We have had a beautiful, yet high temperature discussion in our previous post DOES GOD REALLY EXIST?. Here is my summary of the discussion.
1. GOD EXISTS: If some one sees / knows God and is convinced, for that person there may not have any NEED to participate in this discussion. For those who have not seen God, theist or an atheist, the first means of acquiring knowledge - direct perception - has not worked. So, as next best option, he/she has to attempt to use the second means of acquiring knowledge (infer) about existence/non existence of God based on the observation. A theist infers positively about God observing the manifestation.
Any rational person who observes this creation (existence of the universe) - its complexity, its structure, coordination and beauty - makes an attempt to identify its cause (the sustaining principle behind it). As there is a potter behind the creation of a visible pot, A "theist", says "there could be a God behind the creation (or sustenance) of this universe.
2. GOD is the creator & GOD is an ever existing aspect, we can logically deduce that, there should have existed an infinite aspect that should have existed for ever, if not then, that again will have an origin. So the source of all infinites should be an aspect that has ever existed, which was never created but is the source of all creation (anadih adih). That which is the source of everything, that from which everything must have come.
3. Everything originates from GOD
"God: Is the source of everything we have and know; from whom EVERYTHING comes."
4. Everything ends/annihilates into GOD
since creator manifests in all the creation, sustainer and annihilator must be manifestation of creator.
5. How do we infer manifestation of GOD/Omnipresence of GOD?
God has no raw material to create the world. So he has two options
1. Create from nothing
2. Create from him
ruling out option 1; we know that world is created by God using himself.
6. Consciousness cannot be god for following reasons
1. The action performed in the aware state of mind is present
2. Present is the only state where there is no thought.
3. Past and future are just thoughts and nothing else.
4. Your present action is dependent always on your past thought to gain some future result. By this we know that consciousness is dependent on Sub-Consciousness, hence the later is supreme to the former. Thus, that kicks consciousness out of the game.
7. Is Sub-consciousness GOD?
Arguments thats says NO:
1) SC is subjective, confined to individuals. If it is accepted as God then we will have more than a billion Gods.
2) SC cannot explain creation; how does cosmos exist? How life exists? How things are in place? Etc
3) SC pertains to mind and I have shown that there are aspects that are higher than mind (which I have shown, unless someone has other theory to explain).
4) I have also shown that if SC is accepted as God then creation can be argued to be a mere imagination of the mind.
5) If Sub-Consciousness is GOD, the entire universe is just imagination, because SC is just a thought, knowledge.
Arguments that says YES:
1. SC (Knowledge from experience) is something which exists in all the creatures.
2. Pragnanaam Brahma (Knowledge is GOD), and knowledge is only by your past action, and past action is experience. Hence, going back knowledge gained by past (Sub-Consciousness) is GOD.
3. SC is not Subjective, It overlaps with the sub-consciousness of other creatures and hence universal.
4. SC can explain creation. If GOD is the creator, he should have knowledge about the creation, knowledge is SC, and hence GOD has SC, which is manifested in various forms in various creatures. All this individual SC’s merge to form a Universal SC which is GOD Consciousness OR Pure Consciousness OR just GOD.
5. If people say, just because, SC is Knowledge and hence the world is imagination, so be it. existence, It’s been called as “Maya” since Vedic times.
These are some of the major arguments which I have observed in the previous blog post. However, we have also seen people who are bringing science and supporting the philosophical argument. Ultimately, What I see is, everyone are in consensus with the the “Existence of GOD”. The next question that arises is “Who/What is GOD?”
I was discussing with some of my friends, as to, how the discussion should proceed now on about, “What/Who is GOD?”. This is what we thought, and I would like to share my view about the way the discussion should continue.
First of all, we should Identify and come to one consensus about the list of Characteristics thats an entity called GOD possesses, Just like Omnipresent, Infinite, Every existing and so on… After come to consensus, we will take up individual concepts like Sub-Consciousness, Consciousness, Matter and Energy, Black hole, Big bang and stuff like that, and try to see if the concepts satisfy all the listed characters, something like a check list. The one that satisfies all those will be called GOD.
I invite you discuss under this Article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thank the author for summarizing the state of affairs
ReplyDeleteI think proceeding further there is an argument on whether SC is GOD/not GOD
I have a few questions to all
1. Is SC subjective?
2. If YES then when the source of thought dies (manifested form) then SC also dies. Therefore it cannot be GOD
3. If NO it implies that SC is free from Life and death. But how do we infer that it is free from life and death?
I have told in my argument previously and also the Author has mentioned in this article
ReplyDelete"If GOD is the creator, he should have knowledge about the creation, knowledge is SC, and hence GOD has SC, which is manifested in various forms in various creatures. All this individual SC’s merge to form a Universal SC which is GOD Consciousness OR Pure Consciousness OR just GOD".
Aralagada:
ReplyDelete"If GOD is the creator, he should have knowledge about the creation, knowledge is SC, and hence GOD has SC, which is manifested in various forms in various creatures"
a) One "HAS" SC. One "IS" not SC.
b) I have shown in the past that SC is an attribute of mind and mind is a lower aspect of existence. I have also shown that there are aspects that are greater than mind. Anyway. And as Arya said: subjective SC ceases to exist once its emodiment is lost, i.e. when one dies. That which is not lost is above the level of mind.
c) SC cannot be knowledge, because according to Aralagada, it is "A state of mind not immediately available to consciousness". It is a state of mind. SC is one that has quick access to knowledge, not knowledge itself. Since Aralagada likes my crude example, SC can be more like "internal cache memory" circuitry with automatic action. I have spoken about "learning" in the past if you want to check.
Aralagada says:
ReplyDelete"All this individual SC’s merge to form a Universal SC which is GOD Consciousness OR Pure Consciousness OR just GOD"
== I did not want to bring in this point into the discussion for several reasons, but let see how it goes.
As we discussed before, Mind is more at the level of Manomayakosha. Above mind is Vijnyanamaya kosha, where all intellectual processing and differentiation happens. I had also shown how vijnyanamaya kosha is superior to Mind and SC. And much above that is the Anandamayakosha, which is the source of everything. Here resides the "SOUL", that one which connects us to the supreme consciousness; that one which is the embodiment of Sat, Chit, and Ananda attributes.
In a gist: Sat is because of its eternal nature (we have discussed this; energy). It is because of our eternal nature that none of us want to die and think we will live for ever, and it is true :)
Chit is the consciousness potency (this consciousness is not a mental state but a consciousness as in that which that pervades through the body and mind). Awareness. Essence of Life. This then propels that knowledge acquiring potency in all of us.
Ananda is the potency of blissfulness. Which is why, we, by nature are behind "happiness". This is why, we, by nature cannot seek pain or sadness. Some may seem to seek pain or sadness, but that is only to gain some sort of happiness.
So, SC is a reflection of presence of a higher entity within us called Soul, which is primarily a package of sat-chit-ananda potencies.
What "merges" into God is this energy capsule called soul and not SC. This is according to my understanding.
"I did not want to bring in this point into the discussion for several reasons, but let see how it goes. "
ReplyDeleteI assure you GodCon, we are going in right direction.
You spoke about soul, this where I wanted to get in, but, did not intend before someone actually gets in.
You say, SC is different from soul.
You also say SC dies with the body. you also say "consciousness is not a mental state but a consciousness as in that which that pervades through the body and mind". Is this not SOUL?
Might be the reason for the confusion was in the term used, I used SC and you used SOUL. Fine, we shall discard SC and talk about SOUL alone.
As Anweekshiki has asked in his article, we shall start deducing and analyzing and come up with the list of Properties first. It would be better if we push the discussion of Soul a bit more further.
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDelete"You also say SC dies with the body. you also say 'consciousness is not a mental state but a consciousness as in that which that pervades through the body and mind'. Is this not SOUL?
This still is not SOUL, but an evidence of presence of SOUL. Just like Heat is an Evidence of Fire, consciousness is evidence of Soul. It is hard to differentiate Heat and Fire, but they are different and we need to acknowledge that. So, Consciousness is an evidence of the presence of a Soul, not soul in itself was what I have been trying to say.
My objection is/was with the definition used and the way it was being discussed, because SC was discussed around thought, memory, mind, and mental states. I was trying to say that SC as mental states cannot be GOD. Further, even if you say SC == SOUL, I would say that Soul still is NOT God. It is like God. I can write about that now, but I think we can discuss this further, a little later I suppose.
Since we have established God and His relationship with creation we could see how we can turn inside from outside. Because it is natural for one to ask what a Soul is. Let us see how we proceed from here and what questions will come up.
Sorry for any confusions.
Thanks.
We know GOD has manifested himself in all his creations
ReplyDeleteWhat is that manifestation of GOD in us?
We should remember that GOD's manifestation in us will annihilate into GOD
ReplyDeleteWhat is that?
GOD is omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, Omni benevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligations, and the "greatest conceivable existent", Creator of all, Sustainer, destructor, Eternal truth.
ReplyDeleteThese are some of the features of GOD.
Eternal Truth: momentary truth and eternal truth, the meaning of both is just truth. However, Explaining with Example (Forgive me GodCon, I am copying your style :) ):
I am in Bus stand now is truth, which might not be truth the next moment when you are in BUS.
I had been to Rameshawaram, this is Eternal truth, its something which is unchangeable. Weather the universe exist or not exist, I had been to Rameshwaram, this is Eternal truth (unchangeable truth). So, Eternal truth is something which ever exists, so, if GOD ever exists and has no death, he himself is Eternal truth. Next Question is, Is GOD "Ever Existing?"
Existence of GOD is also been inferred by the observation in the discussion that went on in our previous blog.
ReplyDeleteIf x-> y (Y has come from x)
and y-> z (Z came from u) ... and so on. There must some point where the chain ceases to stop. and That entity that started the creation might not have any birth and hence no death.
This actually inferred two features of GOD, creator and Ever existing. Omnipresence is also been proved by one of the participant in the discussion. "DIVINE SIMPLICITY", Something which I am unable to understand, Please help me some one?
I thought we could go back one step and see if this logic works. If we can establish that God is a being and not mere ball of energy. A tough task on hand :)
ReplyDeleteWe have agreed that God is the source of everything - matter, life, consciousness, knowledge, and energy.
May be I am biased, but I am convinced that mere energy cannot have intelligence or independence, or intention or knowledge. So, there must be a source that is infinitely intelligent, independent, knowledgable; a supreme being (not a human being), beyond our imagination who from who everything seems to manifest.
Because, for Energy to exist there must be an Energetic. For example, I am energetic, and voice and thought are my expression of energies. Water is energetic, its force is the expression of energy. Water cannot produce intelligent energies, because it lacks intelligence. Similarly, an intelligent being (Human and animals) cannot have come from an unintelligent source, so it has got to have an intelligent source.
Furthermore, intelligent source can express non-intelligent energies (e.g. sheer force, running, lifting etc) but non-intelligent entities cannot express intelligent energies (e.g. thought or contemplation or etc).
So, could I say that God is a Supreme Being (beyond the imagination of the created aspect) from who all energies araise. This is probably why shastras talk about Purusha tatva and Prakriti Tatva, the energetic (cause) and energy (the effect).
In essence, I am extending the definition by saying: God has got to be the Infinitely Intelligent, Energetic Being from who all material energies manifest.
As per my understanding we have inferred only omnipresence
ReplyDelete1. GOD is the creator. He manifests himself in all his creations because of the following points
a. He has no raw materials
b. He cannot create from nothing
c. He has to create everything from himself
So he is omnipresent
Two Questions to all
1. How did we decide so many omni... features of GOD?
2. Is such a list limited or is it evolving?
@GodCon
ReplyDeleteI agree your inference of GOD is Omniscience or the one who has infinite knowledge.
But clarity is missing when we say voice and thought are expression of my energy. How did we infer they(voice/thought/flow) are the expression of energy and why not anything other than energy!
The following is my argument for omniscience
a) GOD is the creator
b) He created whatever we(manifestations of GOD)know/don't know
c) So he has infinite knowledge intelligent/knowledge which is a universal set
--------------------
I did not get answers for the questions in my previous comment which is more important than the above discussion
Dear Aralagada,
ReplyDeleteI apologise in advance in case I seem to always oppose your viewpoints. I do not intend to but I thought we need to clarify this.
When this creation (including us) itself is temporary, i.e. not eternal, how can anything to do with the temporaral creation be eternal?
Eternal is that which does not change with time, place, or space. Eternal truth then are aspects that are related to soul and its relationship with its source (read God) and nothing of the material creation. So, you standing in the bus-stand or you having gone to Rameshwaram cannot be eternal truths, but ephemeral truths that pertain to your existenece, this creation, which are all temporary.
I hope this clarifies.
I think we have clearly established that God is ever existing. Because
a) if Everything comes from Him (or it) then He (it) must have existed infinitently for ever, and
b) if everything eventually goes back into Him (it) then He (it) must exist even when nothing else exists. So, He has go to be eternal - ever existing.
Thanks.
Dear Arya,
ReplyDeleteI too agree that we have digressed a bit, but given the redirection that we took on the previous discussion I am hoping that we will get there here too :)
"clarity is missing when we say voice and thought are expression of my energy. How did we infer they(voice/thought/flow) are the expression of energy and why not anything other than energy!"
-- Thought/Voice/Flow will cease to exist when LIFE ceases to exist in this body. So, I inferred that these should have been a result of some energy within. The dead-body may continue to have few of the unintelligent energies (pertaining to its mass??) but will not of intelligent energies.
So, I infer that thought, intelligence, voice, interpretation, senses etc are all expressions of an intelligent energy within which enables these aspects.
Not sure if this clarifies.
In the long run I wanted to propose that:
Thought comes from intelligence. Intelligence comes from an intelligent being/energy. That, thought is the evidence (expression) of "Soul" (an intelligent energy capsule), and Soul is the evidence of a higher (intelligent energy source) supersoul (God).
I think we can derive a few concepts out of this, in case this makes sense.
So what are the properties/characteristics of GOD and how do you decide that?
ReplyDeleteArya,
ReplyDeleteThese list of properties/characteristics of GOD which I have list in my comment on April 17, 2010 7:03 AM, was extracted from internet. I am not sure about how much valid/ invalid it is.. SO, to decide we will have to discuss as we have done in the past and come to a consensus
According to me the nature of such a list can be infinite. Why?
ReplyDeleteAll the characteristics we define for GOD are created by him without which we would not have mentioned!
So rather discussing on the characteristics can we discuss what each of us think as GOD?
To give more clarity. We saw a few comments taking about an energy called SOUL.
ReplyDeleteSo people who know about SOUL, can they explain in simple words what is it?
About Soul:
ReplyDeleteI do not claim to KNOW about soul, but I have read a little bit about it, so let me propose my understanding here:
Soul is Atma, that spark which enables "life" in this body; the absence of which results in the body in going back to its original state - dead matter.
Soul is that subtle energy source that propels all actions - of body, mind, and intelligence; absence of which results in ceasure of all actions performed by these aspects.
Soul is that which enables consciousness in the living. The description of the various attributes of this can be found in Bhagawad Gita, whether one accepts it or not is subjective.
The soul has often been deemed integral or essential to consciousness and personality, and may be synonymous with spirit, mind or self.
ReplyDeleteAll the three major schools of Hindu philosophy agree, on the basis of the Vedic revelation, that the Atman or jivatman (individual Self) is related to Brahman (lit. "the Immensity") or the Supreme Self of the Universe (Paramatman). But they differ in the nature of this relationship. In Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism) the Individual Self (jivatman) and the Supreme Self (paramatman) are one and the same. Dvaita or dualistic rejects this concept of identity, instead identifying the Self as separate but similar part of supreme Self (God), but it never lose its individual identity. Visishtadvaita or Qualified Non-dualism takes a middle path and accepts the jivatman as a "mode" [prakara] or attribute of the Brahman.
@Arlagada
ReplyDeleteAtman, Jivatman, Brahman, Paramatman, GOD... how many more jargon.. I am a layman. I just asked what is SOUL.. you gave so many words!
@GodCon
If SOUL is the subtle energy, how does it enter the human body when the body takes birth? How does it grow(does it have growth like human body)? Will the energy annihilate just like the human body? How does it leave the human body?
a person says "I am blind", "I am happy", "I am fat" etc. The common and constant factor, which permeates all these statements is the "I" which is but the Immutable Consciousness
ReplyDeleteThat "I" itself is all "Atman, Jivatman, Brahman, Paramatman, GOD" .
@Arlagada
ReplyDeleteI is immutable. How do you say that? I don't even know how it takes birth in a human body.. you are taking about immutability. You say "I" which is subjective. GOD is not subjective right? So how are they equivalent?
I never told "I" is "Subjective"....
ReplyDeleteI(Arya) never said you(Arlagada) said "I" is subjective! I(Arya) said that "I" is subjective based on previous discussions
ReplyDelete1. The Absolute Brahman "Paramatman" is defined to be composed of:
ReplyDeletePurusha and Prakriti.
Both ever exist in Absolute Brahman
The same is true with any "Jivatman"
2. The entire creation (5 subtle Energies followed Panch mahabhootas, also 5 senses, 5 organs of actions) were created through the Prakriti of Purusha.
3. The individual souls - Jivatman are also ever existence.
It is only infered by the presence and acts of body. (Effect of creation/Prakriti).
4. The Jivatmans are ever existing, liberation of Jivatmans is attained, when the self identifies itself with Supreme soul - Absolute Brahman.
5. When Jivatman identifies itself with Prakriti, it doesnot get liberated, for the soul keeps on bound with Prakriti.
@ Arya:
1. If SOUL is the subtle energy, how does it enter the human body when the body takes birth?
The Jivatman is ever existing, it is immovable. Only thing is you can infer its existence with the body, the created.
It ever exists, even when there is a body or not.
2. How does it grow(does it have growth like human body)?
A: The Jivas growth can be termed as realizing that it is not one with the body or the created. the steps in realizing the truth is called growth.
3. Will the energy annihilate just like the human body?How does it leave the human body?
A: It is not the soul which leaves, it is immovable, it is the body which grows and dies.
When the reflection of atman falls on Avidya (ignorance), atman becomes jīva — a living being with a body and senses. Each jiva feels as if he has his own, unique and distinct Atman, called jivatman. The concept of jiva is true only in the pragmatic level. In the transcendental level, only the one Atman, equal to Brahman, is true.
ReplyDeleteJust Like your body is hidden by the covering cloths, Atman is hidden by the Body itself. Finding this true Atman is possible only by Knowledge (The one and only method).
I too agree with Arya that we have introduced too many jarons, a few more since Arya posted his concern, terms such as jivatma, paramatma, and avidya. Anyway.
ReplyDeleteI too agree with the subjectivity of "I" as raised by Arya, which questions the conclusion that "I itsel is Atman, Jivatman, Brahman, Paramatman, GOD" and begs an explanation.
Let me try to address few of the questions raised by Arya, though Student has taken a shot at those.
1) If SOUL is the subtle energy, how does it enter the human body when the body takes birth?
ReplyDelete-- I try to write from what I understand. As brought up by Student, there are two aspects of "creation" - the Purusha (seed giver) and the Prakriti (the instrument of action or place holder). Creation happens/is complete when Purusha "enters" the Prakriti (Bhagawad Gita, Bhagawatam). An analogy is that of Egg and Sperm. The "active energy" is in the sperm that by its nature seeks its couterpart (prakriti). Unless the purusha enters the prakriti the creation in incomplete, i.e. no conception of a bodied living entity happens.
The question as to how a Soul enters the material world is a question that we need to answer. I will provide some of the possibilities provided in the shastras in my next post, to keep this shorter.
How does it grow(does it have growth like human body)?
== It does not grow. It remains unaffected by bodily growth.
Will the energy annihilate just like the human body?
== First, it is not just in human body, but in the body of any living entity, be it plants or animals or bacterias.
== This takes us to an entirely new topic of discussion, the escape of this energy into its source. For now we can say that a) it can become one with the Universal Energy, b) take shape in another body, c) will continue exist in a "unassigned" state. But, it will continue to exist "somewhere" depending on its "ability" to escape.
How does it leave the human body?
== According to yoga system, it can leave the body through any one of "nine doors" of the human body (of the nine pores/openings that include nostril, eyes, nostril etc).
A more interesting question could be, if so then "WHEN DOES IT LEAVE THE BODY". A simple but not so convincing an answer could be: It leaves the body when the body loses its ability to "sustain" it (and this can happen for a variety of reasons).
@Arlagada, Student: You both are enlightened beings. I appreciate your effort in containing so much of information. Unfortunately for a seeker of GOD like me your words are too heavy.
ReplyDelete@GodCon: Thank you for giving clarity on Prakriti & Purusha.
So is there a Prakriti & Purusha for all manifestations of GOD? or only in living entities?
How do we know it (SOUL) won't grow?
Which are those nine doors of the human body though which SOUL leaves human body? How do we know there are nine? Can we see them?
After answering the above questions we can discuss where does the SOUL(subtle energy) escapes
We have seen that its always been rejected something to match GOD on the basic of its objectivity/subjectivity. We will have to decide about that first. before proceeding with SOUL or others.
ReplyDeleteOn what basic did we decide that GOD is Objective and not subjective?
Q1: So is there a Prakriti & Purusha for all manifestations of GOD? or only in living entities?
ReplyDeleteA1: Any entity is called living only when Prakriti comes in contact with Purusha.
-- So, Prakriti is mere matter until it comes in contact with Purusha.
- Prakriti creates for Purusha.
- Hence a Living body is called so, when it has both Prakriti(it is the cause for all the changes in and out of the body) and the Purusha dwells in the body and is only the witness of the changes.
Q2: How do we know it (SOUL) won't grow?
A2: What kind of growth is being referred?
-Soul in itself never grows. it is changeless, it can change if it is subjected to activity, inertness, passion etc... which are required for growth of living.
- But Soul is only witness of these attributes which we refer to as Gunas.
- But an embodied soul- Jiva is Soul Union created(body).
- The Jiva has to realise perfection of Purusha and then only it is liberated.
- Hence, it is only embodied soul that "grows in realization" of perfection of Purusha.
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteGOD was decided as Objective based on the following inferences
1) GOD is the creator(established)
2) Everything originates from GOD and sustained by GOD and ends/annihilates in GOD(established)
3) GOD is ever existing aspect (established)
So how can GOD be subjective when the subjective thought itself is not ever existing
@Student: Another heavy comment.. but i am trying to raise to your levels (very difficult)
So you mean to say growth of SOUL is nothing but realization of SOUL(energy)?
Sorry for the repetitive comment. Earlier comment was not coming on the main blog window so did it again
ReplyDelete@Arlagada:
GOD was decided as Objective based on the following inferences
1) GOD is the creator(established)
2) Everything originates from GOD and sustained by GOD and ends/annihilates in GOD(established)
3) GOD is ever existing aspect (established)
So how can GOD be subjective when the subjective thought itself is not ever existing
@Student: Another heavy comment.. but i am trying to raise to your levels (very difficult)
So you mean to say growth of SOUL is nothing but realization of SOUL(energy)?
Yeah, agree with Arya that God has got to be an absolute and objective aspect, not a relative and subjective phenomena.
ReplyDeleteI will try my take on Student's shot on the questions (I complete agree with what Student has written about):
Again, the below are from my personal understanding.
Q1: Is there a Prakriti & Purusha for all manifestations of GOD? or only in living entities?
-- The entire creation is composed of manifested and unmanifested energies, i.e. all that we see or perceive or know of, which is evidence of Prakriti. Manifested energies are those that take some form, unmanifested energies exist but we may not perceive them. All energies in their energy forms are prakriti, that have active potential or instrument of action. Sorry if this is convoluted :)
So, "Prakriti" (the instrumental energy) can be evidenced in both manifested and unmanifested or living entities and non-living aspects, but "Purusha" (the enactor, the doer) can be evidenced in the living aspect only.
Q2: How do we know it (SOUL) won't grow?
ReplyDelete-- I would ask the same question that student raises: what do you mean by growth? Because matter multiplies and grows physically, while meta-physical aspects may not show similar growth.
Lets take something we know (mind and intelligence) slightly better to understand that which we do not know (soul).
MIND or INTELLIGENCE, for example, do not GROW in physical sense, right? Their presence is evidenced by thought, conscious and sub-conscious actions. They are are almost infinite in their nature (potential wise, even science acknowledges that). We can only tap or unlock their infinite quality, i.e. each of us explore them to a certain degree and probably no one uses them to their "infinite" "potential". So, that which is infinite cannot grow but we can only tap or realize them in finite drops.
Similarly, if mind and intelligence are (near-) infinite, their source, the soul has to be infinite. So soul does not grow because of its infinite nature. It is the same soul that propels a dinosaur and an amoeba (I know I am opening another pandora box here hehe but I think it is worth it). We can only feel its presence through conscious effort.
Sorry for another crude example: It is like a fireplace that keeps the house warm, but the only difference is in its infinite nature, it can adapt to any sized room it is fitted into; a fireplace (magical fireplace?) that can warm a jopadpatti or a palace the same way!!
So, a Soul need not grow because of its infinite nature. Not sure if this is convincing enough, but a sincere effort ;) :)
Q3: Which are those nine doors of the human body though which SOUL leaves human body?
ReplyDelete-- nava-dvare pure dehi (Bhagawad Gita chapt): soul, the resider, of a city of nine gates :)
-- The nine gates are: two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, one mouth, the anus and the genital.
How do we know there are nine?
-- Hmmm when I first saw this question I thought the answer was obvious: We can know this through contemplation and understanding of the living body (science may also agree to this).
But as I thought about this, I realized that this infact is a very good question! I really want to thank you for this. Because, I am not entirely sure if these apply to plants, bacterias and such "lower" living entities also. So, I realize I need to check back, recheck, again on what shastras say about how the soul lives a body.
Can we see them?
-- I think so :D ;)
Rightly asked by Arya, and Rightly applied thought by GodCon about the 9 openings. We need to refer about what shastra says.... GodCon, however is handy in this field (Just kidding).
ReplyDeleteSo, My question is.
Fire just like it light up/heats up a jopadpatti and a palace, same SOUL stays in dinosaur and amoeba.
Just like that fire can grow in palace heating it up OR lighting it up more, can the SOUL also grow. If yes, what are the effect of its growth
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliments. I take the joke also :) I have never claimed to be an expert :) Anyway.
You wrote: "Just like that fire can grow in palace heating it up OR lighting it up more, can the SOUL also grow. If yes, what are the effect of its growth"
I knew that a question like this would come :), which is why I specified it as a crude example (because there isn't anything like it in this world that I could think of for analogy), that serves a specific purpose and not an exactly scaled down example.
I had said "It is like a fireplace that keeps the house warm, but the only difference is in its infinite nature, it can adapt to any sized room it is fitted into; a fireplace (magical fireplace?)"!
It is the same size when it in a baby, the same size as we grow, the same as we get old, and the same when it leaves the body. It does not have to change, its presence will expand with in size.
So, this fire does not grow, but its heat will be felt the same way irrespective of the size of the object that it is embodied in. A "magical fireplace" that adapts.
There is a good example in the Bhagawad Gita itself about the fireplace example that I gave:
ReplyDeleteChapter 13:
yatha prakasayaty ekah
krtsnam lokam imam ravih
ksetram ksetri tatha krtsnam
prakasayati bharata
O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body!
You told
ReplyDelete"a Soul need not grow because of its infinite nature"
Also you have repeated
"it does not have to change, its presence will expand with in size.
"
"Need not grow", "Does not have to grow" .. But, can it grow?
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Also you have repeated 'it does not have to change, its presence will expand with in size'
-- I thought I was clear. Anyway. The presence of fire can be felt in the heat, so the heat spreads while the fire remains the same, unchanged. It is the experience of the presence or evidence of fire (soul) that I was talking about here.
You wrote: "Need not grow", "Does not have to grow" .. But, can it grow?
-- It does not grow. I thought Student had clearly mentioned this. All I did was that I expanded on what Student had said because Arya said that Student's words were a bit convoluted.
If you note, I had started my write up saying this:
"I will try my take on Student's shot on the questions (I complete agree with what Student has written about).
TYPO: "Completely Agree" instead of "Complete Agree".
So I had assumed that I had taken a few things for granted. Anyway. Hope this clarifies. Sorry for the confusion ;)
So
ReplyDelete"Soul Does not Grow" .
Since all living creatures have Physical growth (Animals, Plants), it will gradually lead to death. You also spoke about mental growth, i.e. Growth in "knowledge". Before all these, I have couple of more query which is bugging me.
1. So, Knowledge grows, so, does it have a death?
2. Just like Physical growth can be measured(weight, mass, height). Can the growth of knowledge be measured?
3. Just like Physical growth has some effect (strength, stamina). What are the effects of growth of knowledge?
4. Just like physical growth happens in one direction (increasing weight, increasing height), what is the direction of the growing knowledge?
Dear Aralagada,
ReplyDeleteI am not entirely convinced how these questions will help futher what we are pursuing. The mind/knowledge example that I gave was only as a parallel analogy to explain nature of soul; I explicitly mentioned and noted this hoping that we will not digress from there. But I am sorry that we have. Anyway. I will try to briefly address the questions raised.
"Since all living creatures have Physical growth (Animals, Plants), it will gradually lead to death"
-- Yes. Death is for that which is temporal and finite.
"You also spoke about mental growth, i.e. Growth in "knowledge""
-- when I spoke about that, please look at how I have and what I have proposed.
1. So, Knowledge grows, so, does it have a death?
-- Again, please re-read my original comments to see if knowledge really "grows", and then you can think whether it can have a death or not.
2. Just like Physical growth can be measured(weight, mass, height). Can the growth of knowledge be measured?
-- Again, this also presumes the same thing unfortunately. Anyway. One can perceive the degree of "tapped knowledge", otherwise there would not have been a preacher and a preached, a teacher and a student, even though there is no quantifier or way to physically measure it, it can be perceived through relative comparison, i.e. through knowledge again.
3. Just like Physical growth has some effect (strength, stamina). What are the effects of growth of knowledge?
-- Same issue!! Anyway. It depends on the kind of knowledge tapped, and it is an internal experience.
4. Just like physical growth happens in one direction (increasing weight, increasing height), what is the direction of the growing knowledge?
-- please read my original post; consider how and whether knowledge grows or not, if so in what direction. Please also let me know and we can discuss from there.
I appreciate the questions, and hope I have done some justice to it, sorry if not. Its pretty late here and I am absolutely sleepy now, so apologize in advance for any confusions or mistakes or misunderstandings.
I really do not wish to discuss on this topic again unless there is a compelling reason to.
You need not ask sorry for everything GodCon,
ReplyDeleteThe reason I was asking this questions was because, I am still not understanding. You asked me to refer to your original post, your original post says Knowledge is near infinite. Apart from that I dint get any other point about the growth of knowledge. So, you did not answer my questions.
Arya on omniscience:
ReplyDeletea) GOD is the creator
b) He created whatever we(manifestations of GOD)know/don't know
c) So he has infinite knowledge intelligent/knowledge which is a universal set
BUT
omniscience incudes past/present/future. How do we say God knows the future?
Objecive : observable phenomena
ReplyDeleteSubjective: mental act, occuring within mind
Is God observable phenomena? not for me atleast.
@TKLG:
ReplyDelete1. GOD has infinite knowledge/intelligence.
2. It follows- He is the cause of all the effects.
3. He is all knowing about the cause - effect relationship.
i.e; he knows the entire chain of cause -effect relationship from beginning of creation to end of creation.
4. The reason is it was initiated by him.
5. If you are refering to the future of self. The Present situation is the effect of Yesterday.
And the same Present is the cause for tomorrow.
6. So, we can infer that this part of cause effect chain is part of the ultimate cause and ultimate effect which is under the control of GOD.
Hence, he is knower of future also.
@Impious:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by Observing GOD?
Observation means what?
Observation is an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses. Detecting, Noting, Watching attentively. etc
ReplyDeleteWhen some one says God is objective, I understand that "Sensing God by the act of observation".
If I am wrong, please correct me.
@Impious
ReplyDeleteI have an argument...
If the nature is creation of GOD. then,
the creation of GOD reflects the thought of the GOD.
Just like a software program reflects the thought process of Programmer,
The Creation and the phenomenon reflects the thought process of the GOD.
By observing the natural phenomenon one can understand various thoughts of GOD.
We can only sense GOD by observing his thought process.
Just Like we can understand a person by his thought culminating into action, we can understand GOD by the creation, which is his action.
So, realizing him is quite possible through observational methods.
Hence, we can infer GOD is observational phenomenon.
Einstein Quotes:"He wanted to read the mind of GOD"
@Student, GodCon
ReplyDeleteStudent had answered my question..
2. How does it grow(does it have growth like human body)?
A: The Jivas growth can be termed as realizing that it is not one with the body or the created. the steps in realizing the truth is called growth.
I think even GodCon had accepted this
So what i conclude is either
1) If SOUL is just a realization aspect then it won't exist if a no body is realizing it
or
2) or it exists irrespective of one realizes it or not
tell me which one is correct?
@TKLG
Everything originates in GOD and annihilates in GOD and since GOD is the creator he know past/present/future
@Impious:
According to me
Objective: Undistorted by emotion or personal bias
Subjective: Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias
Dear Arya:
ReplyDelete1) If SOUL is just a realization aspect then it won't exist if a no body is realizing it
or
2) or it exists irrespective of one realizes it or not
--- It is capable of being realized but it exists irrespective of whether one realizes it or not!!
Dear Impious:
ReplyDelete== I agree with Arya that objective phenomenon (I see it more of an opposite of subjective phenomenon) is that which surpasses individual prejudices, biases, emotions, and experiences, while Subjectivity comes from an individual perspective or experience.
An objective aspect can result in subjective experiences, but the aspect itself remains what it is.
Many of the objective aspects remain "unobservable", they need to be inferred or deduced from its resulting experiences. May be, a close analogy (I hope we do not digress from this example, this is just an analogy) Gravity existed irrespective of whether Newton (or whoever) observed it; Infraredrays existed irrespective of whether they were observable through the limited human senses. These are observable objective aspects. Similarly, from experience of light we can infer a source of light; from the experience of heat, we can infer a source of fire/heat; I am sure you can think of several such scenarios where an aspect's "effects" are observed and the object is inferred or deduced, even if we cannot observe the cause behind the effects we see.
So, God itself may not be an "observable phenomenon" but there are clues in the creation through which one can infer the source of it all, God. God exists despite the subjective experiences of individuals.
is SOUL an ever existing aspect?
ReplyDelete@Arya:
ReplyDeleteYes!
@GodCon
ReplyDeleteLight and Gravity are objective. Science vouch for them.
God is not. I may conclude existence of God by inference. It does not make it objective. You and me together can not perceive God in the same sense as that of light or gravity.
What is the need of insisting that God is objective? I dont understand.
GodCon has not replied for my question. If you think its not a question fit for any answer please let me know.
ReplyDelete@Impious:
ReplyDelete1. Do you mean to say that GOD will be different based on the way we perceive them?
2. And if so, then there cant be two truths.
3. As it is understood GOD is the ultimate truth.
4. "But definitely perception or realization of GOD doesnot differ in kind, it differs only in degree to which you perceive GOD."
Any how regarding the perception of light and Gravity:
1. Again do you feel that all the people have same perception of light?
- For some Light is an electromagnetic wave.
- For some it is a energy particle.
- For some it is vibrating strand of strings.
- It all depends upon the type of experiment you carry on the light.
The same is true with Gravity- wave or Particle/ Space fabric.
So, it is not that both GODCon can impious get same results about Light and G when different experiments are carried out.
Same is true with perception of GOD.
But whatever perception you have about GOD is for your self.
Bhagavad Gita also states:
"
yo yo yam yam tanum bhaktah
sraddhayarcitum icchati
tasya tasyacalam sraddham
tam eva vidadhamy aham
"
Means:
Whichever demigod a particular devotee desires with faith to worship, I surely sustain that faith in him."
My PoV is simple.
ReplyDeleteGod has definite meaning. Different individuals attribute same / similar meaning to God. But to conclude that it is objective is difficult.
When an experimeent is fixed, Light or Gravity, is perceived by different individuals in the same way. Moreover, the experiment could be conducted repeatedly.
In my opinion, we should not get into this - determining God to objective or subjective. Unless we have a motivation.
Let us leave subjective/objective
ReplyDeleteDo we all agree that SOUL is an ever existing aspect?
If YES then how is SOUL(subtle energy) related to GOD?
If SOUL is subtle energy, clarifications are needed. Why should we first of all consider 'subtle energy' to be a candidate for GOD? What is the motivation?
ReplyDelete@Arya,
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing this up. We can discuss from here instead of digressing.
@Aralagada,
Sorry for not replying to your queries, it was not intentional. It was due to lack of time. I was probably concerned that we could deviate away yet again. We will take it back at a later time I suppose, if it is ok with you.
@Impious:
I dont think Arya or any of us here are trying to project SOUL as a "candidate for GOD".
The concept of SOUL itself is so abstract (though magnificent) that it is sometimes hard to work it out through words. This is why I was not sure if I should have brought that point for discussion. I did not want to(April 16, 2010 11:44 AM), but I had to bring it up in context of the discussion till then.
At this point in time, we are only trying to see if we can establish a logical "link" between God and Soul.
I will post my understanding on this topic a bit later in the day. Lets see where and how it goes.
I would be away for a while starting day after, so I will badly miss this forum :) But I will try to post whenever I find time and access to internet :)
We had discussed earlier that Soul is that which energizes the body; the absence of which ceases all action in the body.
ReplyDeleteWe had agreed that God is the source of everything that is known and that is to be known; physical and metaphysical aspects; energy, knowledge, life, matter, and cosmos (aham sarvasya prabhavah mattah sarvam pravartate).
It follows that Soul or Jivatma also comes from God, Paramatma, Supreme/Universal Soul. Jivatma then is a derivative of Paramatma, or a minute 'fractional' aspect of the one Paramatma (mamaiva-amshah jeevah).
So, Soul is related to God as the Source of its existence. This is probably the first step of our understanding. Lets see how we and where we can take it from here.
Some of us had agreed that SOUL is an ever existing aspect
ReplyDeleteWe had concluded that GOD is an ever existing aspect
There cannot be two different ever existing aspects.
I conclude GOD and SOUL are the same.
@Impious:
I am a layman still understanding the Jargons here. I am trying to raise my level. Even i do not know what is SOUL. I have got some clarity on what is GOD!
Dear Arya:
ReplyDeletePerfect application of logic :)
Here is my understanding of the subject matter.
This is the point where the various schools of thought (philosophies) have differences about; whether Soul and God are the same or not.
According to one school of thought, there is no difference between Soul and the Supersoul, they are one and the same. But the question then comes as to why the Soul is entrapped in this material body. This is where probably Aralagada's jargon of Avidya comes into picture, i.e it is due to ignorance due to Maya (illusory energy) that the difference is perceived, while they are same.
According to another school of thought, they have "similar" (they are NOT same). They have similar attributes but are still different. May be, soul is like a droplet in an ocean, though ocean and its droplets have similar attributes they are still different. So, they are one and different at the same time. They are similar to one another in qualitative aspects but different in terms of the quantitative(???) aspects. For example, Supersoul has complete Independence while Individual Soul has limited Independence, i.e. individual soul has limited control over its "fortunes", as to what forms it will be embodied in (it is entrapped), it is subjected to karma (reactions) and is subdued by Maya (illusionary energy), so on.
One exists independently and is subject to entrapment while the other is subject to karma, maya, birth and death (embodiment).
Moreover, two aspects can go exist "eternally" in literal terms, because eternity is like infinity that does not have deterministic time frame. This is the issue with the concept of infinite time, that it is hard to perceive at times. But, in theory, Supersoul is the source of everything so it should be inifinity+1 times (or infinity+infinity times; which again is infinity; ever existing) earlier in terms of its existence. If that makes sense :) Sorry if this confusing, but I am not sure how better to explain :)
Similar to the popular verse: purNamadah purNamidam purNath purNamudacchate, purNasya purNamadaya purNamEva avashishyate.
This is my understanding.
I know we will have more questions, lets take them one at a time.
Typo in my previous Post:
ReplyDeleteI WROTE: One exists independently and is subject to entrapment while the other is subject to karma, maya, birth and death (embodiment).
IT SHOULD BE: One exists independently and is NOT subject to entrapment/embodiment, while the other is subject to karma, maya, birth and death (embodiment).
@Arya,
ReplyDeleteSOUL is an ever existing aspect
How?
@Arya,
There cannot be two different ever existing aspects.
Why?
@GodCon
If Soul is not candidate for God, then discussing soul is diversion here.
@Arya, I agree that jargon is creating hurdles in our understanding.
@Impious
ReplyDeleteAbout discussing Soul: It is definitely not a diversion but may be a little too early in the discussion, but when it was brought up it was needed in the context. And since most of us took it well I thought we have infact moved on.
You missed a few discussions, so we did not have your viewpoints then. This applies to other questions that you have raised to Arya as well. So please go through those posts and see if you have specific questions.
About JARGONS: Until we get to know a topic everything that pertains to it is a JARGON. For example, for many GOD itself may be a jargon for an uninitiated; "JARGON" itself may be a JARGON. When discussing IT concepts, one is expected to have some exposure to terminologies such as SDLC, design, bug-fixing etc, which are all Jargon in the beginning.
So, we need to build vocabulary around the topic we discuss. It may be hard, but it is sometimes inevitable. Moreover, I believe that we have discussed enough till now to introduce some "terminologies" or "terms" that have probably replaced some of the words that were jargonish in the beginning.
Further, we have all acknowledged and expressed concerns over excessive use of Jargons, and I believe we have moved on well from there. But, again, you were not around during those times I suppose. So, sorry for the newer terms that have been introduced into the discussion since then.
Now we have three aspects to discuss on:
ReplyDelete1. SOUL is an ever existing aspect
2. Two ever existing aspects
To answer these questions we will have to discuss about existence of Soul first.
How do we prove that?
@GodCon: Are there any ways or real world examples which prove the existence of soul?
Best thing would be to try to examine the "immutability' aspect of god.
ReplyDeleteAnd understand the "witness" concept.
Then we would be in the main stream of the discussion and cometowards the Atman or the Self.
Yes... Agreed!
ReplyDeleteWe can go in the way as TKLG told...
@Impious
ReplyDeleteI did not conclude SOUL is ever existing. I am here to explore who is GOD? So people who are here in the discussion told that it is ever existing.
Why I said there cannot be 2 ever existing entities is because
GOD is ever existing
SOUL is ever existing(please check one of the comments which says so)
both are ever existing... It does not matter for me to call an ever existing entity as GOD/SOUL.. So I concluded that. Sorry for not giving a proper reasoning for that conclusion
@TKLG
I did not quite understand Immutability, witness concept. Well another question reg the JARGON ;-) Is SOUL/Atman/Self the same entity?
@Student:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if we can "PROVE" the existence of Soul. When it comes to a subject such as this; i.e. something that escapes the gross material senses, i.e. that which is beyond observation, can only be inferred or deduced through the observation of its effects, through logical arguments.
One way to understand the existence of soul is to analyze the absence of it, i.e. understand the process of death. What happens in the case of death? There is something amiss in the "body". For a scientist this is a state where chemicals in the body cease to react with each other. The chemical locha stops! Yes it does! But, why? what is that component that takes away this capability of the body to engender life giving reactions within?
That whose absence results in the absence of life in a body is called soul. Or, the presence of a spark that keeps the body warm, active, and running is called the soul.
A crude example again: Just as fan/light/oven/tv etc need some source of power (electric current), the body needs some spark within. This spark in the body is the soul. The lifeless nature ("jada" satva) of an electric power is measured in terms of its electric charges, and that of the life-giving soul (jiva tatva) in terms of the presence of consciousness (the "sat-chit-ananda" satva of a soul).
In Bhagawad Gita 7th Chapter, Krishna talks about 2 kinds of Energies - the inferior material energy (jada) and the superior living energy (jiva). Both these energies are in either unmanifested (in pure energy form) or manifested form (they are embodied) in some dead-matter (jada roopa) or life (jiva roopa; humans, animals, plants etc).
In Bhagawad Gita 2nd chapter Krishna provides a good elaboration on this concept, and says: "Some look at the soul as amazing, some describe it as amazing, and some hear of it as amazing, while others, even after hearing about it, cannot understand him at all".
I am not sure if this explains much.
@TKLG:
ReplyDeleteEven I am not sure why you brought two more jargons - immutability and witness concept! Not sure how we jumped to these?
@Arya:
Yes, SOUL/Atman/Self are the same entity? But "Self" can be slightly confusing because there can be two levels of self - one that pertains to the mind (pseudo self; or identity; bodily conception of who I am) and the other of soul (true / real self; spiritual nature). Sorry if this is confusing.
Why bringing immutability and atman/self?
ReplyDeleteImuutability is one of the characterization or attribute of God. Since we are exploring all attributes, i suggested exploring this first.
Soul has different notions associated with it but atman/self have more specific meanings.
While exploring immutability, we may encounter a question "is there any thing that is immutable in this world?". I have come across arguments positively verifying this and in the discussion atman/self occupies the centerstage.
That is why i brought atman/self and immutability.
@TKLG:
ReplyDeleteI just had a quick check on google for immutability and found tons of hits from Theological and Scientific perspectives. (Un)fortunately, most arguments were around the perspective / conception of a Christian God (I am not saying that there are different Gods, but the Christian scriptures handle / present / perceive God in a different way than the vedic texts do; I personally think that the Vedic texts have greater depth, may be because I have spent more time with them; I hope to not get into discussion on the differences between these perception ;-) ).
IMMUTABILITY: Not Subject or Susceptible to change. Do you agree with the definition?
This is what is said in Bhagawad Gita 2.21 about the immutable nature of Soul:
vedavinasinam nityam
ya enam ajam *avyayam*
know that the soul is indestructible, unborn, eternal and immutable.
and 2.25:
avyakto 'yam acintyo 'yam
avikaryo 'yam ucyate
It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable, and unchangeable.
The verses between these describe the immutable nature of Soul (and thus of the "Super"soul) as well.
So, we could take the immutable nature of Soul/Supersoul first.
Immutability - the Unchanging Phenomenon of Soul (Jiva Tatva) / Supersoul (Paramatma Tatva).
ReplyDeleteThis is my personal understanding, a disclaimer that I post in every post ;)
We can first try to understand Soul and then extend it to the next level if that makes sense (by seeing how Soul and Supersoul are related).
What is subject to change? It is always the matter that is subject to change. Energy remains, i.e. it just exists and powers the matter. I take this example again, that just as current powers a electrical machinery (matter), soul power a physical body (matter). Electric current itself does not change, it engenders change in the matter, i.e. it "runs" the body, that it is part of. Attributes of the Soul remain unchanged and the Soul is unchanging.
Does this make sense? Please let me know.
@GodCon:
ReplyDelete1.
Postulate: Energy is ever existing...
we cannot see it.
We can infer its presence by the phenomenon we observe, feel, and by analysis.
Phenomenon: Matter, motion, etc...
2.
Postulate: Soul is ever existing...
we cannot see it.
We can infer its presence by the phenomenon we observe, feel, and by analysis.
Phenomenon: Matter, motion, etc...
Does this infer Energy=SOUL?
It is because of energy matter and motion are possible.
@XYZ:
ReplyDelete""" Postulate 1: Energy is ever existing... we cannot see it.
We can infer its presence by the phenomenon we observe, feel, and by analysis.
Phenomenon: Matter, motion, etc... """
==> Material / intelligence lacking energies; gravity, elctromagnetic, radioactive, sound, light, elastic etc etc
""" Postulate 2: Soul is ever existing... we cannot see it. We can infer its presence by the phenomenon we observe, feel, and by analysis.
Phenomenon: Matter, motion, etc... """
==>> The Spiritual / intelligence-sourcing Energy; Soul (sat-cit-ananda attributes)
""" Does this infer Energy=SOUL?"""
A different kind of energy, but energy for sure.
""" It is because of energy matter and motion are possible """"
Matter has energy by default; both Living (chara) and Non-Living (achara). Matter with no-life (in jada roopa) can have motion but lacks independence in action (i.e. it needs to be moved by an external force or circumstance). But Living (in Jiva roopa) can have motion along with intention and relative-independence.
So, matter can have motion but the cause of motion can vary, but the motion is possible only under the framework of some energy.
The same energy which created matter also created life...
ReplyDeleteThe same energy is materialised from
"only energy" -> non living matter"->"living"
So, how is it possible thatSoul is a different kind of energy?
It should be the same energy utilised in a different way...
Again I stress: same energy seems to be manifested into living and non living...
resp to last stmt:
The framework of energy is decided by the matter again...
The way in which matter has been manifested provides the cond\straint of motion.
Ex: trees can't move...
Human neck can't turn 360 deg.
Dear XYZ:
ReplyDelete" The same energy which created matter also created life...
So, how is it possible thatSoul is a different kind of energy?
It should be the same energy utilised in a different way..."
==> Yes, there is only one source of all energies but each of these energies has a different characteristics / attributes / properties.
==> Can you say that Sound and Light, or Light and Electromagnetic, or Light and Gravitational, or Radioactive and Gravitational etc energies should be the same energies utilised in different ways???? I dont think so. They are all different energies with different attributes.
" Again I stress: same energy seems to be manifested into living and non living... "
==> No doubt. It is like any other energy. At the begining there was only one energy source and one energy, and all energies are manigestations of that one source. But at the same time we also have to acknowledge that these energies are all different from one another, have different attributes, e.g. Gravity and Light are two different energies manifested from the same energy source.
In essence, there are two brought categories: Life (Spiritual) and Material energies, matter and non-matter. And each of these have numerous other manifestations.
"resp to last stmt:
ReplyDeleteThe framework of energy is decided by the matter again..."
==> Matter does not "decide", there is no "intention" or "independence" involved here. Matter has properties and it operates within the framework of those properties. And, there is an inbuilt energy that serves the purpose and cause of all action and activities of the matter.
"The way in which matter has been manifested provides the cond\straint of motion."
==> Absolutely! That is the property / attribute of matter; they come in some shape, size and constraints. But that still does not provide matter attributes of independence, intention, or intelligence. So, we have "Jada roopa" and "Jiva Roopa", both have potential / kinetic energy properties. But movement or intentional action is possible only for Jiva tatva.
For example, imagine a Human Body. It comes with some attributes. When it has Jiva Tatva in it, it has intention, intelligence and independence (not in absolute terms). But as soon as the human body is devoid of Jiva, it becomes Jada, it loses the activities or attributes of Life. Now, the deadbody cannot "Decide", it is what it is, it remains Jada until some action is forced on it.
So, even though activities are performed within the contraints of a material aspect, a mass of matter, there is no aspect of "decision" involved.
Note: I understand that you do not intend to mean "decided" as decision making ability, but still I wanted to clarify.
If this is not clear or confusing please let me know.
The Energy has two functions to be done:
ReplyDelete1. to be stored
2. to be used
And about Sound/Light...
All these energies have any impact only when they interact with matter...
So, the energy here is observed only when it interacts with matter.
In similar way Soul is observed when it interacts with matter.
So, Soul=energy.
I did not understand why we are hitting on this point again again? ;) :) Did anyone in the forum deny the fact? If so, how? :)Any specific reason for the latest post, XYZ?
ReplyDeleteThe one who observes must be less changing than the the one who is being observed if the change is observed.
ReplyDeleteDo you agree this?
Consider the case of one who lives longer v/s one who lives shorter. The one who lives longer observes more change (birth to death of the short living person) than the person who lives shorter (only birth or death or part of the life in between birth and death).
If god, sees birth and death of every living being, he must be changing the least.
I agree with GodCon that God is Immutable - Not Subject or Susceptible to change.
@TKLG:
ReplyDeleteIf god, sees birth and death of every living being, he must be changing the least.
"If god, sees creation and destruction of every living/non living, he must be changing the least. "
This looks to be more complete...
@GodCon:
With due respect and in agreement with your last post...
The point was stressed;
1. to make the fact clear that the energy and Soul are same
2. we can bring about a scientific expln for soul. Otherwise we will have only logical(perspective) expln without any science(globally approved) backing...
3. To stress the need for role of science in these discussions.
4. The mindset right now is to think that GOD is something that cannot be explained with Science.
5. For ex: many of Indian Philosophies explained logically are in shelfs and unreachable physically and mentally to many in our community.
- The reason is simply we do not have people to provide enough backing for these theories compatible with modern science("includes all kinds of sciences") and current situation.
Any how people in discussion may have their own views ;)
So, in the discussions till now we have established atleast a few attributes or aspects of God:
ReplyDelete1) Ajam -- Not born; without birth
2) Anaadim -- Without a begining
3) Aadim -- Begining of Everything
4) Avyayam -- Infinite,imperishable
5) Avinasinam -- Indistructible
6) Avikaaryam -- Immutable
7) Nityam -- Ever existing
8) Bhuta-bhavya-bhavat Prabhuh -- Controller of past, present, and future
9) Bhutakrt -- creator/source of all living
10) Bhuthabrit -- Sustainer of all living
11) Paramatma -- Supersoul (source of Soul)
Are we in agreement?
Should we now focus on the relationship between Soul (Jiva; Atma) and Supersoul (God; Paramatma)?
ReplyDeleteWe have discussed earlier about the possibility of Soul (Jiva; Atma) and Supersoul (Paramatma) as one and the same. I had proposed about there schools of thoughts that vary on this stand.
Personally, I think that Jivas are like the sparks of a fire, having properties of fire, i.e. fire in essence but not fire in entirety; or like ocean and a ocean drop, ocean drop has properties of the ocean but is not ocean itself etc. So, Jiva tatva has most attributes of the Paramatma Tatva but is still different; high in similarity but still not the same.
mamaivamsho jiva loke, jiva bhuta sanatanah (15th Chapter); jivas are portional aspects of the one Universal Supersoul.
The big question is, if Soul is portional fraction of the Supersoul then what is it doing here? How does a Soul come down and take a life form? This is another question that has troubled experts for ages. I dont think there is one right/good answer for this. One possibility is that Soul (spark) is here due to its own nature, to be separated from its source (fire). Similar anology can be found in rain drops and ocean. Again, by its nature it enters back its source again. And, due to its nature it manages (somehow struggles) to enter some matter; body is matter and soul is anti-matter; the anti-matter (soul) seems to be attracted to matter (body). This can be evidenced in nature that life forms (semina) seek matter/prakriti (egg or "placeholder").
So, this Universe is a placeholder and the soul is naturally drawn into this by its nature.
Not a convincing answer I know but just one of the many possibile answers.
@God Con:
ReplyDeleteanti-matter, matter.
Can you please explain what do you mean by matter and anti matter?
Instead of using terms of matter and antimatter, it is better to use:
+,- that is both Soul and Matter are not alike, they are complementary?
Sorry guys,
ReplyDeletewas a bit held up in some worldly activities (office work) ;) So, could not participate for long time.
I agree with Student about the usage of word "Anti-matter" and "matter". Body is matter, soul is not a matter. But, I dont think it can be a anti matter for following reasons..
Matter and anti matter has got properties exactly opposite, However, LHC has shown that they have one similar property, i.e. both can be perceived by senses. Soul, I am not sure if its perceivable, If it is someone can explain.
The example given by GodCon, about the relation of Ocean and water is splendid example. This was the exact explanation given by Sri Madwacharya for explaining Dwaita.
Ocean = Super Soul.
ReplyDeletedroplets = Soul.
Ocean cannot exist without droplets. However, droplets can exist even without ocean in this universe. Every droplet joined together becomes a ocean.So, the presents of "Super soul" is because of the existance of "soul". The properties of both are the same.
Just like house cannot be called as brick, even though its made of bricks. A forest cannot be called as tree even though its made of trees. only things that diffes is the scope. A tree can give shelter to few birds, a forest can give shelter to many living creatures. A brick can give sheltert to few ants, a house can give shelter to many humans. Similarly, A soul is just differing from super soul with the scope alone.
Dear Student and Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteI wanted to imply the complimenting nature of these two aspects - one, the matter (which is always dead), and the other which is not just non-matter but anti-matter (which is always lively). I googled and found that anti-matter is infact a big area of scientific research in itself :) So, I apologize if they infer something else (infact this has triggered a new interest in me hehe) but I hope it is taken in its context. Anyway.
Dear Aralagada:
Such examples are given by many Acharyas. I have not specifically read works or examples of Srimad Madhwacharya. I have said in advance that none of that I write here is my own thing :) everything is either from my past readings and personal reflections. I hesitate to quote Acharyas because there may be prejudices or biases against some sampradayas or even shastras in this forum. So, I just wanted to highlight the concept and if source was important I could cite them ;) :)
Nice to have you back :)
Dear Raman,
ReplyDeleteThis is a common objection to this example, and we have hit into these limitations in the past. We all probably acknowledge the crudeness of such examples, because we are all subject to Kupa-Manduka-Nyaya - we can elaborate based on what we already know. We are sometimes try to measure the immeasurable, try to explain the unexplainable, try to define the undefinable, try to understand infinite through finite or discrete means; in essence we are seeking to understand the infinite aspects through finite means. So, these examples have severe limitations, and thus need to be taken in context of the discussion. For example, in the ocean and droplet analogy we need to focus on the qualitative similarities and not get into the quantitative aspects. Even if we try to, we need to simultaneosuly note the intricate relationship between the ocean and the droplet. We need to keep the "purNamadah purNamidam purNath purNam uddacchate, purNasya purNamadaya purNameva avasishyate", that infinite aspect is not a mere collection of finite aspects, it is always infinite. Finite aspects are not fragments of it but like qualitative extensions of the same - in this context the candle example is given, i.e. one candle lights up numerous candles without diminshing itself (you can find issues with this example too).
Once we know this we can understand that droplets cannot exist without ocean, because in the begining there was ocean only (apohistahmayobhuvah). Hard to assimilate but .... So, on the contrary, the presence of "soul" is because of the existance of "Supersoul". And, yes, the The properties of both are the similar (I am not sure if I can say that they are same).
Dear Raman,
ReplyDelete"A soul is just differing from super soul with the scope alone"
- Yes. Beautiful parallels to demonstrate the idea. I agree. I somehow subscribe to the achintya-bedha-abhedha logic; that the soul and supersoul are simulataenously same and different. Qualitatively similar, quantitatively (scope) different. Thanks for the clarification.
@GodCon, Raman
ReplyDeleteYes, the logical explanation seems to be in agreement.
Sounds quite logical.
This is what even Swami Vivekananda states:
"The difference exists. But, the difference is only in degree and not in kind."
But, there lies a question:
If something differs in scope, then what are the aspects of Supreme Soul which has more Scope than Soul.
@All
Please mention True/False with expln:
***Please provide the aspects or methodology of explaination before commenting, just to avoid confusion in terminologies. Not ordering anybody ;)
1. Soul and Supreme is ever existing.
2. Soul is dependent on Supreme Soul, but Supreme Soul is independent.
3. Souls follow the Path of Supreme Soul for liberation from body.
4. The difference exists between Supreme Soul and Soul
5. Soul is present in nature created by God.
6. Soul has energy.
7. Soul is part of the total Energy in this creation.
8. The Soul is the lowest layer of human body
[Body]
...
[Mind]
[Intellect]
[Soul]
Supreme Soul is not under any of the layers. It exists on its own and only it exists. There is no other existence supporting the existence of Soul.
The last stmt:
ReplyDelete" There is no other existence
supporting the existence of Soul."
Errata:
Soul:=> Supreme Soul
Sorry for error
@Student:
ReplyDelete"If something differs in scope, then what are the aspects of Supreme Soul which has more Scope than Soul"
-- Scope wise: Supersoul has absolute and complete independence, intention, intelligence; has absolute control over everything; it is not subject to "Karma" (New Jargon); it is guNa-ateeta (Yet another Jargon; not subject to the three modes of nature); not influenced by maya); it is the source of infinite souls, souls have individual identities. Some that I could think of with my sleepy eyes ;) these could all be wrong, but my personal understanding :)
1. Soul and Supreme is ever existing.
ReplyDelete---- we have had enough explanation on this I suppose
2. Soul is dependent on Supreme Soul, but Supreme Soul is independent.
-- same as above
4. The difference exists between Supreme Soul and Soul
--- these again have been discussed to some extent
6. Soul has energy.
-- Soul IS energy, the source of energy
7. Soul is part of the total Energy in this creation.
-- there are two kinds of energies that we have discussed till now (rather, I proposed)
8. The Soul is the lowest layer of human body
-- this also we have discussed in the past; annamaya, praNamaya, manomaya, vijnanamaya, aanandamaya khoshas.
I will post comments on rest of the point sometime tomorrow.
Correction of 6th, just in case it can lead to confusion: it is the source of individual/subjective energy;
ReplyDeleteMy Understanding about GUNA, SOUL, SUPER SOUL ......
ReplyDeleteMAYA - This is because of the five characters of a Purusha(Material body of a living creature). The five characters are
1. Desire, 2. Anger, 3. Selfish, 4. Pride, 5. Jealousy. However, The 1st one is the core reason for the rest and for more emotions if any.
When This Maya Influences "Super Soul", the Super Soul will come out of its original GUNA of guNa-ateeta , and will be seen as infinite souls.
When the soul tries to raise to the original Guna of "Super Soul" of not having a Guna then it is said be one in Super Soul - What we understand from this is Soul and Super Soul both are same but difference is seen because of "MAYA" - Because of 5 emotions that is inseparable from Purusha.
Soul OR Super Soul, either having Guna or not having Guna, cannot create this universe. If someone feels this can create universe, then please explain.
ReplyDeleteIn past we have see the people have told that God is Creator, sustainer, destructor. How, is Soul Or Super Soul fitting to this argument?
I am a software engineer. My nature is not to create software. But, my capability is to create software.
ReplyDeleteSoul's has only one nature, i.e Not having a nature of its own. But, capabilities are many. I will get back to your question soon Mr. Bose. Right now, even though I have answer, I am unable to find logic or words that can convince you. Will have to do some home work. Or might be someone knowledgeable in this forum can answer that question.
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteWe aim to logically get there. It could be a little too early to hit into some specificities of creation. If we try to do that we will end up introducing multiple Jargons.
First thing we did was to logically deduce (check the previous posts) as to how everything must have come from one source - God. If everything came from Him then it logically follows that the creation should also have been. And then we started looking at some attributes of this God. As a result of this we explored some terms (which were Jargons then )- Soul and Supersoul. These concepts are minor deviations or diversions that happen in any discussion or debate, but are important concepts to understand before we move on. This is because LIFE is a major part of creation. Anyway.
If the answer to this question was that easy or straight forward then we would not had confusions that we have in the world currently hehe ;) Till now, I think, we have learnt significantly through this forum since we started about 3 months back. So, lets please hang in here and we may all get there!! We are gradually moving in that direction.
Wow... its been already three months since we started this discussion, thats amazing.
ReplyDeleteI have personally learnt a lot out of this discussion. I thank eachone of you for teaching me such great basic concepts logically. We have seen people who are good in summarizing things like TKLG and Anweekshiki. We have seen people who are exactracting facts like Arya, we have seen people who talk abstract like Student, People who have great clarity of thoughts like GodCon and Raman and people who talk foolishly like me ;) . But, I am sure, we are on the right track. On behalf of all of you, I assure Mr. Bose that he will get his answer soon.
To answer Bose,
ReplyDeleteThis is just a thought... Not an argument....
Lets not go in the direction of creation as seen by science. Raman had told that Soul and super soul both are same, Soul is seen as infinite because of 5 Emotions and when the shadow of these emotions go off, soul becomes one in super soul.
What I understand by this is, The very concept of Soul is due to Maya - Illusion. Long back, we were speaking about Sub-Consciousness. They GodCon had told that, if Sub-Consciousness is GOD the entire creation including this discussion will become imaginary. Is this not "Maya". Why cant this be Imaginary?
Dear Raman:
ReplyDelete"MAYA - This is because of the five characters of a Purusha(Material body of a living creature). The five characters are
1. Desire, 2. Anger, 3. Selfish, 4. Pride, 5. Jealousy."
-- These are amongst the ari-shad-vargas - kama (desire), krodha (anger), moha (illusion), lobha (greed), mada (pride), maatsarya (jealousy) [I am not sure if the tranalsations are exact or accurate, but anyway]. These are result of the interactions of three modes of nature (sorry for the jargon again; tri-guna) - satva (goodness), rajo (passion), and tamo (ignorance). These are the "Enemies" of mankind (and if used well can help one develop too, anyway), and for spiritual advancement. These are because of Maya and not the other way around.
"When This Maya Influences "Super Soul", the Super Soul will come out of its original GUNA of guNa-ateeta , and will be seen as infinite souls"
--- If this happens, i.e. if Maya can control the Supersoul, then Supersoul is the "controlled", not the "controller", he cannot "sustain", he cannot be "independent". Then we cannot say that He is the Supreme Controller!
-- Maya comes from Him (daivi hi esa guNamayi, mama maaya duratyaya) and He is beyond Maya, which makes Him Independent and not influenced by illusory energies. Maya is part of this material creation and He is not part of this creation (Quran, Bible, Bhagawad Gita, Chap 9; if we want to refer to shastras, we can infer this even without those if you do not accept shastric injunction), so He is never influenced by Maya.
"When the soul tries to raise to the original Guna of "Super Soul" of not having a Guna then it is said be one in Super Soul"
-- "Soul" tries to raise to "Super Soul"; so there are two things. There is only one Supersoul (Paramatma) (eko bahunam), but there are numerous Individual Souls (Jivas). Supersoul can never fall down to raise back. If it does fall down then, again, it is part of the creation (created), then it is not in control of situation, then it ceases to be God!
"What we understand from this is Soul and Super Soul both are same but difference is seen because of "MAYA" - Because of 5 emotions that is inseparable from Purusha"
-- This is Maya-vada or Advaita-vada. In that sense, this world is unreal, imaginary, illusory, which is where Aralagada is pointing at. So I will address this issue in response to Aralagada's post.
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDelete"The very concept of Soul is due to Maya - Illusion"
-- I am not sure if I agree. Let me try to express my menial understanding :)
-- Soul exists and Maya exists (because we have agreed that Soul is under the influence of Maya, so there are two things). Soul can surpass Maya (mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te; Gita 7th chap I suppose). When it surpasses, it is liberated. Now, the Soul remains outside Maya. So we cannot say "The very concept of Soul is due to Maya - Illusion", because Soul exists independent of Maya.
-- This is where the argument that when Soul is liberated it becomes Supersoul is made. So, logically, Soul could be seen as Supersoul. But, but ... in Bhagawad Gita it is said (mamaiva amsho jiva loke jiva sanatanah) that Jiva is eternally an "amshah", a minute portion of the Supersoul, so Soul is not Supersoul. Moreover, the Soul "raises" to become Supersoul, but the Supersoul ALWAYS exists in its pure state. So even when the soul was a mere soul, Supersoul was Supersoul, always. So, Soul and Supersoul cannot be the same.
"Long back, we were speaking about Sub-Consciousness. They GodCon had told that, if Sub-Consciousness is GOD the entire creation including this discussion will become imaginary. Is this not "Maya". Why cant this be Imaginary?"
-- Yes, as you said, this discussion will also be immaginary in that case. In that case there is no meaning to this discussion, there is no reason to be involved at all. On the contrary, according to Bhagawad Gita and logical inference, I have no doubt that you exist, that I exist, that the world exists, that my mind exists, my inteligence is real (though limited and influenced by illusion, but for illusion to influence me I need to exist), that we are discussing the topic, that we are trying to understand. These are all real, because if I dont exist then there is no meaning to illusion as I said before; illusion happens because I exist. This is why Krishna says that the world is Real, but Temporary (dhukhalayam ashashvatam - Bhagawad Gita 8th Chap).
-- We can talk about what maya is later in the discussion, if there is enough interest. It is quite a topic to discuss logically, i.e. without shastric injunction, because of its abstract nature. Anyway, lets see how we can do it.
Apologies for my long posts! Will try to keep them short.
ReplyDeleteDear Raman:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I am a software engineer. My nature is not to create software. But, my capability is to create software."
-- As a matter of fact, I too am a waste body - I mean an IT guy ;) :D Our (your) nature is to seek knowledge and happiness, and try to be "immortal", i.e. live as long as possible. Everything that we do can be fit within the framework of these three, is what I understand.
You said: "Soul's has only one nature, i.e Not having a nature of its own"
-- Soul has three basic aspects as part of its nature - Sat (eternity; truth), Cit (knowledge potency), and Ananda (blissfulness). It is always active (na hi kaschit kshaNamapi jatu tishtyat akarmakrit). And it starts getting complicated from here when we look at karma, mind, birth (embodiment), rebirth, it is subject to illusion etc. It is due to some innate nature of Soul that it is subjected to these things. So, soul cannot be natureless. Even if you take an advaiti stand you would say "yallabhase nija karmmotpattam", you cannot deny karma, then how is Karma attached to a Natureless Soul? So, soul can still not be natureless. Its nature is subtle, and is what drives us all.
Dear Student:
ReplyDelete3. Souls follow the Path of Supreme Soul for liberation from body.
-- It tries to attain its true nature, original state of being a pure spirit (spark of energy) free of embodiment. One way to do that is to reconnect with one that is not subjected to embodiment - the Supreme Soul. Once this happens, the Souls is said to be liberated.
5. Soul is present in nature created by God.
-- Soul is always present, whether embodied in this creation or in its true/original state. Again, Bhagawad Gita Chapter 15, verses 6, 7, 8, and 9. The soul by nature is attracted to vaastu "vishayas"
as soon as it comes in touch with the material energy (oops, sorry if I am adding some more jargons and confusions).
system-universe
ReplyDelete@Bose:
Soul OR Super Soul, either having Guna or not having Guna, cannot create this universe.
In Shaastras Gunas (Attributes in Nature) are:
Sattva - Purity, Light, Harmony
Rajas - Activity, motion
Tamas - inactiveness, inertness - continuing to be the state wherever it is.
To create this universe is an action. There has to be an activity to reate this universe. This is nothing but the Rajas - Guna of nature(Prakriti).
Now, let us understand one point here. Can a creation at beginning of creation become active from what state?
It can move to an active only from an inactive state, inert state. So, before creation, it is nothing but a dark, inert and inactive universe. This state is referred to as Tamas Guna of nature(Prakriti).
Third question comes then: What made the system[Let it be x now] inactive to active, and what makes again the entire system to go active to inactive?
In other words what makes the system to maintain this balance of:
1. Going from inactive state to active state
2. Being in active state
3. Going back to inactive state.
As we can see there is a balance acheieved. This attribute of maintaing harmony/balance in creation, sustenance, destruction is referred to as Sattva Guna of nature-prakriti.
1. How can one be Sat, i.e Eternal truth?.
ReplyDeleteI understand from past discussion that God is the source of everything, Hence he must be ever existing. When he is ever existing then, he can be only eternal truth.
2. Chit? Knowledge, So, what is knowledge? is it knowing vedas and shastras knowledgble?
Is it knowing science knowledgble? What is knowledgeable? What is the qulification for one to be knowledgeble.
3. Ananda? Blissful. what is this? when can one be happy? how can one be in the state of happyness for ever?
Sat Chit Ananda - Having eternal knowledge and having eternal bliss always is something which is against, one not being knowledgeable and not being blissful.
If God has created everything, and if he is knoweldgeable and blissful always, why has he created something which is not knowlegable and not blissful which is against his nature. It, simply means, he is not knowlegable neither ignorent, Nor blissful neither sad. For him both are of same importance, he is in the middle of river whose two shores represent and .
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteYou said: 1. How can one be Sat, i.e Eternal truth?.
I understand from past discussion that God is the source of everything, Hence he must be ever existing. When he is ever existing then, he can be only eternal truth."
-- We have had a discussion on this too (April 24, 2010 8:24 PM).
-- Even otherwise, Sat, Chit, and Ananda are "potencies" or true nature of the soul, and is thus reflected on the mind, intelligence, and ego of the embodied. When the soul takes a material body / associates with matter(we have discussed this too in the past) it pursues vastu vishayas, loses control, and is thus is taken for a ride (Bhagawad Gita Chap 15).
-- So, it is because of the sat potency that the body wants to live for ever, i.e. hates death, because it is against its true nature.
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Chit? Knowledge, So, what is knowledge? is it knowing vedas and shastras knowledgble?
Is it knowing science knowledgble? What is knowledgeable? What is the qulification for one to be knowledgeble"
Again, chit is a potency: that which ignites the inquisitive nature, the quest for knowledge, in the living organisms. Though knowledge is multifaceted, "true knowledge" is said to be the one that pertains of the self and the relationship with its source (Supersoul, God); all other knowledge is considered ignorance ;) anyway.
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "3. Ananda? Blissful. what is this? when can one be happy? how can one be in the state of happyness for ever? "
-- Again, the true state of the self is being blissfull. Ananda potency drives one to seek "happiness" in everything that we do. One is happy when he/she reaches one's true/original state - just like reaching one's home ;)
"Sat Chit Ananda - Having eternal knowledge and having eternal bliss always is something which is against, one not being knowledgeable and not being blissful."
-- Soul is of the nature of "Sat Chit Ananda" because it is part and parcel of Supersoul which is absolute Sat-Cit-Ananda-Vigrah - the embodiment of absolute eternity, blissfulness, and knowledge. But when soul takes on the prakriti, of the dualistic / relative world, these states take relative faces as well. The endeavour thus is to achieve one's true or original state.
Was certainly busy with other things which GOD created ;-)
ReplyDeleteBut where have we reached? Any conclusions drawn so far? Please summarize
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "If God has created everything, and if he is knoweldgeable and blissful always, why has he created something which is not knowlegable and not blissful which is against his nature."
-- There is freewill for the individual souls, whether to acquire knowledge and approach its true state through that knowledge. Another crude example, the son of a Doctor need not be a doctor himself, he has the freewill and ability to chose what he wants to. Due to the material energy, illusory energy, the individual soul chases behind "false" reflections of happiness which are all temporary. I have quoted this verse before from Bhagawad Gita: "Daivi hi esa guNa mayi, mama maya duratyaya mam eva ye prapadyante mayam yetam taranti". So, the endevaour should be to overcome the hurdles of maya. It goes on to say that once these hurdles are crossed, attaining the true state becomes a possibility. So, the covering of ignorance, sadness, and temporariness are all due to the association of the soul with the material body, which is influenced by maya.
I am really sorry for the jargons used, but I know of no better way to express these things. Let me see if I can simplify or use layman terms. Will try that tomorrow :)
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteIf Souls have free will, then how can God know future.
Because due to its free will Soul can take any step...
@XYZ:
ReplyDeleteCould I respond tomorrow? Sorry, its quite late now for any serious thought :)
Welcome back Arya, we need you to extract some facts.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion is still stuck in the confusion of understanding SOUL and its relation with SUPER SOUL.
Raman says,
"MAYA - This is because of the five characters of a Purusha(Material body of a living creature). The five characters are
1. Desire, 2. Anger, 3. Selfish, 4. Pride, 5. Jealousy."
When This Maya Influences "Super Soul", the Super Soul will come out of its original GUNA of not having one , and will be seen as infinite souls"
GodCon says,
1. SOUL and SUPERSOUL are different. Maya is not because of 5 emotions but its other way round
2. SUPERSOUL has a nature of Sat (eternity; truth), Cit (knowledge potency), and Ananda (blissfulness)
RAMAN says,
SOUL and SUPERSOUL are same but differ in the scope.
Bose asks,
If God created everything, then he has also created concepts like "untruth, Sad, death", which are against his nature.
and concludes saying, God is not having any nature, he is neutral to everything.
GodCon, says answering Bose, that Soul is like a son who has free will to choose his profession and SuperSoul is like a father letting him to select it.
This is the summary, Arya, you are upto speed now.
ok looks like facts here are not facts by definition
ReplyDelete@Raman: Another jargon MAYA
@GodCon, Raman: SOUL and Super SOUL... I know that SOUL is a subtle energy which keeps the human body alive(breathing state). Is it just the human body or can it be any manifestation of GOD has a SOUL?
If that is SOUL then what is this Super SOUL(not getting clarity) because someone had already told SOUL is an ever existing aspect then how did Super SOUL come in place!!
@Bose: How did you say GOD is neutral to everything? Don't you think he should be supporting wither GOOD or BAD not both?
Are we reaching anywhere? I thought we were trying to understand the relationship of SOUL as we have called it with GOD as we have deduced it
I said GOD is neutral based on the following things
ReplyDelete1. GOOD, BAD, UGLY, TRUTH, FALSE, DEATH, BIRTH, LIFE, KNOWLEDGE, IGNORANCE and many more ... all are creations of GOD alone. We have accepted this again and again in this blog.
2. If GOD has created GOOD and BAD both, why are we thinking that he is the supporter of GOOD and not the supporter of BAD. same in case of (Knowledge, ignorance), (Truth, False), (Life, Death), (Beauty, Ugly) and so on.
3. One can create a virus and a antivirus only if he is neutral to both of these. If he supports Anti-Virus, he might not do justices to Virus. (Justices,Injustices) is one of such opposites.
SAT => Truth X False
Chit => Knowledge X Ignorance
Ananda => Bliss X Sadness
All these also follow the same argument. Hence, I told GOD is Neutral
@Bose:
ReplyDeletehe might not do justices to Virus. (Justices,Injustices) is one of such opposites.
why do think justice/in-justice.. He might be biased.. Maybe be he created BAD just to make sure the manifestation understand the effects of BAD and turn to GOOD. How did you infer it?
@Arya:
ReplyDeletePlease see the comment on explaination of Soul and Super Soul
May 5, 2010 7:35 AM and by RAMAN.
@XYZ, Raman:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you call SOUL as droplet and Super SOUL as Ocean. I mean why two different terminologies. I am totally confused.
Is it mentioned somewhere that Super SOUL cannot exist without SOUL. I am trying hard to convince myself what is SOUL and how to associate with GOD meanwhile another Super SOUL is coming into picture.. I am sorry i am not getting clarity on the topic
In this forum, there is an urgency to bring in soul and link it to God!
ReplyDeleteHaving said that God is immutable, one natural question to ask is "Is there any thing close to immutable that we can perceive in this world?"
Because, atheist say that there is nothing that is permanent in this world. Everything is relative.
Surprisingly, everyone of us can perceive something that looks like immutable!!!
Hello Arya,
ReplyDeleteOcean and Droplets were the extension of example used by GodCon in one of his post. Sorry for the confusion.
I have been clear when I said SOUL and SUPER SOUL are same. Please see my Post May 6, 2010 12:42 AM
MAYA, you said is one more Jargon. I have also defined what it is. Again read the same post to understand about it.
@TKLG:
ReplyDeleteIs there any thing close to immutable that we can perceive in this world?
->"Energy is immutable. Because it is neither created nor destroyed.
-> "It can only be transformed from one form to another, but the total energy remains immutable."
This response was given to prove the existence and not to infer the existence.
@Arya:
ReplyDeleteSoul == Living Entity, Jivatma, Atma, Self, or Individual Soul
SuperSoul = God, Paramatma, Uttama Purusha, Universal Soul
Supersoul is the impersonal aspect of a personal God (sorry if this is confusing). Or, in other words, God is the personification of a formless spirit or energy (which is why many call it light or formless or whatever).
Jivatma is a minute portional aspect (amsha) of the Paramatma. It was in this context that Ocean-Droplet, Fire-Spark, Fire-Candle analogies were given. But, we have to keep the purNamadah purNamidam (infinite remains infinite) in context, as I said before. We also discussed and somewhat agreed that Soul (Jivatma) is qualitatively similar to, but quantitatively differem from, its source - Universal/Supreme/Super Soul (paramatma).
Jivatma is subject to illusion (Maya; also called as illusory energy; that Jivatma identifies itself with the body rather than understand its true spiritual nature due to Maya) while Paramatma is beyond maya - it is always self-aware, which is why I said that Jivatma and Paramatma cannot be the same. In the 15th Chapter this is clear when Krishna says that He is "uttama purusha" different from the inidividual soul. So, soul and supersoul cannot be the same. Soul is subjected to the influences of material energies (Maya), to the material gunas (satva, rajas, tamas), to karma (action-response pattern), to the ari-shad-vargas (kama, krodha, moha, lobha, madha, maatsarya), and so on. Soul is subjected to laws of nature, it is influenced (or controlled) by "maya" (material, illusory energy), but Supersoul should be the controller of everything and cannot be under any control. One is above everything (always the same; absolute, unchanging), while the other can only aspire to reach that level through conscious effort (sadhana; supersoul does not have to raise any higher, i.e. it does not have to endeavour). So, Soul and Supersoul cannot be the same.
So, the relationship remains the same; that everything comes from God (Supersoul) (creation), remains in Him (sustenance), and goes to Him alone (annihilation). While one is the cause of everything, the other is a mere effect. If Soul and God (supersoul) were the same then there was no meaning to liberation, because God (supersoul) is always liberated. He is the nitya-muktah (always liberated), moksha-pradayakah (the liberator), muktanam-paramagatih (the ultimate destination of liberated ones), while the individual soul are moksha-sadhakas (liberation pursuants). So, again, Soul (Jivas or individual living entities) and Supersoul (God) cannot be the same.
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteYou have beautiful laid out the non-dualistic aspects of God, who has to be absolute and thus Neutral.
Dear GodCon,
ReplyDeleteIts tough to convince you, but let me give a try.
Probably what you are saying and what I am saying are the same. But, what I understand is, you are calling Soul and Super soul as two separate entities, which will become one when the soul realizes the super soul.
What I say is soul is seen as many due to illusion(Maya). but, this One soul which is seen as many souls will remain single always, however, will be seen as many by these illusory souls. I am not sure if I could present my thought. Its off course tough to put in words.
Dear XYZ:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "If Souls have free will, then how can God know future. Because due to its free will Soul can take any step..."
1) Future and Past (Present is seen as a temporary manifestation of the future and the past) seem logical when we sit on a relative platform bounded by time and space. But as soon as we go outside these dimensions, what significance is the concept of time? This is a hard concept to digest for us, because we are deeply involved with time and space, cannot imagine beyond it while sitting in a relative world as ours. So, future and past have no significance for the one who is in absolute platform.
2) We are insignificant in terms of the creation. But even we can predict some of the behaviors (of weather, of cosmic elements, of others, of animals, of children etc) to great accuracy through our limited intellectual capacities. Imagine of that which is supremely conscious, that which is beyond human comprehension, that which pervades everything, that which is the source of everything and knows everything!
3) One who has programmed a system to perfection knows every possible route that a data can take in the system. Even though the software program seems to have some independence it works within the limitations of its nature/karma. It depends on the level of intelligence of the programmer, so then imagine the supreme intelligence of the one from who all intelligences (and the infinite universes) have manifested!
4) He is seated in the heart of every individual soul and is the one who drives all activities of the soul (the witness concept that TKLG or someone proposed). [[I have introduced yet another concept I suppose; sorry for the confusion]]. He is the all pervading consciousness, so He alone sees all connections, and thus can perceive all that has happened, is happening, and will happen.
I know these may not be outrightly convincing answers. But lets see how they go.
Dear Raman,
ReplyDeleteI know this idea, I have read advaitic texts also in the past. There are different schools of thought, I know you know these: primarily advaita (shankara school), vishishta-advaita (ramanuja school), and dvaita (madhwa school). I have written earlier as to how and where the question of oneness comes up. I have agreed to the qualitative oness of the soul and the supersoul. I have reasoned out why they are different too. May be I subscribe to the achintya-bedha-abedha-tatva of Sri Chaitanya, that they are one and different at the same time.
Also think of this: can I convince you through what I have argued? hehe ;) So, we have our points to make, lets make those :)
Dear Raman:
ReplyDelete(Apologies in advance to Arya and others for some hard texts below)
You said: "you are calling Soul and Super soul as two separate entities, which will become one when the soul realizes the super soul. What I say is soul is seen as many due to illusion(Maya). but, this One soul which is seen as many souls will remain single always, however, will be seen as many by these illusory souls"
--- I want to clarify a few things.
-- According to my understanding, Soul and Supersoul are two separate entities, and the Soul endeavours to realize its true state, once done it is liberated from this material creation to its true state. Whether it becomes one with the supersoul or not is the point where differences araise.
There are several possibilities, two most popular perspectives are (please note that each of the two points have subpoints 1a, 1b, 1c etc which all belong to perspective 1, similar 2a, 2b, 2c):
PERSPECTIVE 1)
1a) Soul and Supersoul become one literally, i.e. the individual soul merges into the Universal phenomenon and loses its identity.
1b) infact there was never two, two was just an illusion, only one ever existed, i.e. the supersoul manifested as soul under the cover of maya (e.g. rope and snake, rope appears like snake only due to maya).
1c) It follows that this creation is a mere imagination, i.e. nothing existed while they appear to exist, so even this discussion is an illusion.
(Sripada Shankaracharya's school of thought; May be Raman and Aralagada's stand).
PERSPECTIVE 2:
2a) Soul becomes one with Supersoul qualitatively (in terms of spiritual attributes) only but the individual soul retains its individual identity.
2b) Individual souls are just a separated entities of the one Supersoul (e.g. spark of a fire: different from fire but same as fire at the same time).
2c) The Supersoul is never under Maya, on the contrary maya is under His control, whereas the Individual soul is subject to Maya. The Supersoul never loses control, He is always in control.
2d) This creation is Real but temporal in nature, so even this discussion is Real and not imaginary.
(Srimad Madhwacharaya's school; May be my stand)
Some questions:
a) Are you God (Supersoul)? [[God, unrealized?]]
b) If so, can God lose self-awareness, i.e. become ignorant?
c) Can God (Supersoul) be subject to Illusion/ignorance/Maya?
d) Are you subject to Karma? Can Supersoul be associated with differnt Karmic reactions (prarabhdha, sanchita etc), because from my understanding individual souls are subject to Karma while Supersoul is free from Karmic reactions?
Sorry for the long post. I wish I could make it simpler.
Before Birth - After death.
ReplyDeleteWhen we speak about Birth and Death we know we are speaking about those entities that have birth and death. eg. Human Body, Animal body, Plant body, Earth, Sun, other planets. Even a "Dream" has got a start(birth) and end(death).
In Bagawat geeta in Chapter 2 verse 28, krishna says and I quote
"Arjuna, before birth beings are not manifest to our human senses; at death they return back to unmanifest again. They are manifest only in the interim between birth and death."
Dream is one example which might be can give us a bit of clarity of Maya.
"I saw that the interviewer screwed me with tough question, I could not answer a single technical question, but when I woke up from that dream I knew all the answer, why dint I answer that in my dream then".
Just as the dream world is Non-existent before and after the dream, it is during the dream alone that the dreamer has a developed relation with.
Saying this Krishna says. "Hence, in reality neither are they yours, nor you theirs, then why lamentation for this unseen".
Dear Raman:
ReplyDeletePrecisely!
Before I comment: Somehow you are sounding a lot like Aralagada ;) :P Anyway.
I am not sure if you have responded to the questions I posted. But, thats fine.
For dream to exist one should exist in reality, that multiple souls should exist in reality (because individual souls have individual dreams; because my dreams, my mother's dreams and your dreams are all different). According to the Illusory Argument, there can be only one soul, the supersoul. In that case, it should be the supersoul who should be dreaming. By this argument, there is no meaning to the existence of mutliple individual souls, but there are several reasons to believe the existence of near-infinite souls (bahunam janma ante ... vasudevah sarvam iti sa mahatma sudurlabah; manushyaNam sahasreshu kaschid yatati siddhaye). So, I exist, you exist, and numerous souls exist in reality as confirmed in the shastras - for me this is no illusion.
Moreover, we can know through conscious contemplation (again, for that we should exist) that dream is unreal, non-existing, but that I am real and I exist and my experiences exist and are true.
About the verse Bhagawad Gita 2.8:
avyaktadini bhutani
vyakta-madhyani bharata
avyakta-nidhanany eva
tatra ka paridevana
This does not say that our existence or our experiences are illusory or unreal. It just says that we are of the nature of spirit soul, not this material body; it says that we were in unmanifested forms (in spirits/energy; non-bodily forms) in the begining (before birth), are manifested (embodied) in the middle (after birth), and become unmanifested (go back to their original spirit/energy states) in the end (dies). And, this cycle repeats. Please note the word "bhutani", which itself is clear that we exist for real in this material world, and it is not an illusion.
Again, in Chapter 15, it is very clearly laid out that individual soul (purusha aspect) is different from the supreme soul (uttama purusha aspect).
So, I exist. You exist. God exists. And, I have some minor attributes of God, qualitative similarities. BUT .... I am not God. I am not Paramatma (Supersoul), but am a mere Jiva (Soul) subject to illusion, karma, and repeated birth.
I think we are not defining terms properly.
ReplyDelete@TKLG said
In this forum, there is an urgency to bring in soul and link it to God!
Having said that God is immutable, one natural question to ask is "Is there any thing close to immutable that we can perceive in this world?"
@XYZ said
Energy is immutable
So do we think is energy close to GOD? or is it GOD itself!
Let us forget all the jargons!
And is this energy there in all the manifestations of GOD?
ReplyDelete@TKLG, Arya, XYZ:
ReplyDeleteI think we are convinced about the immutable nature of God.
TKLG's Question: "Is there any thing close to immutable that we can perceive in this world?"
-- All energies that we see around us, in this world, are immutable. Some energies are life giving (conscious energies; call it soul or whatever, because every energy has a "nametag") while others are material energies (non-conscious energies; electromagnentic, radioactive, gravitational etc etc). Degrees of their impacts are different, but on their own they are immutable. This is my understanding.
XYZ Said: "So do we think is energy close to GOD? or is it GOD itself!"
-- GOD is a personification of an Universal, All-Pervading, Superior Energy; an energy full of Life and Consciousness; from which all energies have manifested. So, GOD is energy, but energy need not be GOD. All energies come from GOD but they are not GOD by themselves. So, we need to be careful. Hope I am not confusing.
Arys Said: And is this energy there in all the manifestations of GOD?
-- There is only one energy from which all energies have manifested. Each of these energies are independent of the other, example Life Energy is different from Electromagnetic energy, but they are all sourced from One Supreme Energy (even according to science: there was only one energy in the begining from which the energies that we know of have manifested).
-- So, "this energy is there in all the manifestations of GOD"!
Some of us have agreed that GOD is all pervading. Now GodCon is saying GOD is energy but energy is not GOD.
ReplyDeleteIt looks contradictory.
Dear Arya,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify, if I can, with an example: I (as a s result of the soul or life energy in me) can produce Sound energy, or sound energy comes from me; I produce thought energy, or thought energy comes from me; but, I am not just sound or thought. Similarly, all energies comes from God (the Universal energy), but we cannot say that electromagnetic energy is GOD or Gravitational energy is GOD. They come from God; rather they are GOD's. So, GOD is the (UNIVERSAL) energy, but all energies are not GOD.
Another example: Soul is said to reside in the heart (hrdyasthe, hriddheshe), but its presence or evidence of life (consciousness) is spread or experienced across the body. So, we can say that life is everywhere in this body, i.e. life pervades this body from the head to the toe. Similarly, Govt. is in the center but its presence is seen everywhere in the form of laws and rules. So, there are source of energies and their energies can be seen to pervade their jurisdiction. In similar lines, wherever GOD is, His Consciousness is spread everywhere, i.e. He pervades. Soul and Govt pervade their "bodies" (an individual and country respectively), so GOD pervades the Universe. Does this clarify?
@GodCon
ReplyDeleteYour post is not clarifying!
@I (as a s result of the soul or life energy in me) can produce Sound energy, or sound energy comes from me; but i am not sound. Sound comes from God (the Universal energy)
#God is Universal energy. Few more types of types of energy are introduced - concious energy and material energy (like soul and sound). "Soul" is given yet another name "life energy". Are these different energies equivalent to different gods?
#God as "universal energy" - Is it a new definition? Or one of the description of God like immutability?
# If God is energy, what is the fun in concluding that energy is immutable? that is the point where we started. Saying the God is immutable.
#Finally, I understand energy from the study of science. But i dont feel it as immutable. For example, Sound is momentary. Energy is taking one form or other and is convertible. So what is immutable here?
Whatever personification or impersonification people provide:
ReplyDeletebut, also as even Shaastras say,
1. Energy is immutable - Pratyaksha.
Ex: Light Energy from Bulb =
{Part1 of energy goes in providing light. It is perceived thru eyes}
{Part2 of energy goes in providing heat. It is perceived through skin}
Energy is not lost, or destroyed. Part1+Part2=Energy. It remains same.
2. God is All pervading.
We accept Energy is all pervading.
Part1 - energy to be manifested as matter
Part2 - Energy in the form of Matter.
But both are Energy nonetheless.
So, Energy is all pervading, either as matter(Earth, computer you use, Sun, Tree, River, Yourself- system of body, nervous system, brain). Concept of self comes only when the nervous system, brain, all organs of body, work(Work is possible only with Energy) in a well defined pattern.
All this is possible only through Energy and nothing else.
We see here that Energy exists in all aspects of this creation.
It is because of energy that everything is possible.
I mean to say, we cannot say at any point(both in time and space) without energy.
3. And also, "I" sound to come from self also we require energy stored in the system of body. So, without energy nothing can happen.
4. Now, we can't put a question from where this energy came into being. It is ever existing.
It will be like asking "What is north of North Pole?"
"What is before the start?" - because by definition before follows start.
Energy has to be GOD, without whom nothing is possible in this creation.
It is proven both logically and scientifically.
It can be proven with inference Logic, observation. If it cant be denied by any other asoect in this creation, then we have nothing greater than Energy. Energy is the root cause for all this creation, destruction etc...
@Impious:
ReplyDeleteFor example, Sound is momentary. Energy is taking one form or other and is convertible. So what is immutable here?
Sound decays, yes, it is momentary. But, Energy before produced, is stored in tuning fork(say), air(on Earth) and hammer, and machine used to hit(say human). Energy stored is used up here in producing vibrations in air, which we hear as sound.
@ Impious: Energy is convertible/changes form in appearance (see previous post example of tree from water, air etc...), but Energy remains same, it does not become anything
Immutable:
Anything that exists
1. Before any process
2. During the process
3. After the process
is immutable.
Which never changes during any act.
@aLL:
ReplyDeletePrevious post:
Errata:
Energy is convertible/changes form in appearance (see previous post example of tree from water, air etc...), but Energy remains same, it does not become anything "other than energy"
Dear Impious:
ReplyDelete"Your post is not clarifying!"
===> Sorry :) I thought so too :)
"#God is Universal energy. Few more types of types of energy are introduced - concious energy and material energy (like soul and sound)"
===> Yes! It is natural that as we explore a concept in more detail we should expect to be exposed to more detail :) There have been concerns raised in the past too regarding introduction of "Jargons", but we have time and again resolved such issues and moved on. Sorry if you missed a few discussion sessions.
" "Soul" is given yet another name "life energy"
====> I dont think so! check earlier posts, soul has always been discussed as life giving energy, or something like that.
" #God as "universal energy" - Is it a new definition?"
===> What do you call something from which everything comes? into which everything eventually subsides into? which includes everything and sustains everything? If you want to call it something else, please do so. I think we have all come to some agreements and hoped that it would have made sense when used in context of the discussion.
"If God is energy, what is the fun in concluding that energy is immutable? that is the point where we started. Saying the God is immutable"
===> Personally, I think we have progressed well and logically. There have been times in the discussion when we have deviated a bit but we have traced back to the thread well. And, whatever conclusions we have derived have all been through consensus and logic. Sorry if you missed parts of the discussions; have you heard a teacher say "this is what happens when you miss classes" :) Just kidding.
"#Finally, I understand energy from the study of science. But i dont feel it as immutable. For example, Sound is momentary. Energy is taking one form or other and is convertible. So what is immutable here?"
===> I think even this was discussed in the past; I thought we were all convinced. Anyway. I will leave this to be commented by someone with greater exposure to science.
Energy appears in many forms simultaneously. They are subject to change. The only unchanging thing could be the total energy of all forms. Should we consider the energy as ever existent or unchanging or both?
ReplyDeleteIs energy the cause of this world? material cause? like the mud in the pot case or efficient cause? like the potter in the case of a pot?
Matter is God. Not energy.
ReplyDeleteBecause,
1. Pratyaksha: Matter is seen.
2. Matter is everywhere
3. Energy can be converted to Matter
@Pious:Should we consider the energy as ever existent or unchanging or both?
ReplyDeleteA: Total Energy
Is energy the cause of this world?
Yes!
I feel after body formed and life formed and intelligent life(like human) evolved only then, we went in search of GOD, source of creation etc...
And for any matter to be formed, the primordial cause was energy.
It was from Energy itself, the first of matter(particles) were formed.
It is into this energy itself, matter disintegrates as energy.
Nothing outside the energy can come into this creation. Whatever, is created - matter(Atom, molecule,amoeba, Fish, Human) is from this energy.
Even the concept of spiritual self comes due to the working of your brain.
And by basis, Brain + Nervous system+... of body requires energy to function and to stimulate such intellectual thoughts about self and beyond.
And all these organs to work and produce the desired effect requires energy.
And based on cause effect relationship...
Energy -root cause
|
/ \
Atoms Remnant energy
| / \
Molecules / \
/ \
Organic Inorganic
| |
Amoeba Non living matter
|
Fish
|
Monkey
|
Human
|
Logical/ rational Thought
|
Concept
of
source of creation -final effect
/ | \
Approach1...ApproachN
\ | /
{They Define cause which is Energy}
The formatting is lost.I will post in another format
ReplyDeleteEnergy root cause, all others that follow are effect, but are cause for following material forms
ReplyDeleteEnergy -root cause
1. Matter formed from Energy->Atoms->Molecules-> Organic and Inorganic
From Organic molecules-> Amoeba->Fish->Monkey->Human
From Human ->Logical thought/Rational->Quest to understand source
Approach1-N try to define root cause based on
1. Logic - when there was no scientific backing
They gave rise to philosophies
2. Remnant Energy-unmanifested
Continued...
ReplyDeleteAnd in these theories/philosophies provided so many attributes for the source.
Everlasting, Omnipresent etc...
But, really a miracle, all these go well with the Energy concept.
And all attributes work well with Philosophies...
Today our science is developed to such an extent, that all the Philosophies has to be put under test for improvement and support them and strengthen.
Please see the following link for tree descr...
ReplyDeletehttp://originsxyz.blogspot.com/2010/05/cause-effect.html
ReplyDelete@GodCon
ReplyDeleteEnergy -root cause
|
/ \
Atoms Remnant energy
| / \
Molecules /
Where is the reference for this SCIENCE?
Everybody and "unscientific mind ;)": I have already mentioned,
ReplyDeleteFormatting is lost...
So, please see this link:
http://originsxyz.blogspot.com/2010/05/cause-effect.html
@Lenin:
ReplyDeleteIf anything is not Pratyaksha, then it doesnot mean it doesnot exist.
And matter is not everywhere... There is unmanifested energy in creation also.
So matter is not everywhere...
Energy is converted to matter...
Energy is root cause and Matter is the effect...
So, matter is formed due to energy...
And energy is not formed from matter, infact stored energy is released from the matter...
Please see:
http://originsxyz.blogspot.com/2010/05/cause-effect.html
Energy is a physical concept. It is the energy exerted by the force of one newton acting to move an object through a distance of one metre.
ReplyDeleteThe work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt.
Its unit is derived one. But more importantly, the science does not claim / state that it is the root cause of this universe.
From science perspective, saying that Energy is the god is unscientific.
Is XYZ making this claim from reigious perspective?
The God is the creator of this universe. Since god has no raw material other than himself, Creation is God himself.
ReplyDeleteIn this sense, existence is God.
Matter, energy are included in the existence.
According to Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.
-----------------------------------
ReplyDelete@Scientific:
-----------------------------------
To move an object through a metre by 1N force is work done.
To do this work, there should be some capacity.
This capacity is referred to as Energy.
By defn: Energy is the capacity to do work.
Creation of matter, atoms etc... is through the work done using Energy.
To do this work, Force has to be applied.
And Force has to be applied when matter has energy to apply.
And for that matter has to be created.
And matter is created from Light Energy or simply Energy.
-----------------------------------
@TKLG:
-----------------------------------
"Creation is God himself".
"In this sense, existence is God.
Matter, energy are included" - I am in agreement, with some comments.
Existence=>GOD={Energy}
Existence=
matter (Union) unmanifested Energy
This is what you meant by GOD includes matter, energy?
Science states, matter was created from Energy.
It also states that At the beginning of creation, the Universe had mostly Energy and matter was negligible.
So, if we consider universe has energy, it is only the energy that is universe.
As you said, it is existence that is GOD.
There has been a lot of confusion is my mind and two philosophies Dvaita and Advaita. Following is my understanding. let me know if everyone accept this.
ReplyDeleteDwaita - Atma and Paramaatma are like trains on two separate parallel rail tracks, which can never meet. however the train can go at same speed and attain go hand in hand - purely dependent on the train speed"
Avaita - A single train. Atma and paramaatma are same, but when you see other other bogee.. you feel that its a different train. That is due to ignorance.
Snake and Rope are different - Dvaita
Snake looks like rope in darkness(Ignorance), but reality is its just rope and nothing else - Advaita.
We had agreed that everything originates from GOD and everything ends/annihilates in GOD.
ReplyDeleteSo anything manifested/un-manifested is from GOD. Since we also know that there were no raw materials to create the manifested/un-manifested GOD created everything from himself.
@Arlagada: I don't know whether this analogy is the best match for the two philosophies. But if at all it is correct then how can trains on two separate parallel rail tracks can never meet? Is it possible?
please read the last line in my last comment as
ReplyDeleteBut if at all it is correct then how can trains on two separate parallel rail tracks ever meet? Is it possible?
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteSnake and Rope are different
But it doesnot tell that
It is rope(in darkness): Perceived fact
Use torch and see, it is Snake - by Analysis. If you dont have tools you will be in dark until snake bites you.
So, it all depends upon tools you use to understand the facts.
You said:
"Avaita - A single train. Atma and paramaatma are same, but when you see other other bogee.. you feel that its a different train. That is due to ignorance."
Do you mean to say, Dwaita is born of ignorance then?
@Arya:
It is concluded: "everything originates from GOD"
What is everything, what it includes?
what do you mean by originates(from when and where)?
Student,
ReplyDeleteI am not saying anything, I am just trying to understand. That is the reason if you see my previous post I have mentioned clearly that, I have confusions about these two philosophies. So, Might be GodCon or someone can clarify about Dvaita and Raman or someone can clarify about Advaita.
With Arya's permission let me answer the questions that you have asked him.
ReplyDeleteAbout "everything" we have had enough discussion in the previous blog post "Does GOD exist" and we had come to this conclusion.
About the word "Originate", we had also spoke about it in the previous blog post and also in the initial stages of this post. You can read those.
However, to answer you in brief.
Everything = This creation
Creation, involves Universe including Starts to the minutest electron
Originate = source = GOD, which was deduced from the previous post.
@Student: I think Arlagada has clarified
ReplyDelete@Student:
ReplyDeleteI don't know what do you mean by this?
Do you mean to say, Dwaita is born of ignorance then?
Please elaborate how did you conclude that
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if the train analogy is appropriate, because it has too many issues.
Dvaita - Atma and Paramatma cannot be like two independent / parallel trains, because one train (atma) comes from the other (paramatma) and in the end goes back into the other. There is only one Train (paramatma) from which all other trains (jivatmas) have manifested.
I think that the Train analogy is hard a one to relate with dvaita or advaita.
Let me give an alternative analogy in case it helps.
Dvaita views atma and paramatma more like Father and Son. Son exists, and Father has several (innumerable) Sons who have independent identities. Infact Sons come from the Father and go back to the father in the end. The Sons have temporarily got separated from the Father, wandering into a different city (material world) from that of the Father. Sons falsely identifies with rented appartments (body) and keep renting appartments (bodies) until they realize their true relationship with their Father and returns back to his Father. The appartments and cities are real but temporary.
Advaita sees only a Father and Father alone exists. Sons are all due to illusions; Sons are infact the Father Himself, and it is only due to illusion that they appear different. The sons (jivatmas), appartments (bodies), and cities (material universe) are all unreal - illusions; there was never an appartment, never a city, and infact there was never a son. It was only father who appears as all these due to darkness.
So, GodCon, which one do you think is right?
ReplyDelete@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteI didn't quite get when you say sons get back to father in the end. Well i think i am not able to grasp the essence of the analogy
We had concluded that God created everything from himself. Why do you think the created(effect) is different from God(cause)?
@Arya,
ReplyDeleteForget about the antalogies if they dont make sense :) I was just giving the two pespectives, dvaita and advaita. We have looked at other analogies in the past, like Fire-Spark, Droplet-Ocean etc etc .... because one analogy does not suffice such a complex concept. The father-son is probably the most horrible one hehe I know, I wrote it as a parallel to the Train analogy that Aralagada had given.
There are different perspectives. For this forum, I think we can leave it at where we have concluded. For me, the creator and the created are two separate aspects. In my previous posts I have written about another perspective - Achinthya-bEdha-abEdha (simultaneosuly one and different at the same time), which talks about there are major similarities and differences between the creator (cause) and the created (effect), that they are not different but are not the same at the same time. It is like, another crude example, when you hear my voice you can say that it is me and it is, but at the same time that voice is not me. So, the created (effect, Jiva) is just like the creator (cause, God) but not the creator itself. Sorry for the convoluted statement.
For now, we can leave these different perspectives and move on with the assumption that there is a creator (God) and there is a created (everything that exists - manifested and unmanifested). That should be fine.
I am not trying to stick on to this philosophies however, But, when we are talking about GOD, we have almost streamlined our discussion to to these concepts "SOUL", "SuperSoul". The individuality and differentiability of these concepts are the subject matter on which the discussion is now moving on. Rather, It would be better we try to deduce the relation between GOD and SOUL. In turn that would relate GOD and SuperSoul.
ReplyDeleteAs I see we have answers for the following.
ReplyDelete1. Does god exists?
2. Explanation for Omnipresence of God
Apart from this we are discussing about Immutability and other attributes of god.
Did we
1) Conclude that Energy as god?
2) define soul?
3) identify the purpose of life?
I am not sure.
Energy is the capacity to do work by definition. Hence, If GOD has created everything, then he has worked in the direction of creation. For doing this he need energy, and since there is nothing beyond GOD, we can conclude that he himself is energy.
ReplyDeleteAbout SOUL, we have not yet defined. about purpose of life is also not defined. However, If the existence of Soul and Super Soul is proved, and the corresponding relation is established, we can talk something about the purpose of life.
Energy can not explain "awareness". Physical laws (newton laws) does not apply to the movements of a living being completely.
ReplyDeleteSo, energy can not be God.
God has to be an "intelligent being" (an entity that is capable of thinking).
ReplyDeleteMatter is not an intelligent being. Matter being equivalent to energy, this description could be applied to it too - unless otherwise shown.
Energy can not be god.
@Pious: I didn't quite get when you said awareness.
ReplyDeleteI feel that energy is a term coined in the scientific domain and it has its own attributes associated with it. When we superimpose energy onto the concept of GOD then we tend to define GOD in scientific terms which in turn is incorrect.
Science is a product of human thought whereas human thought is in itself a product of GOD!
I have question for both of you Arya and Pious.
ReplyDeleteTo Arya - "When we superimpose energy onto the concept of GOD then we tend to define GOD in scientific terms which in turn is incorrect."
What is the correct way to define than?
To Pious - The question to you is a bit different.
You say, energy cannot think and hence its not GOD, same you told about matter. So, now what is that which thinks?
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteAs i have read in many places they call it by many jargons self/atman/soul etc.. Probably we should start discussing attributes of it and not energy. And it is no way related to the energy defined scientifically
Sorry if we are reinventing the wheel (already discussed in this blog) please list out the attributes once again!
ReplyDeleteThats right what Arya is saying... we have actually come out of using scientific terms in defining GOD only after we realized that its not suitable(If you read the previous post you will understand how that transition happened). But, I am not sure if we can also define GOD using SOUL and SUPER SOUL. Because, none of these can explain the creation, hence forth cant explain destruction and sustenance
ReplyDeleteGeneral comment:
ReplyDeleteWhat is science and what is not is not clear...
Study of GOD is a Science...
The approaches taken will be many...
If in this creation Energy is everywhere, ever existing, then what is wrong in giving it name of GOD?
What is the conflict, or a point where it fails?
And whichever domain term is coined, the term is not important, its characterstics are important.
If somebody from ancient past has come up which concept with a term GOD with some attributes and it closely matches with another term mentioned as Energy...
Then what is wrong in accepting it?
@Arya said:
"Science is a product of human thought whereas human thought is in itself a product of GOD!"
Any discipline in which thought is involved and can produce some meaningful results is Science.
Thought-> result of brain -> again an Energy packet, which can;
stimulate us to perform some action.
Human thought comes from interaction of brain- nervous system and entire body.
And body is nothing but matter which can be traced unto the atomic level, which is at its primordial state produced from Energy.
"And yes, thought is a product of Energy".
"If we have a discipline of study which can provide experimental and observational results compared to any other sciences - including philosophies why not to accept it and try applying it."
"Going behind the term GOD and resisting to name GOD by name Energy where all the attributes mentioned in the post holds true.
It dont think there is any thing wrong in defining Energy as GOD."
Whether something was discussed in last post or not doesnot matter.
As long as it makes sense (remember Science makes sense), there is nothing wrong in accepting it.
Will post later...
@Pious, Arya, Aralagada, TKLG, XYZ:
ReplyDeleteImpressed with everyone, nice posts. We need to challenge each other like this and force ourself to think. Arya in particular, I appeciate your precise and concise comments; commendable; there is clarity of thought.
@Aralagada: we could discuss Philosophies but we also need to cater to the other members' needs :) We could start a separate blog for that if needed :)
Pious has made some good comments. I too agree that mere energy "can not explain "awareness"", and that "Physical laws" do not completely explain living beings or God. So I agree with Pious, though only partially, by being a bit more specific in concluding that mere "Physical Energy" cannot be God. And I have said this before too.
I again agree with Pious that "God has to be an 'intelligent being' (an entity that is capable of thinking)". Please check my post "April 17, 2010 7:20 AM" where I also proposed something similar.
I know that this can be confusing, but lets see where it goes.
@GodCon: Thank you
ReplyDelete@XYZ:
I again object the thought of equating Energy to god. The only reason being the keyword Energy has lot of open ends.
E.g there are different forms of energy kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, elastic, light, and electromagnetic energy etc.. If you say this list is limited it is because of your limited knowledge. So may be the case of others who have listed it. And how do you correlate the above set as one(single). I think there is no one theory which holds in all cases (unexplored science).
Well the above e.g. is just one of them and so i feel it leaves lot of open ends. Lets stick to something which is non-scientific in its name to remove ambiguities
Probably you can define the properties of such an entity. Request the author to list the properties of soul/self/atman(call by one keyword) and God/Brahman/paramatman/supreme soul(call by one keyword) based upon the discussion so far(may be another post).
Sorry if my last comment lacked clarity. When i have used Science it meant the theories developed by rational beings about the working of nature.
ReplyDeleteActually science has a different definition literally... I didn't mean that.
@XYZ: Study of God is science
ReplyDeletethought is a product of Energy
"Going behind the term GOD and resisting to name GOD by name Energy where all the attributes mentioned in the post holds true.It dont think there is any thing wrong in defining Energy as GOD."
@Arlagada
now what is that which thinks?
In principle, the study of God has to take a rational approach. Science is one of the rational approaches that could be taken. But not the only way.
Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy that deals with issues beyond Physics. As the scope of the Physics expands, the territory of metaphysics should reduce!
God in the metaphysical territory. So, we can use metaphysical or scientific or any other terminlogy in our discussion. We could use any rational approach including science. But insisting on science alone is not acceptable.
Energy is a concept of science. It appears that it has similar attributes as that of God. But, the awareness is not completely explained by science. So, the energy, it appears that is not adequate to explain god.
Arlagada has a good question: What is that which thinks?
I think therefore I am - descarte said. So, the first answer is it is I who thinks.
Next question is "who am I?"
Interestingly, consciousness which is closely related to awareness, is another attribute/definition of God. Creation could be seen in another non-materialistic way. Through conciousness, the world is perceived. Without consciousness, there is nothing. So, the creation is dependent on the conciousness. Or the only truth in this world is conciousness Or Conciousness is God.
ReplyDeleteYes, Agree with TKLG, when I asked this question to Pious, this is what i wanted to extract out.
ReplyDeleteWhen we ask, What is that which is thinking? The answer would be - "Gray Matter", isn't this a matter? As TKLG rightly said "awareness is not completely explained by science". Just because Modern science cannot explain awareness, we cannot conclude that Study of GOD is not Science.
Answering to the question by TKLG "Who am I?" I had previously mentioned about this in my post on April 20, 2010 9:57 AM
"a person says "I am blind", "I am happy", "I am fat" etc. The common and constant factor, which permeates all these statements is the "I" which is but the Immutable Atman.
That "I" itself is all "Atman, Jivatman, Brahman, Paramatman, GOD"
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI have summarized the discussion. Please see...
http://aquitedanswer.blogspot.com/2010/05/un-answered-god.html
Request you to continue the discussion under that post.
Thank you
What is that which thinks?
ReplyDeleteDescarte said "I think...."
So the next question "who am I?"
I am the one who is seen by everyone! with two hands, two legs, a torso and a head above it. It is so obvious.