But while Tolstoy tries to provide a semi-historical account and injects his fiction to make it come alive and impart his own philosophical take on the great events, Mahabharata's task is more ambitious. Its writers has seen a (relatively) major war happen between kingdoms and is fearing the onset of civilization destroying Total War as kingdoms continue to grow and expand into empires, empires into states and so on.

personaly I think it is more than this , ....more than the observation although valid , ...that kingdoms expanded ''empires into states and so on. '' ....Mahabarata taken in the context of the Vedic veiw of cosmology and the creation and duration of individual planetary systems and the Knowledge that their lifespans are split into Yugas or ages , ...this knowledge sinnes a completelt different light on the reacons for war , .......Greed and Ignorance , ....we may observe increasing population and the formation of Kingdoms but this is not the prime cause , the prime cause is Adharma .

The writers of the Mahabharata feared that a sufficiently sophisticated civilization with immense power but riddled with human follies will inevitably destroy themselves in a Total War. Simple ambition of leaders, petty rivalries and jealousies, even loyalties to king and country and duty are sufficient to bring moderately good or moderately bad people into such a terrible conflict. The writers wrote an epic warning the people of this possibility of Total War by crafting a story that said the last great civilization of the previous epoch (there was one in actuality..the Indus Valley civilization) fell into its destruction in such a Total War and what could be learned from this experience. The story tries to prevent a future by retrojecting that possible future in the past.

the''riddled with Human follies'' ...I agree with entirely as it was the duplicity of the Kurava King which allowed the entire position to unfold , ...thus he was the cause of the entire war , as it was his actions or lack of Dharmic understanding that brought about the entire situation , ...thus the mahabarata is a tretise on Dharma , ...Rightious action , ....but within it and which canot be egnored is the Bhagavad Gita , the conversation between Arjuna and Krsna as they stand ready to go into battle , ....this chapter is the most important as within this chapter the higer purpose of life is explained , ..our very nature of being is explained , ...thus the Mahabarata it self illustrates the ''folly'' of mankind , the dangers of Ignorance and Self Grasping , ....where as the Gita explains our ultimate nature , that we are not this body and that we are not here for self gratification , that we are here to realise our constitutional position in relation to God , this Chapter puts the true folly of human greed and ignorance into perspective , .....

The story tells how such a war came to be (or could come to be)
1) Loyalty to nation and kings have become an unquestioned virtue. (Bhisma and Karna)
2) The more peaceable kings and states consistently appease the more belligerent kings and states and give in to their escalating demands. (Yuddhisthira)
3) The kings have the power to bring billions of men into war and enough wealth and loyalty to sustain such a war indefinitely. (Pandavas and Kauravas)

in truth it is Ignorance and Greed that bring nations or kingdoms to the state of war , ...

4) The civilization is advanced enough to wield world destroying celestial weapons that ensure mutually assured destruction, and near the end the survivors of the war become desperate enough to use. (Arjuna and Asvathhama)

Here it is more than a question of desperation , ....as Krsna instructs Arjuna , ..there is no question even of compassion towards ones enemys , this deed must now be done , ...Krsna explains carefully to Arjuna that the soul is eternal , what one kills is the outer shell of those who have already brought about the cause for their own demise , ...

I hope all of this sounds familiar. You will not find a better and more enjoyable analysis of the causes of the World Wars and the Cold War of the 20th century than this epic poem written 2600 years before the event. The impact of Mahabharata (and parallel developments in Buddhism and Jainism) is the reason why Indian history is not defined by warmongering tyrants winning this "glorious" victory or causing that "glorious" revolution and why its greatest emperor (Asoka) had to apologize for winning a war:-

Imagine Julius Ceasar, the great hero of the Western Civilization writing this. Nah. Can't.

so called schollars my try to put dates to the writing of the Mahabarata but this only adds to the false impression given that it is a literary work rather than an 'Historical Account' ..of a battle which took place at the begining of this age of Kali (some 5000 years ago) , ...I say Battle rather than War as it is a Battle of Rightiousness over ignorance rather that an instance of waring factions fighting for supremacy .

 

[Kirran]

There's this superstition that you get instant moksha for dying at Varanasi, or dipping there. Same for swamis that say you will get 'instant realisation' (for a fee of course) I don't know how all this came to be but I suspect it was originally simple exaggeration for effect, that later got turned into a literal interpretation. It's sad, because common sense and the law of karma will trump it.

Yeah, I asked this Baba about this 'So you're saying that even if someone kills and rapes and has loads of attachments etc, if they die here they get moksha?' His response was in the affirmative.

Yes, the more mystically or reflective inclined Christians generally found in Orthodox or Catholic will say such things, I've even heard reincarnation mentioned. But it's not mainstream Christianity as far as I know. The one constant with this, as it was with Bede Griffiths, is the unwavering need for Christ to be the guide or whatever.

True, there are such groups. We even have such Christians on RF. You're right, it's not mainstream! Ah, you know of Bede Griffiths? I vaguely know of him. Another person in a similar vein is Swami Abhishiktananda, who was a French Catholic monk who studied under advaitist gurus and ultimately attained moksha in the last few months of his life. I've ordered a book of his recently, actually, it's in the post. He kind of drifted away from the "Christianity" only for it all to come together again after he'd realised. A nice quote of his: 'The experience of Christ's 'I AM' reduces all Christian theology to ashes.' He was very big on, I think, the Keno Upanishad.

When the lines blur like that, I'm not sure how the individuals reconcile it all enough to make for clarity rather than a blur.

Maybe for some people it's more of an issue than for others? I don't know. But maybe it's more difficult if you go in assuming it will be.

That is hardly a problem. To differ is our hall-mark. We are not conformists. But to say that Lord Krishna attained 'salvation' is blasphemy. He is the one who provides 'salvation'. He is Lord God Himself, Brahman.

I'm not entirely sure how the bold and the green are compatible - you can't be OK with differing then declare something blasphemy. But it kinda depends how you view Krishna, and how you understand the term Avatar. I think everybody is an Avatar, really, but when we refer to Avatars we're referring to realised Avatars. So as the embodied Krishna, he was a jivanmukta, but his real Self was of course Brahman.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yeah, I asked this Baba about this 'So you're saying that even if someone kills and rapes and has loads of attachments etc, if they die here they get moksha?' His response was in the affirmative.



True, there are such groups. We even have such Christians on RF. You're right, it's not mainstream! Ah, you know of Bede Griffiths? I vaguely know of him. Another person in a similar vein is Swami Abhishiktananda, who was a French Catholic monk who studied under advaitist gurus and ultimately attained moksha in the last few months of his life. I've ordered a book of his recently, actually, it's in the post. He kind of drifted away from the "Christianity" only for it all to come together again after he'd realised. A nice quote of his: 'The experience of Christ's 'I AM' reduces all Christian theology to ashes.' He was very big on, I think, the Keno Upanishad.



Maybe for some people it's more of an issue than for others? I don't know. But maybe it's more difficult if you go in assuming it will be.



I'm not entirely sure how the bold and the italic are compatible - you can't be OK with differing then declare something blasphemy. But it kinda depends how you view Krishna, and how you understand the term Avatar. I think everybody is an Avatar, really, but when we refer to Avatars we're referring to realised Avatars. So as the embodied Krishna, he was a jivanmukta, but his real Self was of course Brahman.

 

[Vinayaka]

True, there are such groups. We even have such Christians on RF. You're right, it's not mainstream! Ah, you know of Bede Griffiths? I vaguely know of him. Another person in a similar vein is Swami Abhishiktananda, who was a French Catholic monk who studied under advaitist gurus and ultimately attained moksha in the last few months of his life. I've ordered a book of his recently, actually, it's in the post. He kind of drifted away from the "Christianity" only for it all to come together again after he'd realised. A nice quote of his: 'The experience of Christ's 'I AM' reduces all Christian theology to ashes.' He was very big on, I think, the Keno Upanishad.

Our understanding of moksha is different. Mine is that moksha is an outcome of self-realisation, mainly having no need to return, so one cannot attain moksha while you're in a physical body, because you'd have to go somewhere, before not having to come back. But yes, many people do equate moksha with self-realisation.

As for Griffiths, his main disciple used to frequent these forums, and he and I and others dialogued for some time. The ashram there is now about 90% western women searching, and find meaning there. It's not my cup of tea, but it apparently works for some. Griffiths took a lot of heat from both sides, and I've read almost the entire correspondence between he and Sita Ram Goel.

Not familiar with Abhishiktananada. Of course my view has always been if you're interested so much in Hinduism, might as well just go all in, and get it over with. But then I wasn't carrying a Christian subconscious on my back either.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. not so much to disagree but to refine from a Truely Hindu perspective, ..

Ratiben, true Hindu perspective, which one?
The only true Hindu perspective what I have found is 'dharma', fulfilling ones responsibility and engaging in righteous action.

 

[Kirran]

Our understanding of moksha is different. Mine is that moksha is an outcome of self-realisation, mainly having no need to return, so one cannot attain moksha while you're in a physical body, because you'd have to go somewhere, before not having to come back. But yes, many people do equate moksha with self-realisation.

I think we're using the same word differently, but have similar understandings of the subject. Assume I mean self-realised, then.

What is a jivanmukta, do you think?

As for Griffiths, his main disciple used to frequent these forums, and he and I and others dialogued for some time. The ashram there is now about 90% western women searching, and find meaning there. It's not my cup of tea, but it apparently works for some. Griffiths took a lot of heat from both sides, and I've read almost the entire correspondence between he and Sita Ram Goel.

Interesting. I wasn't aware it was still going.

Not familiar with Abhishiktananada. Of course my view has always been if you're interested so much in Hinduism, might as well just go all in, and get it over with. But then I wasn't carrying a Christian subconscious on my back either.

Some people might see it more as 'going all in' to your surrendering to God, and not being so concerned with sticking to one 'box' for that. I get that for some people their path is to be all one or all the other, and that's cool, but I don't think it needs to be that way for everyone. Guruji was always very ecumenical (as was his mother), and he was a Self-Realised Avatar.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm not entirely sure how the bold and the green are compatible - you can't be OK with differing then declare something blasphemy. But it kinda depends how you view Krishna, and how you understand the term Avatar. I think everybody is an Avatar, really, but when we refer to Avatars we're referring to realised Avatars. So as the embodied Krishna, he was a jivanmukta, but his real Self was of course Brahman.

There are limits, at least for me. The green is sacrosanct. I don't view Krishna as an 'avatara'. For me, it is just a story. But it is a story which is dear to most of the Hindus. Anyone who shows disrespect to these stories (one may believe them or not is immaterial) has gone too far. As a Hindu, I will strongly resent that. Avataras are more than a realized person. If Krishna was Brahman, then there is no question of his being 'jeevanmukta' or not. There is no binding of Brahman. Brahman is always mukta and uninvolved.

"Ahaṃ nirvikalpo nirākāra rūpo, vibhutvā ca sarvatra sarvendriyāṇaṃ;
na cāsangata naiva muktir na meyaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."

I am all pervasive. I am without any attributes, and without any form. I have neither attachment to the world, nor to liberation (mukti). I have no wishes for anything because I am everything, everywhere, every time, always in equilibrium. I am indeed, the eternal bliss, the auspicious Śivā.

 

[Kirran]

There are limits, at least for me. The green is sacrosanct. I don't view Krishna as an 'avatara'. For me, it is just a story. But it is a story which is dear to most of the Hindus. Anyone who shows disrespect to these stories (one may believe them or not is immaterial) has gone too far. As a Hindu, I will strongly resent that. Avataras are more than a realized person. If Krishna was Brahman, then there is no question of his being 'jeevanmukta' or not. There is no binding of Brahman. Brahman is always mukta and uninvolved.

"Ahaṃ nirvikalpo nirākāra rūpo, vibhutvā ca sarvatra sarvendriyāṇaṃ;
na cāsangata naiva muktir na meyaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."

I am all pervasive. I am without any attributes, and without any form. I have neither attachment to the world, nor to liberation (mukti). I have no wishes for anything because I am everything, everywhere, every time, always in equilibrium. I am indeed, the eternal bliss, the auspicious Śivā.

So actually variation in views is not OK? Disrespect is different from variation of opinion.

All things being Brahman, then every person is an Avatar. Guruji was adamant on this one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it is not disrespect, then it is OK with me. .. I won't limit it to people. I extend it to animals, vegetation as well as the non-living objects. "Eko Brahma, dwiteeyo nasti".

 

[sayak83]

sayak83......Do you consider yourself Hindu?

Yes.A secular Hindu.

 

[Kirran]

Yes.A secular Hindu.

Is your family background Hindu, sayak? What part of the world are you based in? If I may ask, on both counts.

EDIT: For the record, sayak has said he's Hindu before.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ah finally. Sure, Hindus are always/should always be secular.

 

[sayak83]

Let me reply for Sayak. No, Sayak is not a Hindu, but he is well-versed in our ways, very balanced, always wonderful to interact with. Why should he be under any obligation to become a Hindu? We do not need to grudge his freedom.

If Sayak wants to add something, he is welcome to do so.

Umm..no I am a Hindu. I prefer the intellectual and analytical traditions in Hinduism as that's where my natural abilities are. But since I not religious or a devotee in a significant sense, I used the term secular in my label.

 

[sayak83]

Is your family background Hindu, sayak? What part of the world are you based in? If I may ask, on both counts.

EDIT: For the record, sayak has said he's Hindu before.

Bengal. Kolkata. India. Currently doing research in USA. Durga Puja is coming. Yay!

 

[Kirran]

Bengal. Kolkata. India. Currently doing research in USA. Durga Puja is coming. Yay!

Awesome. You'll be the man to message if I have trouble with the chemistry parts of my module on pollution, right?

Yes! Shamelessly taking 7 days off uni for it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think we're using the same word differently, but have similar understandings of the subject. Assume I mean self-realised, then.

What is a jivanmukta, do you think?

Some people might see it more as 'going all in' to your surrendering to God, and not being so concerned with sticking to one 'box' for that. I get that for some people their path is to be all one or all the other, and that's cool, but I don't think it needs to be that way for everyone. Guruji was always very ecumenical (as was his mother), and he was a Self-Realised Avatar.

For me, a jivanmukta is a Self-realised soul. But as you know anyone can say they're self-realised, just as anyone can say they're the queen of England. As you know, I don't believe in avatar a sa concept, so I have no comment on that. My Vaishnava brothers and sisters do, of course.

I have great respect for all peace loving non-proseltysing people of all faiths. The combning of beliefs isn't part of that, nor does it have to be. You and I could have a great breakfast together without either of us having the same food.

 

[Kirran]

For me, a jivanmukta is a Self-realised soul. But as you know anyone can say they're self-realised, just as anyone can say they're the queen of England. As you know, I don't believe in avatar a sa concept, so I have no comment on that. My Vaishnava brothers and sisters do, of course.

Yeah, we're don't actually differ, we just use the words a little different. Actually, I think the same is true regarding avatars here - if everyone is an avatar, this quite a different understanding to the Vaishnava one!

I have great respect for all peace loving non-proseltysing people of all faiths. The combning of beliefs isn't part of that, nor does it have to be. You and I could have a great breakfast together without either of us having the same food.

If you don't eat oats for breakfast, we can no longer be friends.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yeah, we're don't actually differ, we just use the words a little different. Actually, I think the same is true regarding avatars here - if everyone is an avatar, this quite a different understanding to the Vaishnava one!

If you don't eat oats for breakfast, we can no longer be friends.

I'm eating oatmeal as we speak. Mine is a jazzed version, as I added cinnamon, dried apples, pomegranate seeds, shredded coconut, raisins, yoghurt, and a banana. But yeah, there are some oats in there too.

I don't believe everyone is an avatar, because like I said, I don't believe in avatars. Yes, Brahman permeates.

 

[Kirran]

I'm eating oatmeal as we speak. Mine is a jazzed version, as I added cinnamon, dried apples, pomegranate seeds, shredded coconut, raisins, yoghurt, and a banana. But yeah, there are some oats in there too.

OK, that was close. I just add banana, raisins and sunflower seeds to mine. I feel rather dull.

I don't believe everyone is an avatar, because like I said, I don't believe in avatars. Yes, Brahman permeates.

Would you be OK if I write this off as potato, potaato? (Does anyone actually say potaato?)