Who is our True God? (Hinduism)

[Shuddhasattva]

If I understand Shantoham-ji correctly, he is making the point that even our knowledge gleaned from mystical experience becomes a corpse of the truth without the continuation or revocation of the awareness which infused it.

 

[Pleroma]

You are confusing two different things.

This means that the soul is not the doer. The activities are performed by the material body, made up of material nature.

Meaning, the body, made up of material energy - 5 elements, mind, ego & intelligence, carries out all activities ...not the soul, which is transcendental. This does not mean that soul does not have a free-will. Soul has a free-will, because of which it makes choices. If soul did not make choice, there is no meaning to the theory of Karma. No meaning to heaven (reward for right things) and hell (punishment for wrong things).

You are making contradictory statements. Krishna has explicitly said that only the one who knows that it is the lord who is doing everything sees paramthma. That's wisdom for you.

There is no meaning to the ability of Bhishma Pitamah to give up his body by free-will of choosing when he wants to die...

That's after attaining liberation. Yes, after liberation one is a free man, the self can go anywhere he wants to but not when he is in bondage.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Regarding free will and ahamkar, there are many levels of truth the scriptures speak at. We view them as contradictory and select one of preference at our own expense.

Provisionally, we have free will. Once having fully taken refuge in Ishvara, there is no freewill - or there is perfect free will (svatantrya) depending on how you look at it; the Lord is the all-doer, Brahman is actionless, and the Self is both and neither. To the extent that we act in devotion, rather than volition, karma does not adhere to the atman and the state of actionlessness is conferred. Such was Arjuna's challenge.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hiranyagarbha is being called as the Sun God from millennia. Can you see how silly your argument is? I have been patient and tolerant with you. Please don't test my patience.

Every single one of those names can as easily be applied to the actual Sun, as much as this "inner Sun". I think you're referring to the Atman, which has no color since it is not a physical object capable of reflecting light, which is the only way color can occur. Atman is just a convenience term for Brahman in reference to us, as the two are identical. Brahman has no form.

I don't think you understand my argument: it's a linguistic nitpick. The English word "Sun" only refers to the star itself. Hiranyagarbha and His other Names, however, do not. Just as those names can easily be applied to the Sun, they can just as easily be applied metaphorically to several other concepts.

Your interpretation of the Vedas is not invalid. What I have contention with is your insisting on your implication that all other interpretations are invalid. You are not the only one who has insights, you know.

I'm sorry too, I have to be blunt, your knowledge seems outdated, time to learn something, your physical objects don't exist out there.

Bernard d'Espagnat: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind | Science | guardian.co.uk

Huh. Reading that article, it would seem that whoever named it and came up with the tagline didn't actually read the article, since that's not what it's ultimately about. It's primarily about entanglement: ...two particles that have once interacted always remain bound in a very strange, hardly understandable way even when they are far apart, the connection being independent of distance.

Besides, from the article:

This [empirical] reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.

So, yes, it would seem that even this scientist would agree that the Sun actually is out there, as much as I'm right here. It's just that what we see of it with our eyes (assuming one is foolish enough to actually look at the sun... as I have done occasionally ^_^) is a picture created by our minds. I already knew that; our eyes are only capable of detecting what's appropriately called "visible light". We can see the yellow that comes off the Sun, but we can't see the heat, which is as much a part of what it gives off as its light.

Now, I ask again: by mandalas are you referring to Yantras?

 

[ratikala]

Bhagvad Gita, chapter 13, verse 30.



This might be enlightening for you. We don't have free will. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen.

then why are we discussing this subject ?

if everything is pre ordained and free will has no part to play , in which case how can you enlighten another ?????

 

[ratikala]

dear nameless ,

to him faith actually means abrahamic faiths, those 'faiths' which are solely based on faiths are troublemakers in the world, i think he is spot on that.

personaly I find such a selective attitude to be potentialy dangerous and devisive .
there are good and bad people in all religions . troublemakers and fundamentalists , there are also good leavel headed men of faith spread widely around the globe in all traditions .

Sam harris is a different kind of atheist, he does meditation, admires buddha, and dont consider buddhism to be a faith/religion.
World badly needs people like him

shame that he does not admire buddha enough to uphold buddhist principles,, ...(see eight fold path)

Spirituality

Harris wishes to incorporate spirituality in the domain of human reason. He draws inspiration from the practices of Eastern religion, in particular that of meditation, as described principally by Hindu and Buddhist practitioners. By paying close attention to moment-to-moment conscious experience, Harris suggests, it is possible to make our sense of "self" vanish and thereby uncover a new state of personal well-being. Moreover, Harris argues that such states of mind should be subjected to formal scientific investigation, without incorporating the myth and superstition that often accompanies meditation in the religious context. "There is clearly no greater obstacle to a truly empirical approach to spiritual experience than our current beliefs about God", he writes.[16]p. 214 ...

unfortunately faith is a large part of hinduism and buddhism alike

Despite his anti-religious sentiments, Sam Harris also claims that there is "nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have".....

unfortunately this pick and mix attitude can be equaly dangerous and destructive .

there are many valuable experiences that can be atained through cristianity and islam,

why if this were not so would the dalai lama advocate that people explore their indiginous religions before abandoning them in favour of buddhism ?


sorry we are going slightly of thread .....

 

[Riverwolf]

why if this were not so would the dalai lama advocate that people explore their indiginous religions before abandoning them in favour of buddhism ?

Too bad mine has been dead for almost 2000 years.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I happen to agree with Mr. Harris. Shraddha means more than faith, and actually also describes attention to that lord awareness who dwells between thoughts - and even within thoughts.

I have found that deliberately letting go of beliefs, even treasured ones, sacrificing them to that which is beyond belief, will either dissolve beliefs into greater truths, or reinvigorate them. As you are sacrificing the belief to the ineffable and inconceivable it alludes to, there is no betrayal.

I applaud Mr. Harris' efforts and could not agree more with:

There is clearly no greater obstacle to a truly empirical approach to spiritual experience than our current beliefs about God

If there is destructiveness here, I see it as creative destruction needed to pave the way to religion purged of superstition and purified by reason, that is in harmony with science and technology, and thus able to guide the two to better conclusions than we now see.

Beliefs are responsible for both holding people back from the living experience, as well as misguiding people towards disastrous courses of action.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

And yet I'm sure the Dalai Lama would not tell people to explore giving charity to their local foundations rather than the Tibetan Refugee Fund...

For whatever reason, I cannot take him at face value. Too many contradictions between behavior and speech.

 

[Skeptisch]

to him faith actually means abrahamic faiths, those 'faiths' which are solely based on faiths are troublemakers in the world, i think he is spot on that.

Sam harris is a different kind of atheist, he does meditation, admires buddha, and dont consider buddhism to be a faith/religion.
The world badly needs people like him

And it would be a better place for it!

Sam Harris is a cofounder and the CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. He received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.

Many of us who have brains wired for evidence have no problem with the following definition of faith:
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
RichardDawkins

 

[Vinayaka]

then why are we discussing this subject ?

You make me laugh. In a good way.

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji

Two things:

two things or two questions ?

1) the difference between (acquired) knowledge and (experiential) knowledge?

now now sir do not pretend to be so obtuse I am sure you understand full well the difference between aquired knowledge and experiencial knowledge ? or is my english that bad ?


by aquired knowledge I am meaning knowledge aquired , gained through instruction,through deciplic succession , from book reading ........knowledge which is not ones own but which is aquired from an external source .
by experiencial knowledge I am meaning that which one has first hand knowledge of through direct realisation .

2) Isn’t an experience in itself acquired?

yes, it might be possible to describe an experience as being aquired , but what I had said was aquired knowledge , not aquired experience !anyhow ... If you were asking me an "experience" is experienced !!!

the beauty of direct realisation is that it is not dependant upon any aquisition of knowledge or upon instruction , some realisations happen by the grace of god

 

[ratikala]

dear vinayaka ji

You make me laugh. In a good way.

jai jai , I am pleased .... I have the horrible feeling that I anoy some people ???

 

[Riverwolf]

dear vinayaka ji




jai jai , I am pleased .... I have the horrible feeling that I anoy some people ???

Everyone annoys somebody. ^_^

 

[Vrindavana Das]

You are making contradictory statements.

Please clarify.

Krishna has explicitly said that only the one who knows that it is the lord who is doing everything sees paramthma. That's wisdom for you.

Lord has said that because Lord gives us the fruit of all our actions. So, ultimately Lord is doing everything, though we think we are doing everything.

Thank you for giving me wisdom. Please also enlighten, if soul does not have a free-will, how do you explain the Lord saying:

Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. [B.G. 18.63]

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. [B.G. 18.66]

How can one surrender when he has no free-will?

That's after attaining liberation. Yes, after liberation one is a free man, the self can go anywhere he wants to but not when he is in bondage.

Bhīshma Pitāmah had a BENEDICTION of quitting his body at free-will, where does liberation fit in; please clarify!

A person may be a liberated soul or a conditioned soul, in both conditions, with this benediction, he can give up the body at his free-will. The 'free-will' of quitting the body whenever one desires, has got nothing to do with being liberated.

 

[Pleroma]

then why are we discussing this subject ?

Its the prakriti which chooses whether you discuss it or don't discuss it.

if everything is pre ordained and free will has no part to play , in which case how can you enlighten another ?????

Who said that just by reading a verse of Bhagvad Gita one gets enlightened, only when the prakriti allows him to get enlightened only then the soul gets liberated.

What will be the state of a person one who has achieved Sarvajnya?

 

[Pleroma]

Please clarify.

We are neither actors nor spectators. We are That. This is the state of a karma yogin.

Lord has said that because Lord gives us the fruit of all our actions. So, ultimately Lord is doing everything, though we think we are doing everything.

Thank you for giving me wisdom. Please also enlighten, if soul does not have a free-will, how do you explain the Lord saying:

Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. [B.G. 18.63]

That statement by Krishna in no way indicates that a person has free will, in fact it contradicts it, one should allow whatever has to happen to happen, whether Arjuna goes for war or doesn't it makes no difference for Krishna because Krishna will always be in the state of stithaprajna.

He was smiling even when he was killing his enemies, he didn't killed them out of dvesha, he killed them because it was his job, it was ordained and not out of raga or dvesha.

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. [B.G. 18.66]


How can one surrender when he has no free-will?

When your mind is in Sattva guna you will automatically surrender to God, We are beyond gunas, we should not take pride just because we are pure in Sattva and just the same way we should not take shoka just because we do something wrong in Rajo Guna. Its all the activity of the gunas, just watch what they do.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

We are neither actors nor spectators. We are That. This is the state of a karma yogin.

The 'soul' has a free-will, by which it makes choices.

Example: I (soul) decides that I want to have an ice-cream. If I exercise this free-will of mine, then my body (prakrīt&#299 will act and take the ice-cream. Meaning, the soul is only exercising it's free will, body (prakrīt&#299 is doing the action.

That statement by Krishna in no way indicates that a person has free will, in fact it contradicts it, one should allow whatever has to happen to happen, whether Arjuna goes for war or doesn't it makes no difference for Krishna because Krishna will always be in the state of stithaprajna.

He was smiling even when he was killing his enemies, he didn't killed them out of dvesha, he killed them because it was his job, it was ordained and not out of raga or dvesha.

All what you have said is what you think/believe. Is that mentioned in the Gīta (in connection to the question asked and the verse in question)? Can you please stick to the question and answer to the point? I repeat:

Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. [B.G. 18.63]

When your mind is in Sattva guna you will automatically surrender to God, We are beyond gunas, we should not take pride just because we are pure in Sattva and just the same way we should not take shoka just because we do something wrong in Rajo Guna. Its all the activity of the gunas, just watch what they do.

Says who? Please provide the appropriate quote/verse saying the same.

God is transcendental- beyond material modes. Sattva guna helps one to reach God as it is the highest guna. It no way indicates that one will automatically surrender to God. There are many persons who are in sattva guna and still do not surrender to God. Like - many who read and follow Vedās for heavenly pleasure. Many build hospitals, schools, do charity, but do not surrender to God.

Asides, you still have not answered the question. I again repeat:

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. [B.G. 18.66]

 

[Pleroma]

The 'soul' has a free-will, by which it makes choices.

Example: I (soul) decides that I want to have an ice-cream. If I exercise this free-will of mine, then my body (prakrīt&#299 will act and take the ice-cream. Meaning, the soul is only exercising it's free will, body (prakrīt&#299 is doing the action.

Do you really know what the soul is? Are you an enlightened being? Are you a free man?

All what you have said is what you think/believe. Is that mentioned in the Gīta (in connection to the question asked and the verse in question)? Can you please stick to the question and answer to the point? I repeat:

Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. [B.G. 18.63]

Repeating the same questions won't change the answers. You want me to repeat again then listen.

Bhagvad Gita, chapter 2, verse 70, Sankhya Yoga.

TEXT 70

apuryamanam acala-pratistham
samudram apah pravisanti yadvat
tadvat kama yam pravisanti sarve
sa santim apnoti na kama-kami

SYNONYMS

apuryamanam--always filled; acala-pratistham--steadily situated; samudram--the ocean; apah--water; pravisanti--enter; yadvat--as; tadvat--so; kamah--desires; yam--unto one; pravisanti--enter; sarve--all; sah--that person; santim--peace; apnoti--achieves; na--not; kama-kami--one who desires to fulfill desires.

Only the one who is stithaprajna attains peace and therefore krishna has no desires, he neither wants to kill anyone nor he wants to save one, he neither cares whether Arjuna goes for war nor if he doesn't go. That statement should be understood in that way, Krishna only gives all the advice for Arjuna and leaves it to nature to take actions.

Krishna is always at peace and smiling.

Says who? Please provide the appropriate quote/verse saying the same.

God is transcendental- beyond material modes. Sattva guna helps one to reach God as it is the highest guna. It no way indicates that one will automatically surrender to God. There are many persons who are in sattva guna and still do not surrender to God. Like - many who read and follow Vedās for heavenly pleasure. Many build hospitals, schools, do charity, but do not surrender to God.

Says Krishna

Bhagvad Gita, chapter 14, verse 19. Guna-Karma Vibhaga Yoga.

Chapter 14. The Three Modes Of Material Nature
TEXT 19

nanyam gunebhyah kartaram
yada drastanupasyati
gunebhyas ca param vetti
mad-bhavam so 'dhigacchati

SYNONYMS

na--never; anyam--other than; gunebhyah--from the qualities; kartaram--the performer; yada--when; drasta anupasyati--he who sees properly; gunebhyah ca--from the modes of nature; param--transcendental; vetti--know; mat-bhavam--My spiritual nature; sah--he; adhigacchati--is promoted.

TRANSLATION

When you see that there is nothing beyond these modes of nature in all activities and that the Supreme Lord is transcendental to all these modes, then you can know My spiritual nature.

PURPORT

Actually, the living entity is not the performer of different activities. He is forced to act because he is situated in a particular type of body, conducted by some particular mode of material nature.

One cannot be free as long as one is subjected to gunas, it is the gods who script our lives, we don't have free will.

TEXT 20

gunan etan atitya trin
dehi deha-samudbhavan
janma-mrtyu-jara-duhkhair
vimukto 'mrtam asnute

SYNONYMS

gunan--qualities; etan--all these; atitya--transcending; trin--three; dehi--embodied; deha--body; samudbhavan--produced of; janma--birth; mrtyu--death; jara--old age; duhkhaih--distresses; vimuktah--being freed from; amrtam--nectar; asnute--enjoys.
TRANSLATION

When the embodied being is able to transcend these three modes, he can become free from birth, death, old age and their distresses and can enjoy nectar even in this life.

Asides, you still have not answered the question. I again repeat:

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. [B.G. 18.66]

I have already addressed it.

 

[Pleroma]

Every single one of those names can as easily be applied to the actual Sun, as much as this "inner Sun". I think you're referring to the Atman, which has no color since it is not a physical object capable of reflecting light, which is the only way color can occur. Atman is just a convenience term for Brahman in reference to us, as the two are identical. Brahman has no form.

No, I'm not referring to the atman just yet, that's beyond jagat but the physical personal Sun God is with in jagat.

I don't think you understand my argument: it's a linguistic nitpick. The English word "Sun" only refers to the star itself. Hiranyagarbha and His other Names, however, do not. Just as those names can easily be applied to the Sun, they can just as easily be applied metaphorically to several other concepts.

The Gayatri mantra was not made up, it was discovered by Vishwamithra from the Agnishoma mandala and it reads as Savithru.

What does Savithru mean?
Savitru is Sanskrit in origin and its meaning is the sun, yielding or generating.

Do you want God to change his name? If you want then I am not arguing with you.

Your interpretation of the Vedas is not invalid. What I have contention with is your insisting on your implication that all other interpretations are invalid. You are not the only one who has insights, you know.

That cannot be decided like that, who knows the whole Vedas might be made up. Only the one who conquers death and achieves immortality by re-birth knows the true path. Let's see who achieves that.

Huh. Reading that article, it would seem that whoever named it and came up with the tagline didn't actually read the article, since that's not what it's ultimately about. It's primarily about entanglement: ...two particles that have once interacted always remain bound in a very strange, hardly understandable way even when they are far apart, the connection being independent of distance.

Besides, from the article:

So, yes, it would seem that even this scientist would agree that the Sun actually is out there, as much as I'm right here. It's just that what we see of it with our eyes (assuming one is foolish enough to actually look at the sun... as I have done occasionally ^_^) is a picture created by our minds. I already knew that; our eyes are only capable of detecting what's appropriately called "visible light". We can see the yellow that comes off the Sun, but we can't see the heat, which is as much a part of what it gives off as its light.

No, that implies one of the assumptions of science is wrong and scientific realism is a serious contender to be wrong and it implies that we have to give up our belief that physical objects exist independent of the mind.

Read this scientific american paper.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

It is based on this that I am arguing that the interpretation of Vedas by that scholar is the correct and the valid one. There is science and philosophy behind it to support my claims.

Now, I ask again: by mandalas are you referring to Yantras?

Yantras means different things here, you need to define it.