A wonderful discussion about What/Who is God? went on in a more mature and more orderly manner than previous. I personally learnt a lot out of this discussion. I would like to summarize about what we have deduced till today about GOD.
Every thing that is born has death; Earth, Sun, other planets, Humans, Animals, Dream and many other such things are the examples. Extrapolating this to the universe, we see that, there must be one such thing that has no birth, from which everything originated. Many people gave an example of Singularity supporting this concept. We also went till Big Bang and came back. We all accepted that, this entity will be called as GOD. Once we deduced the existence of God, we moved on for the next question, i.e. What/Who is God?
Deducing the existence of God we knew that we had actually already deduced one of the main properties of God, i.e. “ever existing” nature of God. Further we also had proved the omnipresent of God. We defined him as Creator, Sustainer and destructor. Later on, something very interesting happened in the discussion. The discussion introduced two terms called "Atma" and "Paramaatma". Various people participating in this blog post had various stances to take about the relationship between these two. This lead the discussion to boil down to two great philosophies that has existed from ages, Dvaita and Advaita. I shall try to do some justice to this summary by writing down the list of difference and arguments made by participants about these two philosophies.
Argument 1:
Dvaita - Atma and Paramaatma are two separate entities yet the same.
1. Example: Fire and spark are different yet the same
2. Example: Atma (Jivaatma) maintains its individuality and yet is moving towards attaining Paramaatma. Paramaatma is independent
Argument 2:
Advaita - Atma and Paramaatma are never different, but look different because of "Maya".
1. Example: Just like one feels his existence in a dream is true while seeing the dream, we are all feeling this existence itself as true. But, is a illusion caused by Maya whose scope is between birth and death
2. Example: Just like you see a rope as a snake in darkness, you see Souls as infinite because of Maya.
"Maya" - we also saw people defined Maya in two ways
1. MAYA (illusion) - 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.
2. MAYA - this is not because of Five Characters but five characters are because of Maya (illusion). Maya can also be ignorance.
Some Common consensus:
1. We also saw that people came to one consensus about the relation between Atma and Paramaatma. Just like house cannot be called as brick, even though it’s made of bricks. A forest cannot be called as tree even though it’s made of trees. The only thing that differs is the scope. A tree can give shelter to few birds; a forest can give shelter to many living creatures. A brick can give shelter to few ants; a house can give shelter to many humans. Similarly, a soul is just differing from super soul with the scope alone.
2. Atma and Pramaatma have same nature. i.e Soul has three basic aspects as part of its nature - Sat (eternity; truth), Cit (knowledge potency), and Ananda (blissfulness).
Other Discussion:
1. Eternal truth and truth.
2. Knowledge and Ignorance.
3. The ari-shad-vargas (kama, krodha, moha, lobha, madha, maatsarya).
Later, we saw that none of these arguments were leading to question asked, i.e Where/Who is God? We were discussing here on this blog assuming that Atma and Paraamtma exist, but we have never deduced these or defined these.
Few Un-Answered questions that came out of this discussion:
1. If god has created everything, and if Paramaatam is God, what is paramaatma and how does it explain the creation?
2. Is God Energy?
3. Is God Matter?
4. Can Atma be defined? If yes, how?
5. What is that which thinks?
6. Who am I?
The last post says answering “Who am I”
"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"
Lastly, I invite you people to continue discussion under this blog post. Let us all try to put some light on these above stated aspects. Many of my friends and subordinates read this discussion and were impressed by the way the discussion is proceeding, probably this one among very vey few blogs were valuable discussion has happened. All the participants of the blog have put there views and applied there minds with an un-emotional and un-attached way. A healthy discussion is possible only when the participants are OPEN MINDS and EGOLESS with there ideas. I can also say, this discussion is not affected by ari-shad-vargas (kama, krodha, moha, lobha, madha, maatsarya).
LET THERE BE LIGHT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TKLG says
ReplyDeleteConsciousness is another attribute/definition of God.
As perceived by the five senses(Pratyaksha) the world may/may not be real.
e.g. I am holding a pen in front of a mirror.
The image of the pen in the mirror is false because it is an image and not the pen itself
The image of the pen is also true because it is perceived by the senses.
So is the world true/false?
Consciousness of GOD = Paramaatma
ReplyDeleteConsciousness of Individual self - Jeevatma
Is these what the definition of Paramaatma and Jeevaatma???
@BOSE:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure, but i think there cannot be consciousness OF God which you can call as paramatma.
I was thinking
GOD = Paramatma and
Individual self = Jeevatma
I am very bad in this Jargon please correct me if i am wrong
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.
@TKLG
ReplyDeleteThe question is "Who am I?"
The question is not about "How are you seen as?" OR "What are your body parts?"
Hence, the answer is not obvious.
@Arlagada,
ReplyDeleteWhat I see is obviously true. I am the one with limbs and a body. In other words,
I am the physical body.
@Lenin,
ReplyDeleteThe question is "Who am I?"
But you are answering something for which the question is "What are you made up off?"
I am aware of the question. Who am I?, I think TKLG has understood it too.
ReplyDeleteTKLG has given the obvious answer. I approve it. I have given further explanation to it.
I think TKLG will approve that "I am the one with limbs and body".
I know that Arlagada is not approving my answer. (seeing his previous posts).
But, why/how do you say that my answer is not correct.
Dear Friend Lenin,
ReplyDeleteIts not about Approving and not approving, I am no one here to Approve, neither is TKLG. It is about the clarity in answer.
Eg:
Ans - I have two eyes
Possible question can be - How many eyes do you have?
There can be one answer to a given question. However, there is also possibilities of multiple way of asking question for a single question like,
My name is Arlagada
Qes1: What is your name?
Ans2: What is the name given by your father?
In the later case, At a given moment of time one question can be asked.
So, your answer
"What I see is obviously true. I am the one with limbs and a body. In other words,
I am the physical body."
The corresponding question can be
What are you made up off?
What are your body parts?
I cannot relate this answer to the question which askes "Who am I?"
@Arlagada,
ReplyDeleteCould you please formulate alternate questions to "Who am I?"
Let me if I have to change my answer?
"Eyes" we know what is it. Its a organ in animal body that helps the creature to see...
ReplyDelete"I" - What is "I"?
Until we are clear about it, we do not know what alternate question can it have
@Arlagada,
ReplyDeleteAre you clear about it?
Read this blog post "Un-Answered God" - you will know
ReplyDeleteLenin, You are a new person to this blog. Discussion about this has happened long back in many different context. Just come back after reading "Un-Answered God" by Anweekshiki
Who am I?
ReplyDelete"I" is the sense of existence that comes because of the interaction of the following four layers.
Body
Mind
Intellect
Soul
The sense of I is there only at the above 3 layers, and not the Soul.
Because, if no Body, no sense of perception of existence.
Mind is active only if body is present.
And intellect thinks that the existence is true based on control of senses through mind.
It is rather abstract, let me clarify in the next post
Who am I?
ReplyDeleteIt is me with limbs and body. It is so obvious.
But, without limbs, still I exist, without eyes, ears i exist. So, it is not that obvious.
Lenin asked a pertinent question. How do we refute that physical body is not I.
So the discussion has taken a fresh turn :)
ReplyDelete"I" is aptly termed Aham in Sanskrit. Recently I heard a lecture where a vedic scholar defined Aham (I) this way, which I am rephrasing in my own words.
In the word Aham, ham means that which is destroyed, relinquished, removed, obliterated, killed etc, i.e. who's existence can be denied. Thus, Aham is one who's existence can not be denied. So even when the outworldly body ceases to exist there is something that continues to exist; existing indepedent of material / physical body. Aham and Atma are intertwined closely. Aham is a reflection of identity due to presence of Atma. When there is life and when there is mind, "I" exists. Self exists because Soul exists. Self is a reflection of presence of Soul (intelligent life). I in short is identity of mindful existence.
And we call it soul or spirit or individual life energy or whatever. This is confimed again and again in various statements in Upanishads and 2nd chapter of Bhagawad Gita.
@TKLG, GodCon, Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteYou said I exists without eyes, ears, limbs and the actual physical body. How did you conclude that?
I exists even when we are in deep sleep; when even mind and senses rests.
ReplyDeleteI exists even when one is paralyzed; when many of the limbs cease to work.
I exists for a mentally retarded being, for a blind, for a deaf etc etc.
I exists even when one is in coma; when all senses are blocked and limbs are inactive (and these become active when one returns from coma, but I will persist).
If one believes in "Karma" or "punar-janma" (rebirth) then there could be an interim state of bodilessness.
I exists (rather "may exist", I am not sure, but I strongly believe it does) even in the plants, probably in suppressed / inactive forms (because there is little "evidence" from science whether plants have active mind states, which I doubt).
So the concept of I pertains to the mind and is referred to as the subtle body of the soul, while the external/physical body is called the gross body.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteI exists even when we are in deep sleep; when even mind and senses rests.
But, after deep sleep and after mind comes out of relaxation and while deep sleep and while mind is relaxing, you are aware that what is happening.
It is definite that mind is i\only relaxing, and is not obsolete, so some functionality of mind is under work.
And since it is mentioned inmy previous comment, mind is dependent on body, i.e; mind (a concpet) evolves due to brain, it depends on body, so your statement eventhough holds true, I depends upon system of body.
I exists even when one is paralyzed; when many of the limbs cease to work.
Similar answer, because, rest of body is still functioning, and mind is still functioning due to presence of brain and necessary nervous system
I exists for a mentally retarded being, for a blind, for a deaf etc etc.
To understand that he/she is deaf, to give that feel for a person, brain- mind still exists. So, I is here due to physical body.
I exists even when one is in coma; when all senses are blocked and limbs are inactive (and these become active when one returns from coma, but I will persist).
In coma, brain is not totally defunct. a part of unconciousness brain, body functioning at a lower threshold possible is still active to keep the basic functionality of system.
If one believes in "Karma" or "punar-janma" (rebirth) then there could be an interim state of bodilessness.
Rebirth has to be proven, then only, the above statement holds true. Since we are under discusion, the statement is still under individual belief ad doesnot hold true until proven.
I exists (rather "may exist", I am not sure, but I strongly believe it does) even in the plants, probably in suppressed / inactive forms (because there is little "evidence" from science whether plants have active mind states, which I doubt).
Can you site some evidences?
So the concept of I pertains to the mind and is referred to as the subtle body of the soul, while the external/physical body is called the gross body.
Yes, Mind is derived term to explain the functioning of brain. There is no mind if no brain.
So, it the interaction of 3 layers of Body, Mind, Intellect that gives the feeling of existence.
@GodCon, Student:
ReplyDeleteYou have agreed to the following:
I exists even when we are in deep sleep; when even mind and senses rests.
I exists even when one is paralyzed; when many of the limbs cease to work.
I exists for a mentally retarded being, for a blind, for a deaf etc etc.
I exists even when one is in coma; when all senses are blocked and limbs are inactive (and these become active when one returns from coma, but I will persist).
"I think" this is something which the individual has to say. If he is paralyzed/in coma/dumb/no body then how can he say that? If he is not saying how will the I exist?
is I not literal I? Does it have a different definition? If "YES" please quote
Dear Student:
ReplyDeleteSorry! May be I was not clear in my writing that you seem to have taken it in literal terms :) ;) Anyway. Let me try to clarify.
I wanted to emphasize a few things:
1) That "I" exists outside physical states; limbs or senses are not important for its existence.
2) It can exist in dormant states, irrespective of whether one realizes or acknowledges (or has the ability to realize or acknowledge) its presence.
3) Whether I know that "I" exists or not, it exists as long as life exists. So, it is to do with the life and not the body.
Brain is nothing but a peace of dead flesh. It exists even when the body is dead. So there is no meaning to brain without life or mind.
Even Body, Mind, and Intellect can exist only when life exists. And when life exists "I" exists. So, "I" has to be intrinsically connected to life (soul?) and not this body, was what I was trying to emphasize.
So, existence of "I" cannot depend on body. If you say so then how and from where does it come from? For mind to exist, for intellect to exist, life has to exist, outside which there is no meaning to "I". So, "I" again cannot be separated from life, but it can be easily disassociated from the concept of body as I have proposed here.
Moreover, we cannot ascertain for sure if the feeling of existence may prevail even when we do not have body and intellect, because according to shastras it needs mind and mind is associated with Soul (living force) [[[ again, do not ask for evidence please, this is only by inferential knowledge. The just argued fact remains even if we do not accept this injunction ]]]. Anyway.
About "rebirth": i specifically mentioned "IF one believes in" and there is no way it can be "proven"; infact nothing can be "proven" according to science :) Anyway.
About plants: I said "there is little evidence", which virtually implies "no evidence" and you are asking for evidence ?!**!@()? :)
Dear Student:
ReplyDeleteHere are a few phrases from a previous post that I thought I was linking my post for which you have commented on:
a) Aham ("I") is one who's existence can not be denied. So even when the outworldly body ceases to exist there is something that continues to exist; existing indepedent of material / physical body.
b) Aham is a reflection of identity due to presence of Atma.
c) When there is life and when there is mind, "I" exists. Aham and Atma are intertwined closely.
d) Self exists because Soul exists. Self is a reflection of presence of Soul.
e) I in short is identity of mindful existence.
Dear Arya:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I think" this is something which the individual has to say. If he is paralyzed/in coma/dumb/no body then how can he say that? If he is not saying how will the I exist?
--- Whether one says or not, whether one realizes or not, whether one acknowledges or not, it exists. When one is in conscious state he acknowledges its presence, so it should have existed even before he realized it. For example, a baby may not realize the presence of the "I" (or "self") but it exists in a dormant state. As it relates to external world and starts getting more conscious of its self it starts acknowledging the presence, thats all.
I am not sure if there is a different definition, but all I can say is "I" cannot be separated from us as long as we have life.
There are two levels of "I"s that shastras talk about - the Subtle "I" and the gross "I". The gross "I" is the ego (or false-ego as it is commonly referred as) which is a reflection of the subtle "I" that pertains to the inner minds. So subtle is the basis for gross to exist. So, the "literal I" is the gross and the very basis of it is the subtle one which is associated with soul. If this is seem hard talk, lets not worry and move on.
We Identify a person with this entity called "I" in him/her.
ReplyDeleteFew years back, My Grand father expired while he was on death bed in one of the hospitals. Later, after death we brought his body to house to proceed with the rituals.
This is just a observation, showing that internally, at some corner of our mind we all know that, an Identity of a person is not done based on his physical structure but on his "SELF".
If you observe the above example, you will notice that, we all addressed grand father with his name or with the name given to him "tatha".. But, the very next moment he expired, it was not more "tatha" it was tatha's body...
So, as GodCon explained, "I" is not associated with physical body.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteYou said
I am not sure if there is a different definition, but all I can say is "I" cannot be separated from us as long as we have life.
So will "I" cease to exist after end of life? Well now we have to define life!
@Arlagada
You are again a witness in the case you have explained i.e. you were just witnessing the death. So you saw your tatha before death and after death. So you told "tatha" before death and "tatha's body" after death.
My confusion is : it is your tatha who was saying "I think.." and after death he could have never said that. So the I ceased to exist.
I am actually getting what you guys are saying but logically i am not getting clarity
@Arya:You said I exists without eyes, ears, limbs and the actual physical body. How did you conclude that?
ReplyDeleteSome Notes:
The observervation involves "observer" and the "thing that is observed". The observer has to be an intelligent
entity. We start with limbs/body as the observer. Because, a person with limbs/body observes the external
world.
As a logical next step, we also observe the limbs/body - their movements and their transfomation w.r.t to time.
So, the observer has to be something other than limbs/body. The key test is "That which is observed can not
be the observer".
Sound, touch, light are observed by the human being. He observes hunger etc. So, the observer can not be
limbs, eyes, ears, skin some internal organs. The next question is - Is mind/memory/thought/ego the real observer?
@TKLG
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say
The key test is "That which is observed can not be the observer".
I observe the external world say another human being (say A1) and another human (A1) being observes me. so here the observed (A1) is observing the observer(me).
If the observed(A1) dies then he cannot observe me.
An observer has to be an intelligent entity. It is possible that both are intelligent. That which is being is not necessarily intelligent.
ReplyDeleteThe observer observes his own body/limbs. So, we can make further distinction. The limbs are other than the intelligent I.
We have moved one step further compared to the position that body/limbs is the observer.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeletea) Aham ("I") is one who's existence can not be denied. So even when the outworldly body ceases to exist there is something that continues to exist; existing indepedent of material / physical body.
If you refer to Soul, it doesnot have physical existence. If it doesnot, then how can it live in this physical world.
Or soul is a concept with certain attributes?
you said:"
b) Aham is a reflection of identity due to presence of Atma."
Comment:
"I fail to recollect, did we prove the existence of soul in last post?"
You said:
cc)When there is life and when there is mind, "I" exists. Aham and Atma are intertwined closely.
Comment:
"So, life and mind are independent"
But mind has existence only when life is there? This is my understanding. Can you throw some light?"
You said:
"Even Body, Mind, and Intellect can exist only when life exists. And when life exists "I" exists. So, "I" has to be intrinsically connected to life (soul?) and not this body, was what I was trying to emphasize. "
Comment: Life is not ever existence. Life is between birth and death. And if "I" depends on life, and I is connected to soul, then ;
Soul is also between birth and death. It seems to be contradictory.
Because it is told that Soul is ever existing.
Then I is for life or for Soul?
You said:
Soul (living force) - Did you mean force for living?
You said:
"I" again cannot be separated from life
Comment: Then I is not there when there is no life?
In otherwords, does life only mean presence of Layers of Body, Mind, Intellect, Soul.
Or life even exists in absence of Body,Mind and intellect?
You said:
"That "I" exists outside physical states"
Then life is not a physical state?
Life has some meaning only when Soul is at the core of 4 layers, not outside the 4 layers.
You said:
"So even when the outworldly body ceases to exist there is something that continues to exist; existing indepedent of material / physical body."
Comment: Again, life is not ever existing, soul is.
The observer observes his own body/limbs...
ReplyDeleteI think the observer can't view his eyes/ears/teeth/head.. so how can he be intelligent?
Sadness, Happiness are some of the things which cannot be perceived by senses. Neither can it explained logically to a person who have never felt it. But, each one of are evident that it exist in this world.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Re-Birth.. This is something which I wanted to bring up long back. Good that it came now. I am contemplating on how can I deduce Re-birth - because, if re-birth is accepted the presents on one such entity which we call soul can be observed to accept
@Arlagada, Student, GodCon:
ReplyDeleteYou guys are leaving in the middle of ocean and traveling at speeds of light.. Please help this poor guy Arya to understand I first!!!
Ha ha ha...
ReplyDeleteGood one Arya....
Sure, sorry for the confusion. But, since now we are discussing about "I" which I believe is nothing but "SOUL" which in turn is not yet proved or defined in this forum, which in turn might lead us to GOD - its worth discussing about re-birth, as re-birth might possibly explain (define) SOUL in a different angle altogether
actually i am confused what are we proving?
ReplyDelete- I is SOUL?
- SOUL?
- Is SOUL GOD?
- Re-birth?
I am now with the idea that I is something which just ceases to exist after death. Please clarify me
Dear Arya, Student:
ReplyDeleteThis is according to my understanding, I may not be able to give a logically explanation to it, but this is what I understand from Shastra.
Arya said: "So will I cease to exist after end of life?"
-- Sorry for the confusion. "I" will be in the dormant state outside the mindful existence in the body. So, I would rephrase it as "'I' will cease exist in active state after the bodily death", but since "soul" (living force/energy) has no death it goes back to its dormant state. Since "soul" can be in unmanifest state, "I" would also be in unmanifest state, but it exists. Sorry if this is confusing.
"I is SOUL?"
-- As I mentioned before, there are two "I"s - Ego (Gross level; also called false ego; reflected aham; some call it a mirage self) and Self (Subtle level; true aham). Self (aham) is intrinsically attached to the living force (Soul).
"Is SOUL GOD?"
-- There are several perspectives (dvaita, advaita, vishishta advaita, achintya-beda-abedha, sankhya etc) that I have discussed in the past, each of which views this relationship slightly differently. So, I dont think we are discussing this anymore, and I dont think we should in this forum :)
"Re-birth?"
--- this is too complicated a topic to discuss in this forum, unless we can ascertain the existence of a subtle soul.
"I am now with the idea that I is something which just ceases to exist after death."
-- According to my understanding: "I" always exists either in unmanifested / subtle / dormant / inactive state or manifested / gross / active state. When we have the body then it is manifested and active when mind is active. What we observe is the gross ego, and what we need to contemplate and realize internally is the subtle self. If this is confusing, sorry :)
Dear Student:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "soul is a concept with certain attributes?"
-- Soul is a concept with several attributes, just as energy (physical) forms have attributes, sould does too.
you said: "I fail to recollect, did we prove the existence of soul in last post?"
-- I dont know. But atleast I had proposed the existence of soul (living force/life giving energy). I also dont know if we can "prove" anything at all (unfortunately, I have said this atleast 4-5 times now hehe), and I thought we had atleast inferred it.
You said: "But mind has existence only when life is there?"
-- Living force or Life giving energy (Soul) is always there (so areMind and "I"/"self"), may be in dormant / unmanifested states. Life as in Soul ever exists, Life as in "PraaNa" exists only with bodily existence.
You said: "Then I is for life or for Soul?"
-- I hope I have commented on this earlier.
You said: "Soul (living force) - Did you mean force for living?"
-- Call it what you want :) Living Force or Life Giving Energy or Soul or Jivatma or Atma or whatever.
I suppose the above addressed your other questions too.
You said: "Then life is not a physical state?"
-- there is life in unmanifested form in the form of life energy (soul) and it is in manifested form in the form of praaNa.
You said: "Again, life is not ever existing, soul is"
-- But you question whether we have "proved" soul and you talk about it here hahaha :) Anyway. What is soul? can there be life without soul? in that case is not soul the reason for life? if so then how do you disengage soul from life and life from soul? life that you have been talking about is the bodily existence, and the one I was referring to was the ever existing life-giving-energy in its subtle form.
Please let us not deviate again and again from the topic.
For now I would say: "I" always exists in its subtle / unmanifested form due to its inseparable association with soul (living force or life giving energy). The ego (gross "I") is a reflection or an evidence of a true-self (subtle "I") within.
I is different from Soul - Soul is different from Super Soul - Super Soul is different from God.
ReplyDeleteVery very confusing.
I am seriously unable to understand what are we trying to do here.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to discuss "What entity is different from what?" OR "What/Who is GOD?"
People who say there is a difference, wont speak what is the difference and how is the difference. I see people over here(Theists) are speaking very much in abstract. I was an Atheist, I was convinced by the existence of God because there was some sensible discussion that happened about it. But, Atma, Paramaatma, Re-birth, "I", Self, Advaita, Dvaita.... Only GOD can help me....
I understood various philosophies like dvaita and advaita, but I have still not understood "Atma".. what is that? How did people say it has no death? How did people say, its the life energy?. Now please dont quote some Purana, geeta or Shastra, I cant digest that
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to jump into the discussion randomly and complain of not being able to make sense of things, just like a student who misses 5 classes and feels he is lost; he naturally is. I dont think this is a practical approach to understand anything let alone these concepts. These concepts are not as simple as we seem to treat them and then complain about jargons. Further, there are limitations of this forum, this media and the way we are trying to understand things.
Everyone here is trying to understand these concepts and all of us have our own schedules but make time to express, discuss, debate, disagree, and argue about our inidividual perceptions, understandings and confusions. If you deem that there are some open questions please come up with specific questions and help us understand the concepts better.
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I is different from Soul - Soul is different from Super Soul - Super Soul is different from God. Very very confusing."
-- This is an indication that you have not been following the discussions. Sorry. Please read through the discussions if you sincerely want to participate in the discussions.
-- About the relationship between "I" and Soul please read one of the posts before; this has been discussed by mutual exchange of disagreements and agreements (check discussions between GodCon and Arya, GodCon and Student and also Aralagada's comments).
-- We have spent significant time discussing about the relationship between Soul and Super Soul; multiple perspectives were discussed (GodCon and Aralagada, GodCon and Raman in particular were engaged in several threads just on this).
-- I am not sure from where and how you concluded that Super Soul is non-different from God (I dont think this could be concluded from anything that we have discussed).
Naturally you seem confused :) Please propose your thoughts, ideas, and questions that we may explore further.
Dear Bose:
ReplyDelete"But, Atma, Paramaatma, Re-birth, "I", Self, Advaita, Dvaita.... Only GOD can help me.... "
-- Even in the previous set of discussions, if you remember, we were lost again and again before we came to some conclusion after around 250 posts or so. So, please have patience, GOD will help you hehe ;)
Bose said: "I understood various philosophies like dvaita and advaita, but I have still not understood "Atma". what is that? How did people say it has no death? How did people say, its the life energy?"
If everyone is interested, we can revisit these questions raised by Bose. Should we?
1) What is Atma?
2) How can we say that it has no death?
3) Why and how do we call Atma as Life Energy?
4) What is the relationship between Atma and God? Why are we discussing Atma at all?
5) Why did the davaita, advaita etc come into picture?
If it has been confusing then it is worth revisiting these questions, thanks Bose.
Part 1:
ReplyDelete"I" can exist even if any of the body parts are absent.
But whether it exists if none of the body parts exist is not clear.
But, the "I" can be felt in living body, that is clear.
What is the Source for this continued presence of life which gives us the sense of existence "I"?
Remove eyes, ears, mouth, nose - "I" exist.
Remove entire nervous system/ total Nervous system failure - You are dead.
Remove brain - You are dead.
Remove heart - you are dead.
In brief, failure of response by body to signals of nervous system - Body is dead.
Then, How can I exist?
What is that still exists after death, which provides the "I" during life?
(Again, I am not telling "I" exists/not exists even without life(with body)
I am only referring that as a common people we can feel "I" when we are living)
We may argue that body(as GodCon explains brain is dead flesh) is only dead, Soul still exists.
Now, if as God Con or many of us argue, that Soul exists irrespective of Birth and death.
Then we can give whatever name to that ever existing entity of "I" like Soul, Self, Atman,Subtle Energy, "I". Even we can tell he/she/it.
But the entity always exists.
Contd Part 2....
So, can we tell that entity which has the potential to provide life to a dead matter is Soul. And hence it can be referred to as "I".
ReplyDeleteSo, can we conclude that root which has the potential to convert the dead matter(body) to Living is Soul.
If this is contradicted, then we can go ahead saying that, if Soul is in its purest form as GodCon has commented: subtle energy, then it cannot be concentrated at a point(x,y,z) and time
It has to be everywhere.
So, this Subtle energy is ever existing, present everywhere.
The entire creation is "I".
It is only the creation of a body+ life that recognizes the existence.
In otherwords, We are able to recognize this existence, since we are alive.
Errate:
ReplyDeletePrevious comment
If this is contradicted: If this is "not" contradicted.
Continued....
Even though life/matter is formed or not "existence(creation)" continues to exist.
So (No Jivatman/Paramatman only Atman -Soul)Soul - > "Subtle Energy" - > Atman -> existence is "I". It has the ability to be recognized by itself.
The subtle energy (Soul) observes itself by creating life in it.
Ha Ha....
ReplyDeleteDear GodCon,
I shall not accept when you say I am jumping into the discussion in the middle. I have been part of this discussion from the first blog post. Since, I am not knowledgeable enough in philosophy and earn my bread through my logical thinking, I can only think of logic OR Observation and Inference. I have read every comment that was posted by Anweekshiki, TKLG, Arya, Student, Arlagada, GodCon, Pious, Raman and so on..
As you said might be patience is what is the problem. But, this is my nature. Do you want me to change?
Anyway, coming to the subject. Thanks for listing the question, those are exactly the question that I had. However, this is what I feel
Cont...
Advaita and dvaita discussion of GodCon, Arlagada and Raman explains more of the relation between Atma and Paramatma. It also defines the same with respect to each other, but has not been defined absolutely. So, instead of discussing about advaita and dviata we can discuss on Atma first
ReplyDelete"I" - Discussion is on.
Re-Birth - As GodCon told, we can take it up later when time comes
So, the two concepts we are into discussion is "I" and "Atma" . Student has few beautiful questions, can someone answer those
Dear Student:
ReplyDeleteThanks for investing such thought for us.
Do plants have life? Answer is Yes. Do they have "I"? Answer is PROBABLY No. But I would say, they should have an "I" in the dormant state, non-active, because mind could be dormant for them.
Does a 10 day old baby have an "I"? Of course yes. But, is it completely active yet? Probably No, because mind is still not completely active.
In part 1, you have reiterated whatever I said in the previous posts - that I can exist only when life exist, and life can exist when soul (living force?) exists; that it cannot be disassociated from Soul, so it always exists.
Now, you ask:
1) "So, can we tell that entity which has the potential to provide life to a dead matter is Soul"
-- Yes, according to me.
2) "And hence it can be referred to as 'I'"
-- I am not sure how you could conclude this. For example, lets say Fire results in Heat, can we say "hence we can refer to Fire as Heat"?. Or, since Flower has Fragrance, we cannot say "hence we can refer to Flower as Fragrance". So, even though some aspects (ex.Fire and Heat) are inseparable but that does not mean that they are interchangable.
3) "So, can we conclude that root which has the potential to convert the dead matter(body) to Living is Soul."
-- Same as Question 1.
4)"if Soul is in its purest form as GodCon has commented: subtle energy, then it cannot be concentrated at a point(x,y,z) and time, It has to be everywhere.
So, this Subtle energy is ever existing, present everywhere"
-- How did you conclude this? What do you mean by "Concentrated",do you mean "embodied", i.e. it cannot be restricted to a "body"? What do you mean by "Everywhere"? do you mean Everywhere WITHIN the Body or Everywhere inside-and-outside?
5) "So, this Subtle energy is ever existing, present everywhere"
-- Yes, it is EVER EXISTING for sure, but not not what you mean by Everywhere!!!
6) The entire creation is "I"
-- I am not sure how you conclude this!!!!*&#@()!@) hehe ... Do you mean that there only one "I"? In that case, is my "I" the same as your "I"??
7) "It is only the creation of a body+ life that recognizes the existence"
-- It is only through MIND that we can recognize the existence. Even when body has life and if the mind is inactive its recogniztion is dormant. So, body is just a temporary placeholder for mind and life :)
8) "We are able to recognize this existence, since we are alive"
-- Absolutely, we have discussed this in earlier posts. But, we may also have to acknowledge that whether we "recognize" its "existence" or not, it exists.
9) So (No Jivatman/Paramatman only Atman -Soul)Soul - > "Subtle Energy" - > Atman -> existence is "I".
-- You have been reading Sankhya Philosophy a lot I suppose hehe :) Essentially you are saying that you are atma, and that there is no paramatma or jivatma; you are everything. This has been the argument of Aralagada and Raman too. If this is so, then there cannot be multiple "I"s; then your I and my I should be the same, but are they? You are also saying that you are God, because you alone exist. How did you create this Universe my Lord? :) Just kidding. You are also saying that God is not knowledagable (or His knowledge can be covered by ignorance; He does not know Himself). There are other questions that I have posted to Aralagada and Raman, please comments on those.
10) It has the ability to be recognized by itself.
-- But, that still does not help us conclude that atma and paramatma are the same :)
Sorry for the long post, I have tried to be as short as possible but questions were really long and conclusions were not clear.
@TKLG:
ReplyDeleteIntelligence: ability to think rationally.
"The observed one need not be intelligent."
There flows an argument: If an observed is not intelligent, then how it can create living being that is intelligent.
If it should have the potential to create intelligence.
"Match box in itself is not hot"
"Sticks in itself are not hot"
"But fire is hot"
"So, Match box and Sticks and the user have the potential to create heat through fire if properly used."
In the similar way the Soul** - "I" in itself need not be intelligent.
But it can create intelligent living beings.
**(No Jivatman/Paramatman - only Soul)
Dear Bose,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for my comments about your involvement in the discussion :) I dont think any of us are knowledgeable about philosophy or anything. We also earn our bread by logical thinking :) We are here to learn through discussions and arguments. We have learnt in these discussions, time and again, that not everything can be learnt by observation, so inference makes a huge difference.
About changing or not, its your domain :) But we need to be open and patient when we want to learn anything, and in particular when the aspects discussed are of abstract, non-observable nature.
About Advaita and Dvaita: It is a natural question to have, because we are discussing concepts like God and "I". Some proposed that everything is GOD! Can we directly accept it without argument? Naturally different perspectives araise, and we need to acknowledge those views (which is where advaita, dvaita etc come into picture). And we need to propose our individual perspectives. So, the discussions take natural deviations to come back to its core :) So, again, we need to have some patience and openess to understand what perspectives exists and what "Jargons" are commonly used in these discussions :)
Enough of justification, lets have the discussions now :)
Dear Student:
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is hard to make out what portions in a post are your responses and what portions are comments of others. Please have some kind of demarkation. For example, atleast say: "You said:" and then have your comments with something "---" or "RESPONSE" or something. Also, please write in paragraphs, if possible, because most of your posts are a composition of single liners.
I apologize in advance if I seem to be acting like a ring master here, sorry, I do not intend to. I acknowledge that each of us have our own styles, but this is just a request. I really get confused at times with your posts in particular. Earlier, I used to be long now after feedback I have tried to be shorter.
You are very logical, I love your logic, so please continue to help us understand better.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteActually I was not asking questions...
Even though they looked like...
Sorry if you took it as questions...
It was only my view...
I put it in form of question -answer in the same comment... ;)
1. It is agreed that which has the potential to convert dead matter to living is Soul(subtle energy).
2. "This Subtle energy is ever existing, present everywhere"
- Ever existing - already agreed.
- When there is no matter, no body etc... When there is nothing present in the creation, there still existed the "existence". Whatever existed is the ever existing, every where existing...
That which existed in the Void of creation is everything.
body/matter came out from within this void.
This void by definition is in its pure form - no contamination - impartial.
The energy in its fine form.
So, it cant tell Soul is here or there, Soul is every where.
I meant this as Soul.
If everything we see today is from this void of nothingness, then this void in its purest form is impartial in distributing Jivatmans...
So I discarded Jivatman/Paramnatman (for these comments) and regarded only Soul - life providing energy.
May be confusing but tried my best to put thoughts...
3. "I" was meant by this void/Subtle Energy in its purest form - "The Soul"
called as GOD also.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your positive feedback...
I will try to put my comments in a more understandable manner...
Raman, are you awake?
ReplyDelete"I"
ReplyDelete"I am Arlagada", we never say I am Arlagada's mouth, Arlagada's legs, Arlagada's brain, Arlagada's heart. I just say
"I am Arlagada". i.e Arlagada is "I"
Similarly, GodCon is I, Arya is I, TKLG is I... Hence, Arlagada = Arya = GodCon = TKLG = I
Dont worry Srudent, you are also I ;)
Just a thought..... was just playing with words and this thought came in mind. Thought I will post it so that we can also have some fun. :)
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteHmmm ... So, you say ... Rose is Flower, Mallige is Flower, Chrysanthemum is Flower, Orchid is Flower ... hence Rose = Mallige = Chrusanthemum = Orchid!!!
Crow is Bird, Peacock is Bird, Owl is Bird ... hence Crow = Peacock = Owl.
Dog is Animal, Cat is Animal, Elephant is Animal, Ant is Animal .... hence Dog = Cat = Elephant = Ant ....
Milk is White, Crane is White, Swan is White, Paper is White ... hence Milk = Crane = Swan = Paper ....
We had a saying in primary school - More we study more we know, more we know more we forget, more we forget less we know, then why study. This appears logical but as we even think twice we know that there is some flaw in the logic.
I know I am taking things to extremes, and honestly that is the intention, just to highlight some issues. Different aspects have similar attributes but that does not imply that they are all same. They all belong to a "Category", so they are all one in that sense, but that does not imply that they are all literally one. We need to be careful in our logical conclusion :)
So, we are all "I"s but not the same or one "I"; we are all individual "I"s though "Categorically" same. If this is what you imply then I agree :)
GodCon,
ReplyDeleteAs I previously told you, That comment was just put for fun. Not with any motive.
Dear Student:
ReplyDelete1) You said: "The energy in its fine form. So, it cant tell Soul is here or there, Soul is every where.
I meant this as Soul."
-- Soul is everywhere. But your soul is in you. My soul is in me. Arya's Soul is in Arya. Aralagada's in Aralagada. Bose's in Bose. TKLGs in TKLG and so on. So my Soul is mine, yours is yours. Your Soul cannot, and does not, give Life to my Body and vice-versa. So, there are individual energy capsules that we are all composed of. But, as we have concluded earlier, there must be one Universal Source / Soul from which everything must have come, from which all Individual Souls (energy / life capsules) must have emanated. Even though the Universal Soul is also Soul and each of us is also a Soul, that does not mean that they are all the same. We need to be careful. This is what I commented on Aralagada's post too.
2) You said: "If everything we see today is from this void of nothingness, then this void in its purest form is impartial in distributing Jivatmans... So I discarded Jivatman/Paramnatman (for these comments) and regarded only Soul - life providing energy.
-- Again, you say that One aspect should be Impartial to the Other, there are two aspects that we need to acknowledge. Both these are of the same nature, of Soul, but such common terms can create confusion, so we have two different terms for our convenience - Jivatma and Paramatma. At a higher level we can discard these terms, but if you do at this level then you are creating more confusion.
-- For example: I am NOT GOD, if you think you are then I dont know. So, for me I and GOD are two different entities with some attributes that are similar but that does not mean that we can equate them - similar to what I commented to Aralagada's post. Monkeys and Humans have many similar attributes but they are different (in one sense they are the same, but in another they are different; we need to clarify these differences and similarities; should have the ability to differentiate).
3) "I" was meant by this void/Subtle Energy in its purest form - "The Soul" called as GOD also.
--- Yes, in Purest Form it is GOD, we have agreed on this. But we need to be clear when using terms, which is why we have different terms to signify differences; for example, we know Dog is different from Man even though both are animals. Why have different terms, have one term called Animal for everything?!!!
So, we need to be careful in how we use the terms, is what I feel.
Sorry Aralagada :) Oops! I did not catch the humour because you had been arguing with a similar logic in the past ;) Sorry again!
ReplyDelete"Similar Logic" ! ... I am not sure, on what basis you told me I have talking on similar logic. Anyway, Its not the place to discuss that.
ReplyDeleteDear Aralagada,
ReplyDeleteNow, I was just having fun, honestly :)
The ligher note aside, I was confused because you have been basing your arguments on Advaita till now, according to which there are no two "I"s there is only one and we see the difference only due to avidya. Anyway, lets move on.
@All:
ReplyDeleteGreat to see fun on this blog.
Please answer my one simple question.
"I" is associated with physical body. Once the body dies how can "I" exist?
Please let us not use "Energy" anywhere from now on. It just created ambiguity.
I will propose something to all who have associated Energy with Self.
Please list down all such properties of Self instead of naming it as energy.
The first and foremost of all the thoughts that arise in the mind is the primal ‘I’-thought. It is only after the rise or origin of the ‘I’-thought that innumerable other thoughts arise.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen, do the second and third personal pronouns (you, he, etc.) occur to the mind; and they cannot subsist without the former.
"I" is just a thought.
Dear Arya:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I" is associated with physical body. Once the body dies how can "I" exist?
-- I wish if this really was a simple question :) Anyway, let me try to answer this question with a question.
-- Once the body dies what happens?
Several possibilities are possible, but the once relavent to this context are:
1) The body dies and there is nothing beyond that. If this is so then there is no meaning to "I" after death
2) The body is always dead, what gives life to it is something called a SOUL (which is ever existing, as we have concluded in the past). When the Soul leaves the Body (for numerous reasons), the life in the body ceases to exist and the body is matter again.
So, Soul can exist outside the body. Can we say this, for option 2? We can also say that "I" cannot exist in a dead body! Right? So "I" can exist only when one has life! And life comes from Soul! So, "I" comes along with life, i.e. with Soul. So "I" is closely related to life, and in essence to Soul. So, it is Soul that carries, communicates, and pulls out the "I". And, Soul can exist outside a physical body, so I can exist outside a physical body.
But, we also have to note that even though a child is alive the "I" is may not be active yet. Plants have life, but I am not sure if there is an "I" in the plants. So, "I" can be in dormant states or active states, but they are there just like a tree is in its unmanifested state in a seed. It exists in its dormant state but through the interaction with water and soil it exhibits its presence. Similarly, an "I" gets active gradually with time when Soul is associated with a mindful body. So "I" is always there, but its awareness increases with the degrees of finetuned consciousness, i.e. from Plant Life to Animal Life to Human Life!!
Errata:
ReplyDelete"But, we also have to note that even though a child is alive the "I" is may not be active yet"
I meant:
But, we also have to note that even though a child (infant; baby) has life, its awareness of "I" increases as it matures. So its "I" may not be as active yet as it is for a grown up.
"The body is always dead, what gives life to it is something called a SOUL (which is ever existing, as we have concluded in the past). When the Soul leaves the Body (for numerous reasons), the life in the body ceases to exist and the body is matter again. "
ReplyDeletewe have not concluded that SOUL is ever existing. We assumed the existence of soul and later also assumed that this entity is ever existing and later started discussing about its relation with Super Soul.
So, I feel, before we speak any further about Soul OR try to associate "I" with soul OR try to define "I" using soul. I want to know how is that people came to understand that soul exist?
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteI want to understand the process of death; what YOU think happens with death? What is death? When one dies what is it that is missing, because the body that was alive just a second back is still there but is no more alive!! So, what is this life? where does life come from? How is it that we are alive? what is it that keeps us alive? How is it that we can reproduce more lifes? What is this "I"? Where does this "I" come from?
Please provide your perspective.
I also request you to kindly lead the discussion from now with logic and we (atleast I) will try to follow.
[[ I am packing for shifting my house, so will be intermittently in and out of the forum, so I aplogize for delayed responses ]]
Ho Ho.... GodCon, thats a huge list of question in front of me. I am poor Guy trying to understand few un-answered question ;) .
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I shall put my perspective as requested.
I have a kid, who asked me "What is GOD?". When, He asks questions, I must be capable of answering. He does not understand Atma, Paramatma, Advaita, dvaita. He is innocent and ignorent. To be very frank, I believe in God, when GodCon, Arlagada, Raman, Arya says answers, I can co-relate and understand those and have clarity in that direction. But the problem is, the same complecated philosophy cant be explained to a Kid. I am pretending to be a Atheist ignorent and innocent and trying to understand and define God in simple yet convincing way. Merceful God, I am sure can be defined in simple terms, just like many great being in this world are leading simple life.
@All
ReplyDeleteWhy are we always saying that when soul leaves the body (for numerous reasons) body ceases to exist.
Why can't it be that soul will itself die?
the following is is POV to answer my above question
- GOD is an ever existing aspect
- GOD created everything from himself as there cannot be no other raw material to create it from
- GOD himself has manifested in all creations and that form in the manifestations is called Self
- Therefore Self must also be an ever existing aspect
- Now I am not sure how self is related to the life giving aspect of the manifestation
e.g. there is life in a body. when body dies there is no life. What is that life giving aspect and how is it related to self?
Trying to answer this question
ReplyDelete"from where did life come?" I have the following answer - might sound a bit away from philosophy but this is what I believed all these days.
Empirical research into the fundamentals of life shows that a concoction of well-chosen elements (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, & nitrogen) exposed to non-ionizing ultraviolet radiation forms amino acids. Amino acids themselves have a remarkable capacity to chain together into proteins. And proteins have a rather "protean" ability to give shape and behavior to cells. It is now considered entirely possible that the very first amino acids took form in space – shielded from harder forms of radiation within vast clouds comprised of primordial and star-stuff material. For this reason, life may be an ubiquitous phenomenon simply awaiting only certain favorable conditions to take root and grow into a wide variety of forms.
And bose you are right...
ReplyDeleteOk now
ReplyDeleteCan the following be considered manifestations of GOD?
hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, & nitrogen, non-ionizing ultraviolet radiation, amino acids, proteins, vast clouds comprised of primordial and star-stuff material
&
"awaiting only certain favorable conditions" so who created favorable conditions ?
Is it GOD again?
and why?
When we concluded that body is not I, what we mean is "sthoola sharerea" (gross body). It is associated with other component - subtle body (sookhma shareera). This subtle body has indriaya and karana body. We also concluded that indriyas are not I. Karana body has praana and ahamkara. Pranaas has five constituents prana, apana, vyana, udana and samana. ahamkara has manah, buddhi, citta, and ahampratyaya.
ReplyDeleteIt can be shown that through similar arguments that I is somewhere in ahamkara.
It is now my turn to introduce jargon!!!
Dear Bose:
ReplyDeleteThe complexity of questions and inquiry increases with increasing levels of consciousness and exposure. For an animal, there is no need for the concept of God itself. For a Child, God is someone sitting above in the sky who created us all, as puppets. But as we mature and get a bit more inquisitive additional perspectives araise, and philosophy provides some of those perspectives. They sound jargonish in the begining but we get used those terms with time.
The "Chemical Body" argument that you mentioned is a typical atheistic representation but it does not discount "Soul" based arguments. An atheist eventually can thus discount God also, seeing everything including this world as an accidental sequence of chemical reactions. But again some more questions araise: What is it that creates, sustains, and stops this chemical activity? How can the "Chemical Body" argument explain Mind, Intelligence, Nervous System (a million nerve ends just in the eyes), Ego, Emotions, Morality, Memory, Pulse, Rhythm of the Heart, Sleep, Dream etc etc? What about the activities of the senses: smell, taste, hearing, seeing, feeling etc? Are all these results of mere Chemical Reactions or is there a higher cause? Can we reproduce these chemical reactions to reinitiate life, memory, mind, intelligence etc in a dead body? etc...
So, what you proposed in one alternative for sure, an atheistic one, which is why I said "1) The body dies and there is nothing beyond that. If this is so then there is no meaning to "I" after death".
An alternative perspective or argument is the soul based explanation which says that the this body is a result of chemical reactions, but life is not mere chemical reactions. All chemical activity is supported by a life giving aspect, an intelligence, mindful, moralistic base giving aspect. Body without Life (Soul) cannot be brought back through reinitiation of chemical activity; Chemical activity can happen only when there is life in the body.
There is more complexity to life than the perspective of chemicals. We interpret and understand complex aspects, mere chemicals cannot produce such intelligence. So, there must be something beyond and outside these chemical activities and Indian Seers called it Soul and I am absolutely convinced with that argument. I also acknowledge and respect other perspectives, but this is my perspective.
Dear Arya:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Can the following be considered manifestations of GOD?
hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, & nitrogen, non-ionizing ultraviolet radiation, amino acids, proteins, vast clouds comprised of primordial and star-stuff material"
-- They must be, based on our conclusions till now :)
You wrote: "awaiting only certain favorable conditions" so who created favorable conditions ? Is it GOD again? and why?"
-- I am not sure if THIS (favorable conditions) is GOD. As I wrote to Bose earlier, these FAVORABLE CONDITIONS are related to existence of LIFE (Soul) in the body without which the chemical activity could not have happened. And Soul (life) can be a minute aspect of GOD but not GOD in itself, because it has come from GOD.
Dear Arya:
ReplyDeleteSoul itself can die if soul is matter. That could be another perspective but needs to be argued. But if Soul is argued as energy (life energy; I know you do not want to hear this anymore hehe but how else could we have come to the point that we have?) and body as matter then Soul cannot die and only body dies.
"there is life in a body. when body dies there is no life. What is that life giving aspect and how is it related to self?"
-- I thought I have proposed my perspective on this in my post- May 16, 2010 10:43 PM. That life-giving aspect could be called soul, which according to you could be that which "GOD created from himself as there cannot be no other raw material to create it from". If GOD is of the nature of spirit (energy; non-matter) then this (Soul) should also be so. It is then from this that mind, intelligence, and memory araise and due to which the concept of self is active in human life.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteI think we are beating around the bush.
Ok let me question in a more direct way.
Considering TKLGs jargons gross body and subtle body.
Is this subtle body the life giving aspect? Is it present everywhere?
Again I do not want to bring this favorable condition because it takes us again to science and creates ambiguity.
Note: Please don't feel i am against science. What i feel is when we use science terminologies we attach some other attributes to it in addition to its literal meaning. Hence i don't prefer to use it.
In my "May 16, 2010 7:19 PM" comment I have proved that "I" is a thought. Having said that, the mind is a unique power (sakti) in the Atman (Self), whereby thoughts occur to oneself. On scrutiny as to what remains after eliminating all thoughts, it will be found that there is no such thing as mind apart from thought. So then, thoughts themselves constitute the mind.
ReplyDeleteAs GodCon said answering to Bose.
ReplyDelete"For an animal, there is no need for the concept of God itself. For a Child, God is someone sitting above in the sky who created us all, as puppets"
In the similar way, Nor is there any such thing as the physical world apart from and independent of thought. In deep sleep there are no thoughts: nor is there the world. In the wakeful and dream states thoughts are present, and there is also the world. Just as the spider draws out the thread of the cobweb from within itself and withdraws it again into itself, even so out of itself the mind projects the world and absorbs it back into itself.
Dear Arya:
ReplyDeleteI liked your beating around the bush ;) I thought I was straight as a stick haha anyway!!!
I thank TKLG for a precise piece of comment.
"Is this subtle body the life giving aspect? Is it present everywhere?"
Subtle body (constituting mind, intelligence and ego) again is a "body", a covering, around the life giving aspect. As I said before "I" is associated with the subtle body, which is formless and is always associated with the soul. In that sense it is wherever the soul is.
Errata:
ReplyDeleteI liked your beating around the bush ;)
I meant:
I liked your beating around the bush COMMENT ;)
@GodCon on May 17, 2010 6:42 AM:
ReplyDeleteResponse to your questions related to emotions, heart beat, life sustenance etc...
Response: All these processes can be explained in Science using enzyme activities, DNA activities etc... cloning(for last question)
Not going into details: certain amino acid chains, nucleotides, their bonding, chemical reactions etc... are responsible for all the questions posed...
It is a more detailed, much elaborate topic which requires enough scope like creating one more post/forum for discussion.
Only this discussion will be too much broadened beyond scope so, I refrain from taking the discussion...
There is no such activity that is not explained by science. Under the hood, you see that even the "emotional" aspect in many living creatures are also due to some particular Bio-Chemical enzymes. (Chemical locha! ;) )
ReplyDeleteBut apart from the first creation - The first start - The first seed - everything is explained in science. As Student rightly told, that can be a separate post (more easier than this one).
I am right, I am trying to prove it right, I am wrong, I have ego, I am egoless, I am ........., I am ......... and so on...
ReplyDeleteAs we have seen previously, only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen, do the second and third personal pronouns (you, he, etc.) occur to the mind; and they cannot subsist without the former.
"Who am I?" - Even when extraneous thoughts sprout up during such enquiry, do not seek to complete the rising thought, but instead, deeply enquire within, ‘To whom has this thought occurred?’ No matter how many thoughts thus occur to you, if you would with acute vigilance enquire immediately as and when each individual thought arises as to whom it has occurred, you would find it is to ‘me.’ If then, you enquire ‘Who am I?’ the mind gets introverted and the rising thought also subsides.
cont....
ReplyDeleteIf in this manner the ego or the ‘I’, which is the centre of the multitude of thoughts, finally vanishes and pure Consciousness or Self, which subsists during all the states of the mind, alone remains resplendent. It is this state, where there is not the slightest trace of the ‘I’-thought, that is the true Being of oneself. And that is called quiescence or Mouna.
The I in "ME" is different from the I is "YOU"....
ReplyDeleteI can think of following reasons for "ME" being different from "YOU"
1. "I" am tall(Short) than you - Physical difference
2. "I" am more quick and sharp than "YOU" - Reactional difference
3. "My"(I) approch to life is different from "yours" (YOU) - difference is thought process.
The list can go on....
In such way, when we deeply enquire, we find that the difference in ME and YOU is just merely EGO (Aham). This reminds me of one short story of Sri Kananka daasaru.
Cont....
Kanaka daasaru was a saint who was from a backward community, but was accepted as a disciple of Vyasaraayaru(an other great saint). As usually the Brahmin disciples of Vyasaraayaru did not like kanakadaasru since he was from a backward community. Knowing this internal cold hatred of Brahmin disciples towards calm and un-perturbed Kanakadaasaru, Vyasaraayaru posed a question in front of everyone. "Who will attain GOD?"
ReplyDeleteAnswers were thrown with great confidence. Guru will attain, I will attain, He will attain so on and so forth. Kanaka remained a silent observer of this drama until his guru Sri Vyasaraayaru explicitly asked him his view. Upon asking, he said
"If "I" goes, God can be attained" [in Kannada - "naanu" hodare hodeenu].
Dear Student:
ReplyDeleteAll the chemical activities that you claim can be explained, I have agreed to that, because those can be easily observed and experimented. Your explanation is more at a superficial level. Its like when I ask the functioning of a Television you are explaining the components of it - its circuitry, the tube, the pixels, the cable, electric charge exchanges etc etc. All these components function only when the TV is connected to a power source. Even when the TV is disconnected from power all these components exist but they do not react as expected of a TV.
Similarly, these amino acids, nucleotides or whatever you mentioned, all exist even when the LIFE is gone. Why is it that they cease to react? Can you mix all these chemicals and create life? Another chemical explanation can be provided, but even that will be superficial.
I too agree that we need to refrain from such topics so as not to deviate from this discussion. Even I would not mind discussing that on a different forum.
By last comment of mine:
ReplyDeleteI am not stopping discussion with help of science.
We need to bring in Science, but we should not start technically arguing over theories of science.
Ex: Thompson model of atom is wrong and Bohrs atomic theor is right, because of in scattering pheomenon we could see a large deviation of light etc...
But, interested people can put forth their views, by accepting largely accepted concepts, proven concepts, theories etc...
"
The advantage of using science in the discussion. it will open up new scopes in search of source.
We need to acknowledge that.
I request author to publish an article or a forum wherein people interested in discussing philosophy+science can be initiated.
Only to make sure that science is not left unexplored to its extent to explain "Source". "
@GodCon:
Anyhow:
Q1.
"amino acids, nucleotides or whatever you mentioned, all exist even when the LIFE is gone".
Answer - Failure of bondage of certain amino acids type. So, amino acids, nucleotides cease to exist in bonded form after death.
In otherwords, death is caused: when these life giving energy bonds of amino acid chains start disintegrating.
Arya I know you dont like it ;).
Energy is not mentioned here in literal sense, but with a background - molecular chains
It is due to the energy of molecules(matter) responsible for such a bondage.
Tracing down will again reach us to Soul - subtle energy.
Q2.
Can you mix all these chemicals and create life?
Answer: Yes. Many experiments carried out and these amino acid chain are formed. Cloning is yet another example for this.
And why do you say it is superficial? Are there any areas which is not explaining the questions?
Just asking for a feedback... :)
The logical results for a phenomenon cannot be superficial.
Guys,
ReplyDeleteThe discussion is in parallel travelling in two directions
1. Some are trying to answer "Who am I?"
2. Some are involved in the discussion about science and its role
3. Some are participating in both
I would suggest people to take up one at a time.
Shruthi Smrithi Puranam Alayam Karunalayam | Namami Bhagavadpada Shankaram Lokashankaram || ...
ReplyDeleteA saint who travel corners of Bharatavarsha, upheld Sanatana Dharama in the times when it was diminishing, proposed Advaita philosophy - let all bow to Sri Bhagavadpada Shankara on this day of Shankara jayanti
Dear Student,
ReplyDeleteShould we ignoren the requests of others and run this parallel discussion here?????? Let us not deviate again, please. If you want we can have a separate forum to discuss this as I have suggested earlier. Sorry that I have not even read your post, I aplogize. And I also sincerely apologize for probably "provoking" a response from you.
@Arlagada: In my "May 16, 2010 7:19 PM" comment I have proved that "I" is a thought. So then, thoughts themselves constitute the mind.
ReplyDeleteBut mind can be observed. Thought waves (vritti) can be observed by us. So, I is n ot "thought'". I is not "mind". mind is one component of ahamkara. Thought is generated in the mind. Ahamkara has two components, changing and unchanging. chaning is called anthakarana. Unchanging is called cidabhasa.
Who am I? is a question, A question arises when there is a thought. The very concept of I is relative. The very existence of "I" is because of "You", "He", "She", "that" and so on..
ReplyDelete"Its my(I) ball"
The above statement is said only when there are many others, whose the ball can possibly belong to. If there are no one calming the ball. The I factor does not exist. Thus, on this basis I say, I is "Ego". And when this ego vanishes, "I" Vanishes and eventually "YOU", "HE", "SHE" vanish into mouna
Thus when Ego vanishes, the individuality of infinite souls does not exist. This makes atma and paramatma the same.
ReplyDeleteEgo is ahampratyaya (or ahamartha). It is also an object of perception.
ReplyDeleteTKLG...
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be in a good mood of introducing Jargons - Arya's favorite. Anyhow, can you tell me how can ego become a object of perception
The cidabhasa is the reflection of the God through maya. It is called aatma, witness or the inner self.
ReplyDeleteEgo is an illusion. It is a reflection of the aatma. Ego is absent in sleep. It has qualites like pain, pleasure, aversion, desire etc. they are experienced as objective and are subject to cessation.
The knower(aatma) and the known (ego) coexist like the fire and the fuel in ahamkara.
My comment on May 17, 2010 7:58 AM
ReplyDeleteIn deep sleep there are no thoughts: nor is there the world. In the wakeful and dream states thoughts are present, and there is also the world. Just as the spider draws out the thread of the cobweb from within itself and withdraws it again into itself, even so out of itself the mind projects the world and absorbs it back into itself.
As you said, Atma exist in both Sleep and awake state. But, Ego exist only when awake, and does not exist when in deep sleep as TKLG says
@Student:
ReplyDeleteUsing science to explain GOD makes the argument on GOD bounded by the theories of science. When i said science it is physics/chemistry/biology etc.. The science follows a macro to micro approach where it keeps exploring new horizons everyday and it has no end until the end of human thought.
e.g: They discovered first elements, molecules, atoms, nucleus, electrons, protons & nucleons etc.. and the list grows and i am not sure when it ends
In contrast when discussing about GOD we have proved that any manifestation is from GOD.
So explore/unexplored science is from GOD. So it appears to me that science is a subset of the current discussion. Explaining a super set using a one subset of the super set is not the proper way.
@All
ReplyDeletethe previous comment from anonymous was from Arya!
@TKLG:
Thank you for introducing more jargons :-(
You said sukshma sharira has indriya and karna bodies. What are they?
How did we conclude indriya body is not "I"? I missed the argument
Karna body has praana and ahamkara? What are they?
What are the constituents of praana? (prana, apana, vyana, udana and samana) How were they classified?
Similarly you said "ahamkara has manah, buddhi, citta, and ahampratyaya." what are these classifications. The words don't mean anything to me (I am bad at sanskrit)
Ahamkara has two components, changing and unchanging. changing is called anthakarana. Unchanging is called cidabhasa. What is this changing and unchanging?
Please provide a glossary to refer to the meanings
we have limbs and something more.
ReplyDeleteSthoola shareera is physical body with limbs + Something more is called sookhma shareera.
Sookhma shareera = indriyas + something more
Indriyas are facutly of seeing, hearing etc Let us call something more as Karana shareera
Karana shareera has prana + something more.
Prana are five responsible for respiratory, circulatory, assimilative etc forces)
Let us call Something more as Ahamkara
Ahamkara = manah+ buddhi+citta+ahampratyaya
manah (faculty that receives stimuli from external world, seat of emotions)
buddhi is intellect
citta is thought
ahampratyaya is ego
But ahamkara can also be seen as composed of two things. anthakarana and cidabhasa. cidabhasa is aatma.
anthakarana is translated/used differently by many/contexts as ahamkara, ego, I, mind etc. All of these, looks to me as loose translations. Anthakarana + cidabhasa is based on the human experience.
It provides conceptual clarity to define aatma/witness and to relate human to God.
@TKLG: Thank you for providing clarity on the jargons.
ReplyDeleteI will use the jargons used by you in my future discussions because the glossary looks well defined.
I am finding it difficult to answer few questions. I will ask my questions one by one
1)How did we divide Sharira into Sthoola sharira and Sookshma sharira?
e.g. There is a body with limbs(sthoola sharira) and there is a life giving aspect to this body which i think is sookshma sharira(correct me if i am wrong). Now when the sthoola sharira dies will the sookshma sharira die? "YES/NO" please explain?
@All
ReplyDeleteLet me give more clarity on my doubt
1) we all know that Sthoola sharira will die (and it is cremated/buried etc).
2) Sookshma sharira as you said has indriyas and more. Indriyas will also die with Sthoola sharira right?
3) Sookshma sharira also has karna sharira which has prana. Prana will also die with the sthoola sharira right?
4) Karna sharira also has ahamkara. Ahamkara has manah(will die with sthoola sharira), buddhi(will die with sthoola sharira), citta(will die with sthoola sharira), ahampratyaya(will die with sthoola sharira) Am i right?
5) You said ahamkara can also be seen as composed of two things. anthakarana and cidabhasa. cidabhasa is aatma.You said anthakarana is ego, I, mind etc. So anthakarana will also die with sthoola sharira.
6) Now i don't know about cidabhasa. How do we decide it dies/not dies with sthoola sharira. If it dies there is no difference between sthoola and sookshma sharira..
Guys,
ReplyDeletePlease read "Thattvaboda" written by Adi Shankaracharya. I assure you all that your questions and answers will get smarter and get very close to "I" which is supposed to be the only truth ! This may also help you all to identify attributes of I which are not covered by Shankara himself and upanishads. Debating on attributes explained in these sources may help us to extrapolate "I" further if you are not satisfied with those explanations.
For example, our upnishads have already highlighted that I is beyond bodies(both grass and suttle), states(waking, dream and deep sleep), gunas( sat, rajas and thamo), pancha koshas, pancha pranas etc.
I suppose the "I" in you and the "I"s in all is same.
(If "I"s are different and If I am not Shankaracharya :-)), My sincere pranams to Adi Shankaracharya.
In all the above discussion what I saw is we are not mapping "I" with Physical things like senses, limbs, gray matter so on and so forth. But, we are trying to map it to "Atma". This Atma is assumed to exist and is assumed to have no death. On what basis this assumption were made.
ReplyDeleteIn my openion the word atma has come in to existence in the process of extrapolation(and not interpolation!)and not an mere assumption. We have a discrete set of data points like limbs, sensary organs, bodies, senses, the mind controling the senses, states, pancha koshas and likes. There is some level of uncertainity associated due to this extrapolation! Also, we have seen instances where persons remember their earlier lives. Obviously this leads atma to span across lives.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou say that, the existence of atma can be observed because of re-birth. Then, we will also have to contemplate about what is re-birth? how does it happen? when does it happen? why does it happen?
@Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteHow do we do the interpolation?
@Bose:
You are right! I think in order to prove that cidabhasa(atman) does not die with sthoola sharira we have to logically deduce that cidabhasa(atman) stays across birth and death life cycles or is free from birth and death.
@All
Let us discuss the above question and once we have complete clarity on it I have more questions!
We all know the law of cause-and-effect.
ReplyDeleteSuppose a dark, gray cloud shoots out lightning that strikes down a heavy tree, which in turn falls down on Bob’s favorite car. Its fall was simply caused by the lightning, which was caused static electricity, which resulted from the clouds, which came about by weather patterns etc
Similarly, Today we are participating in this forum which is inarguably an effect caused by our interest. like wise, our participation can possibly lead to some effect. Extrapolating backward with the help of applying Cause-Effect law, can we determine the existence of SOUL?????
GodCon are you awake?
ReplyDeleteSoul is ever existing...
ReplyDeleteSome inference:
Soul can't be seen, its presence can only be inferred.
For Ex: Water in Green bottle appears to be green.
Water in Red Bottle appears to be Red.
It is blue under sky.
But water is colorless.
If you want to see the water's it has to be in some container like river, bottle, can etc...
In the similar way, The Soul is inferred based on the material body and complex layers of Mind, intellect covering it.
Just for argument sake:
Let us take a living body say X.
This body dies...
Until then it was identified as X. (Soul was identified as X)
After death, the body decays and worns out...
But the Soul is still there.
But we cannot infer its presence.
Because it is not bound under material body.
So, Soul is infered based on material body it acquires.
If material body is not there we cnnot infer.
But, neverthless Soul exists. Only that we cannot infer it.
Errata:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see the "waters color" it has to be in some container like river, bottle, can etc...
@Student,
ReplyDeleteyou said
"The Soul is inferred based on the material body and complex layers of Mind, intellect covering it."
My question is: what is the observation that is related to complex layers of mind and intellect which is in turn supporting the existence of "soul"?
At a given moment of time any thought that arises in our mind is based on some other thought which had previously occurred (Cause – Effect law). When a new thought takes birth in our minds it will have a parent thought. To give an example.
ReplyDeleteBefore taking an example, I would like to make you people understand the relation between speech and thought. Speech is a bi-product of a thought. Without a thought, speech cannot exist and without speech (can also be actions, writing, body language) a thought cannot be expressed.
Cont…. with applying cause-effect law on thoughts.
“I had a dream tonight” - A bi-product of dream itself -------------- Statement 1.
“What was the dream about” – A child of Statement 1 -------------- Statement 2.
“[Dream is explained]” – bi-product of dream AND child of Statement 2. This way the chain of thoughts will get into an infinite chain of thoughts.
Conversely, every thought that takes birth has to have a death (rule of birth and death). So, at some point every thought should die eventually. So, now the question is where did the very first thought come from? OR what is the cause for the very first thought.
When enquired keenly, we can observe that there must be one such thought which ever exists and which will subsequently gives birth to the chain of thoughts. Can this thought itself be “SOUL”
//The definition of first ever existing thought
Abstract Class Thought
{
//Basic thought which has nothing
}
//The new thought that is derived from ever existing thought
Class ChildThought : Thought
{
//Some thought defined
}
.
.
.
And so on ………….
@Student:
ReplyDeleteAfter death, the body decays and worns out...
But the Soul is still there.
How did you infer that the cidabhasa(atman/Soul)is still there?
@Arlagada:
Is cidabhasa(atman)a thought? But we all know thought dies with the sthoola sharira. So will cidabhasa(atman)die?
That is what I could observe from my analysis.
ReplyDeletewe have seen that Atma is free of I(ego), I is a thought. when there is no I(ego)- there is no other thought. i.e mauna.... So, Atma can just be an ever existing empty thought.
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteI think you are confused or you are trying to confuse us
You said cidabhasa(atman)is free from thought(I).
You said when there is no I/ego, there is no thought.
You also cidabhasa(atman) is an ever existing empty thought.
How can something which is free from THOUGHT be an ever existing empty THOUGHT?
"I" will exist when there is a want for something or when there is a desire for something. but when there is no "I" - it means to say there is no desire there is no want for anything.....
ReplyDeleteThere must be some thought that is ever existing as per the logic explained in my May 18, 2010 9:12 PM comment. However, let me explain it using set theory
Let B is a set of all thoughts that describes a ball
B = {Ball is sphear, It is a plastic ball,...... }
Let Y be the set of all thoughts that describes a triangle
T = {size of triangle, .... etc}
Similarly, let UT be a universal set of all thoughts in this world
UT = {B, T, ......etc}
i.e B (U) T (U) ..... (U) ..etc = UT. Similarly, there must be one such set which is a empty set ET such that none of the thoughts (B,T.. etc) exist. Such a empty set itself can be your cidabhasa - The Atman
error correction....
ReplyDelete"Let T be the set of all thoughts that describes a triangle"
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteok let me give more clarity on my doubt
1) You said there is an Empty set(ET) in the Universal Set of thoughts(UT).
2) It means ET has the same properties that any other element in UT is there right?
3) I am with the impression that all thoughts die with the sthoola sharira
4) You have said ET is cidabhasa - The Atman
5) As per point 3 (stated above) even ET should die with the sthoola sharira
6) Are you concluding that cidabhasa - The Atman will die with the sthoola sharira
On what basis did you come to this conclusion that all thoughts will die with sthoola shareera
ReplyDeleteIt took almost a week to read the comments.... Must appreciate the discussion.
ReplyDeleteYou people have concluded that God is a creator, sustainer and destructor of everything. My question is simple.....
Why did he create, why does he have to sustain and why does he have to destroy?
I strongly feel, until we answer "WHY", we cannot understand "HOW"
I concluded that because
ReplyDelete1) thoughts as per definition are created in the mind.
2) Mind is associated with the sthoola sharira(correct me if I am wrong)
3) So when the mind dies, thoughts also die.
this is my inference. If you think my inference is wrong please provide the correct version
@Govinda:
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the discussion(on behalk of all of us here). Yeah your question is very apt. We in fact will get to the question a little later. We are currently discussing "cidabhasa - The Atman". Let us get clarity on this topic and let us move on to that
Yes, exactly.... when mind dies all the thoughts associated with the body also dies... So, the next question is , is it possible to have any thoughts that are not associated with the body. If so, then it need not die with the death of the body.
ReplyDeleteWe had concluded that
ReplyDelete1) GOD is an ever existing aspect
2) GOD manifests himself in all the manifestations.
Now we are saying that there is something called "cidabhasa (Atman)" in the sookshma sharira
Using the above 2 points can we conclude that "cidabhasa - The Atman" is also an ever existing aspect?
If NO please give comments
If YES then "cidabhasa - The Atman" is free from birth and death because it is an ever existing aspect.
Your discussions are encouraging me to identify myself in relevance to this group.
ReplyDelete@Bose,
My answers on your 3 questions on rebirth
How: Rebirth happens through womb, egg, soil or air.
When: After the present body (sthoola shareera) grows and ages and dies (stops functioning).
Why: Possible reasons are a) incomplete karma or b) unfulfilled desires or c) unmet objective (again the question is what is the objective of Atman. Why does it exist?).
@Arya,
Interpolation is not possible here as it has to be done within the specific range. We would have got the right answer if we could interpolate.
Rebirth may not happen if the above three reasons (a, b and c) are met. In that case Atman (Chidabhasa) will be free from Shareera.
I suppose Chidabhasa is manifestation of paramatma in all beings. Manifestaion happens due to maya !
@Arlagada,
I believe you ( I mean “I”) can exist without ‘thought’. Thouht is another attribute of "I"
So Chidabhasa(atman) is an ever existing aspect.
ReplyDeleteAre there any comments refusing this?
Is "I" this Chidabhasa(atman)? If YES then "I" should also be ever existing.. Can we infer that?
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteOoops so much has happened in the past 2 days, wow :) I have been busy with my packing, in my preparations to move.
I have not been able to read the whole thread of discussion yet. But, just wanted to comment on Arya's concluding comments. Apologize in advance if I have interpreted wrongly.
This is from my understanding.
Arya says: "So Chidabhasa(atman) is an ever existing aspect"
1) Why do we have Atman in brackets for Chidabhasa? Have we by any chance inferred them as interchangeable terms? Ooops!! May be I have misinterpreted it.
1a) Chit-Abhasa or cidabhasa cannot be Atman. It clearly says "chit" which is a reflection of the presence of that Atman, its Chit attribute. Fire has the attribute of heat, and the heat we feel is a reflection of the presence of that attribute, and heat exists because of that attribute of fire, but we cannot conclude that heat is fire even though they are closly linked with each other. We need to be careful. Just as heat cannot be separated from fire, the abhasa or that reflective nature of chit cannot be separated from atman.
Chidabhasa is very relevant in the discussion of ahamkara and thus related to the discussion of atman from which roots the ahamkara, but we cannot call chidabhasa as atman.
This is my understanding. If there is any reference from a scholar that can help us clarify these aspects please do quote.
2) I too have proposed in the past that chitabhasa, which is an evidence of presence of Atman, is an ever existing aspect.
Arya Said: Is "I" this Chidabhasa(atman)? If YES then "I" should also be ever existing.. Can we infer that?
Again, I am not sure why we have atman in brackets for chidabhasa. Anyway. Yes, according to my understanding this "I" is a chidabhasa, and as I have argued in the past too, it should also be ever existing - in dormant/unmanifested or active/manifested states.
Please excuse my intermittent absence and presence in the forum due to my personal engagements.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteA small correction to what I said:
I had said: Yes, according to my understanding this "I" is a chidabhasa, and as I have argued in the past too, it should also be ever existing - in dormant/unmanifested or active/manifested states.
I meant: According to my understanding, "I" ever exists, but "I"ness (its awareness) is a manifestation of that "I". Aham always exists but aham"kara" is a manifestation of that Aham. Similarly, chit ever exists, its aabhaasa (reflection; through mind) is a manifestation of that chit, chidaabhaasa. So, there are manifested and unmanifested states of that which always exist.
Sorry if this is confusing. I believe that we need to contemplate on this to get deeper into the idea.
@All:
ReplyDeleteIf everyone meant as Atman by chidabhaasa, then better we will stick to "Atman". Since, changing terminologies at this stage will create more confusions...
Anyhow, by the discussions, it looks Arya, TKLG, Arlagada, meant Atman/Soul as Chidabhaasa...
first time I am hearing this word "chidabhaasa" .. Why should Atma exist?
ReplyDelete@Arya:
ReplyDeleteResponse to May 19, 2010 3:59 AM:
"Using the above 2 points can we conclude that "cidabhasa - The Atman" is also an ever existing aspect?"
Response:
GOD is an ever existing aspect.
But GOD is a single soul or set of innumerable souls?
GOD={Soul1, Soul2, Soul3,...SoulN}
GOD is a set of innumerable Souls.
If GOD is ever existing aspect, then it follows that all the Souls are ever existing aspects.
If Souls are not ever existing, then GOD is not ever existing.
{If you take a liter of water from X quantity, of river, then there appears no change in the river. The river seems to stay the same.
But what seems is not always true.
There is a reduction in the quantity of water.}
In the same way GOD is river of souls. But difference is there is no Third party who can take a liter ;) of Souls from the river-GOD.
In otherwords, there is nothing beyond GOD, GOD is everything.
Hence GOD is ever existing. So,Hence all the souls ever exist.
@Govinda:
ReplyDeleteWhy should Atma/Soul exist?
Atman exists because it can't non exist.
Atman cant non-exist because it "only exists".
For more: previous comment.
GOD={Soul1, Soul2, Soul3,...SoulN}
IfSoul1 non exists(say ;))
Then GOD={null,Soul2,...SoulN}
Then GOD is no more GOD.
But GOD is changeless, So Soul1 cannot non-exist.
Since GOD is changeless, Souls ever exist.
Since Souls ever exist GOD is changeless.
Dear Student,
ReplyDeleteI very much appreciate your logic and conclusions. I suppose you were trained as a programmer or program designer ;) there is a sequence to your logic :)
But, we also have to be careful with the "set theory" of God. Because as someone else mentioned earlier, there could be a null set to. God is not a "collection of Souls".
You cannot say that "God is a set of innumerable Souls". I understand your intentions, and I respect and appreciate it. But, when we say the above, we are discounting the "INDEPENDENT" nature of God, that God does not have an independent existence outside Soul. The very set exists because God exists in the first place, a conclusion that we have come to after good discussion.
I liked your statement that there is no third-party who can take a liter ;) :) Even if one takes things will remain same because WE ARE TALKING IN INFINITE TERMS; Infinite - infinite is also infinite; infinite+infinite is also infinite. But a River in your example is a finite aspect so talking away a liter can make a fractional change, but this is not applicable for something which is infinite.
I understand the limitations of measuring an infitite aspect through finite means (koopa maNduka nyaaya; we are limited by what we already know and thus express the unknown through the unknown). We need to acknowledge this aspect, that the set theory analogy is only a "crude example" and not the perfect representation of what God could be.
God is everything, but everything is not God :)
There are many spelling and sentence mistakes in my post, I apologize. For example: "too" has become "to", "taking" has become "talking" and so on. But one phrase that is completely messed up is:
ReplyDeleteI wrote: (koopa maNduka nyaaya; we are limited by what we already know and thus express the unknown through the unknown).
I meant: ... express the unknown through the known)
I hope things are taken in context :) I know they will be :)
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteGOD has manifested himself into innumerable SOULS.
Because GOD has created out everything out of himself.
The SOULS have ever existing aspects, because GOD has.
But, Every SOUL is not GOD, I agree to that.
But GOD is an aspect with innumerable collection of SOULS.
And coming to that infinite finite concept.
What we understand as inifite is because we are unable to measure/comprehend something because of its numbers/vastness etc...
This is what I meantoned that there cannot be a third party since, GOD is everything and "GOD is infinite(; missed)".
Hence there is no question of movement of SOUL- Changes in SOUL
If someone has learnt something, it should be either by experience else by study.
ReplyDeleteSo, how did you people learn the presents of SOUL? (I mean, where did you study OR how did you experience)
@Govinda:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be very keen on understanding the why of of all.
@Student:
Your answer to Govinda has lot of assumption which are not proved.
Why should Atma/Soul exist?
Atman exists because it can't non exist.
Atman cant non-exist because it "only exists".
1) How did you say it can't non-exist?
2) You are trying to explain one problem using another problem which is not a solution to the problem
3) Your concept of GOD as a set of souls doesn't make any meaning.
4) We had concluded that GOD is omnipresent(present everywhere)
5) Since GOD is present everywhere it is an indivisible unit(you cannot take a portion of GOD and associate some attributes to it and say it as SOUL1 and then another portion as SOUL2 etc)
If you still insist in doing so you tend to reject the omnipresence of GOD.
to give more clarity.. there is water(H2O) on this earth. It is in various forms ocean,sea,river,lakes,ponds,tanks etc.. So it is the same water which is there everywhere which is the universally accepted truth but if you say Water={ocean,sea,river, etc} it is making the water confined to the set which is in fact not correct.
@ Arya
ReplyDeleteThere is point in what Govinda is trying to understand. So, he being keen is acceptable
@Student...
I accept with Arya. GodCon also probably meant the same.
As GodCon said.. These kind of set theory, logic should sometimes be considered as crude examples which is trying to explain certain concepts.. However, we must be very careful while using such methods, because these can be so abstract that it can be understood in altogether a different way.
When a software is re-written, we know that the concept and features of the software already exist - A newly re-written software might have more features OR might be optimized.
ReplyDeleteMy question now is
Is RE-BIRTH something similar to Re-writing?
Is the concept similar to SOUL?
If yes, then what does this concept constitute of?
@Bose,@Govinda:
ReplyDeleteI think you are way beyond the current discussion. I don't know about others who are discussing here, but myself i am not getting clarity on GOD. See some body says it is set of SOULS, somebody says infinite concept etc..
So without correctly getting clarity on the fundamental we cannot move to Re-birth or Why of all these?
So please give clarity on this first and then let us all move on one page to further questions. Let us not jumble up too many concepts.. You know I am already a poor guy suffering from jargon phobia now it should not turn to jumble phobia
@Arya....
ReplyDeleteyou seem to be having a list if phobia.... There is one more phobia with you are suffering from. i.e wording phobia...
Dear friend, I am not beyond the discussion but behind. When I ask, from where did we arrive at soul which people are already discussing, about which you are already wanting clarification and about which I dont even know how did we come to it.... I can only be behind and not beyond.. :) ...
@Govinda:
ReplyDeleteGood you are behind.. I have got a companion. I never said we have arrived at SOUL. Even i am asking the same question what is SOUL. where did it came from. I suppose all rational beings on this blog are discussing the same thing.
I just said let us not mix up the concepts. Let us first discuss what we are discussing and then take up future doubts.
If you think the order in which we are discussing is wrong please tell us. See i am ignorant of all these concepts. I am here to learn.
Thanks for telling that i have wording phobia. Will work on that if i am so bad ;)
@All:
ReplyDeleteSo should we discuss Why did GOD manifest(I hope that is the question Govinda is asking)?
Or should we first get clarity on what is Atman after which you can solve the problem of Why did GOD manifest?
@Arya:
ReplyDeleteYou Said:
"GOD is an indivisible unit."
"Entire creation has come out of GOD"
Then Do you intend to state that there is only one SOUL?
You also say that:
"GOD is in all manifestations".
It is proven that GOD has manifested himself into everything that is today, was before and after.
Then if GOD is indivisible unit, then he should have a indivisible manifestation. How did you conclude that there are many manifestations of GOD?
Then GOD has to be in all the SOULS that he has manifested in.
Do you agree to that?
What is your Point of View?
ok it looks like we are sticking to the topic of GOD yet.
ReplyDeleteI never told there is only one SOUL. All i said is there is only one GOD. In fact you people have introduced the concept of SOUL and are confusing me and Govinda.
Again i never said there are many manifestations of GOD. I said
GOD manifested himself(not divided himself) as manifestations. E.g. There is water. It is there in Ocean, Sea, River, Lake, Pond, Tanks, etc.. but it is the same water.
So, we have come back to SOUL yet again :D ;)
ReplyDeleteWe have argued and agreed that GOD exists! That GOD is some form of energy (not material or physical energy, so people call it Universal or Spiritual Energy)! EVERYTHING has come from Him! We have established that GOD is Eternal (ever Existing)! Omniscient! etc etc etc
Now, we (life) exist. We discussed what the source of this life is (but we could not conclude). We discussed what we probably are, but we could not conclude much here. Did/could we atleast conclude that we are not just this body or mind?
But, there is something in this body that keeps it running, which provides "favorable conditions" (for chemical activities within). Some argued that there is no such source of energy, it is all just chemical reactions. Some of us argued that there is a source of energy, which we termed it SOUL - the life giving aspect.
I am not sure if those who argue that we are just a bunch of chemicals agree that God Exists (Even if He exists, He is a Chemical Factory Owner), and there is little reason to believe that this world is meaningul (everything is goverened by just physical laws).
For those who propose that there is some source of intelligent and life giving energy in all of us, and there is every reason to believe that God exists. That intelligence energy source that gives life to the body (dead matter), thought to the intellect and son on.
Will Continue ...
We (living entities) have LIFE and we are not just a bunch of lifeless chemicals; life cannot come from matter, life can come only from life. So, there is something that differentiates us from dead matter. There is some source of life and intelligence within all of us, which differentiates us from dead matter. Once this aspect is "gone", i.e. the body bereft of it, we are nothing but dead matter.
ReplyDeleteSo, that aspect that gives LIFE and intelligence in all of us is called SOUL. (For the chemical factory argument, the aspect that gives favorable conditions for Chemical Activities in us unlike chemicals in dead matter is called SOUL, the life giving aspect).
If we agree to this then we can discuss about specifics of SOUL (where did it come from, its relationship with GOD etc). Until then let us not deviate to other topics.
The water in the bucket was overflowing. The entity responsible for this is called BALL.
ReplyDeleteIs this the definition of a BALL?
There is life in a body. The entity responsible for this is SOUL.
Is this the definition of SOUL?
So as to define "I", we need to deine soul, null, ball, life, body, water, space, chemicals binding these and the owner who of the all these entities?
ReplyDeleteShould we include accelerators and catalystss as some of these entities are ever increasing Also sum od lifes is constant ?
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteYou tend to state that, Life is there, Since Soul is there.
So, obviously all other living beings(plants, animals) has SOULs.
But do non living beings also have SOULS?
The question means that what aspect of the SOUL to provide life to dead matter?
@All
ReplyDeleteI am sorry if i am diverting the topic but thought in this direction we can get some clarity
CREATION:
An object can be created in two ways
1) Change or modification of a substance from which it is made(already existing)
2) By an error that mistakes the real substance for something else
We all agree that GOD exists.
Some are saying Atman/SOUL was created.
Which way was it created (1) or (2)
@Arya
ReplyDelete1. Change made for a substance - how do you call it as a creation. It is just manifestation of the existing one..
2 - point.. I am not clear about this. please explain this method of creation
I thought of giving clarity but sorry if it confused you
ReplyDeletesince you have asked
Let me explain both the types of creation with egs
1) There is a pot made out of clay which you will buy. If you ask the person who created it, how was it created? He will say brought some clay, gave the shape of a pot to the clay(using tools), then burnt it nicely to make it hard. Here pot is created by changing or modifying the clay.
2) There is just a lump of clay in a dark room. You go there. You will see there is a pot in the room(but it was just a lump of clay in the form of a pot).
Hope you got the difference?
In both cases POT is created but the process is different
ReplyDelete@Govinda:
ReplyDeleteI dont think we can go into a complete definition yet without confusing everyone :) So lets take it one step at a time and treat this as a partial or working definition. At this stage lets just see if we can acknowledge its existence; definition, if at all, comes much later when we discuss the specifics. Do we know if it is the BALL that resulted in Overflow, can we acknowledge that. That is first step. So, do we acknowledge the aspect, is the question on hand. Do we, do you?
@Madhva:
We will come back to the "I" question later. Let us see if we can acknowledge that there must be a soul (an aspect that radiates life, thought, and intelligence)in all of us, and that we are not mere chemical factories, and that God is not a chemical factory owner who does nothing but produce numerous chemicals. We can revisit other questions in context of this acknowledgement.
@Student:
From my personal understanding, non-living beings do not have SOULS; since we treat SOUL as that which gives life, thought and intelligence. We will come to the other question soon. Let us see if we all can acknowledge that there is a possibility (good reason to believe) that there is a SOUL within us.
From here we can take the next step and examine / explore soul from different angles.
GodCon,
ReplyDeleteI was not getting into the definition. I was trying to understand the way in which the definition was put. Probably I did not communicate it properly.
You said
Soul is nothing but a life giving aspect.
My question is "Is it a definition? OR is it one of the properties of SOUL"
Dear Arya:
ReplyDeleteI suggest that we do not jump topics, because we will end up coming back to the same topic if we jump yet again. Whether SOUL was created or not comes only after we acknowledge that a SOUL exist. If we do not acknowledge this fact then there is no meaning to how it was created. We can revisit your question once we cross this hurdle. So I request you to read my post May 20, 2010 5:44 PM, and post your opinion - whether we are a result of mere chemical acitivities/factory or there is some subtle aspect that gives life beyond chemical activities (please do not base your comments on this crude summary but the original post).
Sorry that I have been insisting everyone the same thing because we seem to be revisiting the same questions again and again, primarily because we have been jumping between topics. Let us focus and take one question at a time.
Hmmm... I get you Arya.... thank you
ReplyDeleteDear Govinda:
ReplyDeleteI dont think I have ever said that "Soul is nothing but a life giving aspect". I dont think I would ever say so. Sorry if I have. It is definitely fractional part of the definition and a property of the SOUL, according to my understanding.
But, for now let us not get to even this question. Lets get back to basics and ask the basic most question about life and soul, if it makes sense to infer its existence, if not there is no meaning to these definitions.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteSorry if my comment looked like jumping the topic(because i was the one who told Govinda not to jump topics). All i was trying was to address the problem at hand SOUL/Atman in a different angle(sorry if that attempt was not clear enough). Anyway that is ok.
Before proceeding further into your comment
Please define LIFE
@Arya, @GodCon
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why people are behind me. I have not even started any discussion - but there is already an allegation that I am jumping topics.
@GodCon,
Not once, but many times you told Soul is life giving aspect.
May 14, 2010 6:52 AM
May 16, 2010 11:30 PM
May 17, 2010 9:38 AM
May 17, 2010 6:42 AM are some of those
If you give a search "Life Giving" onto this webpage you get 18 entries. However, My question was just this
"Where did we arrive at this term called SOUL from?"
"What is this soul?"
If you feel its jumping topics, I am sorry....
Ho.. Govinda... Sorry for what has happened. I strongly feel the intentions have been mistaken
ReplyDeleteGuys,
I understand that the intention was not to put allegation on Govinda or someone else, But the intention was to have a clear step step approach. But, lets all be a bit careful about the words..
We shall proceed with the discussion.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteAs per your view:
We can first see whether SOUL exists or not.
For that first we will have to see how an object is perceived through senses and communicated with intellect.
What happens if senses are not there?
Do we tell mind is not working?
Before that What is mind?
I think I am not deviating...
I felt that Before talking about SOUL, we will have to see whether for the "being" SOUL is required or not?
Please present your views...
@Govinda: I am really sorry. I did not mean to accuse you. If my words meant that, I apologize. Yeah we are here for discussing a topic so lets proceed with that.
ReplyDelete@Student:
I am not saying you are deviating.. Let us go step by step as GodCon, Arlagada has said.
Let GodCon define LIFE. If anyone else knows the definition please mention.
Why I am stressing the term LIFE is because this LIFE giving aspect has been mentioned many times and has been the source of confusion.
LIFE:
ReplyDeleteA system which is sensitive to events in its environment and act to it by using its instinct,experience,knowledge using "will" to do and perform an action.
System = Body as a system.
ReplyDelete@Student:
ReplyDeleteThere is lot of confusion in the definition
1) How can life be sensitive to its environment when it is the cause?
2)How can it have experience or knowledge? If it has then it should die with the human body.
3) What "will" does it have? Why should it perform action?.what kinds of action does it perform?
Please elaborate the definition
Dear Govinda:
ReplyDeleteYes, I have said that "Soul is life giving aspect" and I will continue to say that. But I have never said that "Soul is nothing but a life giving aspect" (which is what you wrote), where "NOTHING BUT" makes a HUGE difference. When I say the former my definition is still OPEN but when I say the latter I have already CLOSED the definition. And, I am sure I have not used the latter that you stated, if I have then I take it back, I stick with the former. I hope this clarifies.
Dear Arya and Others:
ReplyDeleteThis is from the Dictionaries (just to give a working and generally accepted definition):
**** From the "Science Dictionary" ****
LIFE:
1) The properties or qualities that distinguish living plants and organisms from dead or inanimate matter, including the capacity to grow, metabolize nutrients, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and adapt to the environment. The definitive beginning and end of human life are complex concepts informed by Medical, legal, sociological, and religious considerations.
2. Living organisms considered as a group, such as the plants or animals of a given region.
----------
**** From the "Medical Dictionary" ****
LIFE:
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body
b : a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
b : a specific part or aspect of the process of living
-------------
**** From the "General Dictionaries" ****
LIFE:
1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual
4.a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul
5.the general or universal condition of human existence
6.any specified period of animate existence
-------
LIFE is such a complex concept that sometimes definitions are limiting, it is something that has to be experienced and contemplated. So, if you find issues in these definitions, I too can find issues and objections hehe, then I am really sorry :)
Dear Govinda:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "I don't understand why people are behind me. I have not even started any discussion - but there is already an allegation that I am jumping topics"
-- No body is behind anyone here. We are all learning together. These are not ALLEGATIONS, these are just comments.
For example, Arya and others felt that my writing was complicated. I acknowledged and corrected myself a BIT :) They felt that I was introducing too many JARGONS. I realized that and ensured that I introduced JARGONs with care. Arya was commented on Wordphobia by someone. These are not allegations, but just comments.
These are part of any discussion which involves a multitude of people, where not everyone is at the same level. So we need to set a benchmark at every level to avoid confusion, particularly so when the media is such as this one.
Please do not treat these comments as allegations or accusations. Please treat them as general comments just to benchmark forum activities.
Arya has done a FANTASTIC job till now in bringing us all together and streeing the discusions. Arya please continue to do so. The attempt is to gain more clarity, thats all. Sorry if something sounds like an allegation, the intentions are not to allege anyone but to understand concepts as a group.
Hope this clarifies. I am sorry if the word usages were not proper.
@GodCon, Arlagada, Arya.....
ReplyDeleteApologies for mistaking the intentional...
Arlagada told
"intention was to have a clear step step approach"
My intentions are also the same as that of Arya, in this process I asked these two question. However, I also understand these are very wide questions and might demand discussing many other terminologies. But, what ever we discuss we must have a link or a smooth transition from one topic to another and avoid going backward.
Apologies Once again
Agree with GodCon,
ReplyDeleteThanks Govinda for mentioning about the link.
Linking Things (Summarizing)
1. There must be one who is ever existing who created this universe - GOD (Deduced in our previous discussions)
2. Since, there was him alone and no one else. The entire creation must be just his manifestation
3. Since, Its humans who are the most intelligent and its humans who are discussing GOD in this forum we started discussing about GOD's Manifestation in Humans
4. That is when the question of "I" came into picture, which was agreed to be Ahamkaara - ego
5. When discussing "I" we came across death and life and existence of I post and pre death, thats when LIFE came into picture.
Probably this linking is enough to understand the path which we traveled. This must make you clear Govinda and also many more who might have missed the link
Thats good linking. convinced. So, how do you link SOUL ?
ReplyDelete@All,
ReplyDeleteDo we all accept that LIFE** is a result of existence of something beyond chemical activities; that there is something that initiates and sustains the "favorable conditions" for chemical activities; that there is something beyond just chemicals that results in intelligent thought, emotions, morality, perceptions, reproductive functions, desires etc etc.
** the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
@Arya:
ReplyDeleteI accept, our lives have become so complex, that we fall victim for confusions... ;)
1) How can life be sensitive to its environment when it is the cause?
Ans:
Life is not cause. It is the effect. The system of Life has come into existence;
1.because of creation of 5 states of matter: Solid, Liquid, Light, Gas, Space.
2. because of Production of Organs of perception, Mind and Organs of action.
The above 2 factors are the causes for Life to come into existence.
Hence, Life itself cannot be cause, because it is produced and not productive. Since, organs, cannot produced something different than itself. They can only reproduce.
So Life is not cause. It is an effect.
2)How can it have experience or knowledge? If it has then it should die with the human body.
3) What "will" does it have?
Both Questions (2) and (3) are closely related.
Ans: It is a very elaborate topic. So, I will try to explain with an example, specific to your questions only...;)
Q> what kinds of action does it perform?
The kinds of action a living being does depends upon the organs of action it has.
Hands(Rotate, fold, eat), Legs(Sit, run, walk etc..), Speech(Speak/not speak), Body - Bend/Dont bend.
Reproductive - Reproduce, dont reproduce.
Q> Why should it perform action?
Ans:
We understand that eating, sleeping, and some more are "basic actions" one has to perform; apart from many higher duties like working for nation, teaching other professions etc...
These basic actions - if not performed, it is not possible to maintain this body in living form.
Bhagavad Gita says:
"
niyatam kuru karma tvam
karma jyayo hy akarmanah
sarira-yatrapi ca te
na prasiddhyed akarmanah
"
Some actions - it performs for living
Some actions - for society
Example of how a sense - perceive-think-act chain is established:
You are sitting under a coconut tree watching the beauty of nature. All of a sudden there is sound like something broken.
The ear hears the sound. The mind reflects that something is falling from the top of the tree, maybe coconut.
Then egoism says: "It may fall on my head."
The intellect says: "I must run at once"
The mind takes these as input as redirect it to organs of action: Hands, legs, and there you run for your life(;).
Case may be different if you are Newton, you will wait it to fall and you may write why it fell(;)).
@All:
ReplyDeleteI tried my best to put it as short as possible, but it went as long as possible,because Aryas' questions were deeply involved...
I think we could be losing direction and focus yet again :) Could we take one question at a time for now? before we move on?
ReplyDelete@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteThe above answers were provided for Aryas questions... on
May 21, 2010 7:01 AM
And if you are feeling that the answers are loosing focus(;), I request please do initiate the discussion with the question in your mind along with a possible answer you have... and by closing the "previous comment of Student"
That will be better... Because the answers are provided, and instead of commenting on it, the discussion cannot proceed...
I hope you understand, because the commenting chain breaks all of a sudden because of such comments...
Waiting for your response...
I see lot of apologies flying around ;-)
ReplyDelete@All:
I am sorry for asking the definition of LIFE and related questions on LIFE. After seeing so many definitions and comments i am confused.
I do not want to comment on LIFE because i am not getting the connection of LIFE to GOD.
Since we are human beings, let us see what is the manifestation of GOD in all of us. Can we start with the following question
ReplyDelete1) What is a human being?
Sorry if i am reinventing the wheel.. because we have missed certain key concepts in our previous discussions.
@All:
Please write not more than 10 lines in a single comment. It gets difficult to follow otherwise. Hope the author of the blog has not issues!
@Arya:
ReplyDeleteAgreed for length of comments...
Agreed we can start with the question...
This time you better define human being. We can follow up based on your comments...
@GodCon:
Agreed to your comment also, that the answers were losing focus ;). But tried level best to put in a single comment. :)
ok i am not defining nothing new here.
ReplyDeleteSince we know that
1) GOD is omnipresent
2) GOD remains unchanged(ever existing)
3) GOD manifested himself in all creations
I will conclude the following about the human being
1) The GOD(manifestation) is made into some apparent entity called the human being
2) The apparent entity as we can perceive through our senses+ and mind* is made up of sthoola sharira
Let me define the terminologies said in my previous comment
ReplyDelete+senses: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin
*mind: A psychic location of one's feelings, moods and emotions
Sthoola Sharira:
It is composed of five mahabhutas(space, air, fire, water, and earth)[mentioned in prasthana trayi] after they have undergone the process of splitting and combining.
This sharira is born, grows, sustains itself, decays, finally dies. It is this body which is USED to gain experience in this world
But this is just the apparent entity. If you introspect a little further how does any human being react to actions? Example if you say "Hi" to another human being(apparent entity) why will he respond? Or what makes him respond?
ReplyDeleteSo there is another non-apparent entity within the sthoola sharira called the sookshma sharira(subtle body)
Sookshma sharira:
1) It is composed by the subtle aspects of the pacha mahabhutas(5 elements)
2) It is said to composed of 17 parts[mentioned in prastana trayi]
a) 5 perceptive sense(eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin)
b) 5 organs of action(hands, legs, speech, anus & genitals)
c) 5 vital airs
respiration(prana),
evacuation(apana),
circulation(vyana),
digestion &
assimilation(samana)
reject unwanted objects(udana)
d) mind
e) intellect
Let me define mind and intellect in the next post
The mind and intellect are two important functional aspects of the subtle body(sookshma sharira)
ReplyDelete1) When the subtle body is volitional, emotional or vacillating it is called MIND
2) When the subtle body is involved in the cognitive process of determining, deciding and discriminating it is called intellect
The sthoola sharia is kept alive by the sookshma sharira(subtle body)
ReplyDeleteNow who is the cause of the sookshma sharira is another big million dollar question ;-)
It is usually termed as the Karana Sharira(Causal body). The prastana trayi say that it is inexplicable because since it is the one which created the mind and intellect(subtle body in general) where the cognitive process generally happens.
Let us discuss now if we have objections because this is my analysis and always prone to errors and bias!!!
@Arya:
ReplyDeleteWhat is it that differentiates Gross body from subtle body?
I think my previous comments have the difference clearly
ReplyDeleteSthoola sharira is kept alive by the shookshma sharira. One is apparent and the other is not. Please identify the other differences through my previous comments
@Arya:
ReplyDeleteHow did you conclude or arrive at this point? Please clarify/elaborate... :)
@Arya,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the nice elaboration.
@Student:
I think we can derive these from discussion till now: that we are not just this body (sthoola sharira); that we are a function of mind and intellect too which drive this external body, and mind and intellect are subtle (sookshma) in nature. What we see from outside is the GROSS body and when we analyze deeper we realize that these bodies are run by something SUBTLE in nature.
Some crude examples of Gross and Subtle aspects: FAN (sthoola) run by Electricity (sookshma); CAR (sthoola) run by petrol(sookshma). Electricity and Petrol have some sort of ENERGY in them that run their respective BODIES.
Similarly, LIVING BEINGS have GROSS BODIES that are run by some energy source from within. Each BODY has certain attributes. For example STHOOLA SHARIRA has sensual attributes; SOKSHMA SHARIRA has mind and intellect; KaraNasharira has sat-chit-ananda attributes.
And, beyond the karaNa-sharira is the one from which everything comes : sarva-kaaraNa-kaaraNam (the kaaraNa of all kaaraNas), GOD.
GROSS BODY <-- SUBTLE BODY <-- CAUSAL BODY <-- ABSOLUTE ENERGY SOURCE (GOD)
STHULA SHARIRA (BODY) <-- SOOKSHMA SHARIRA (MIND) <-- KARANA SHARIRA (SOUL) <-- PARAMATMA TATVA (SUPERSOUL; GOD)
So, as we peel the layers we get into subtler aspects and utlimately into the absolute energy that supports and sustains everything - GOD.
@Student:
ReplyDeleteGuru, Books, Elders, Introspection, Discussions this is how i arrived at this point.
This is all the elaboration i can give.
@Arya:
ReplyDelete@GodCon:
Thanks for providing summary...
Looks fine
Contd...
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion provides a nice framework for discussions further...
@Arya, GodCon:
It is really good that you streamlined the discussion...
Did we come to any conclusion? Did we answer GOD....
ReplyDeleteAt least I have come to a conclusion on the said topic. If any objections/conclusions please mention we can start discussing
ReplyDeleteSo, since you have come to a conclusion about what is GOD. Can you please write down in detail (step by step). To understand how did we arrive at the What/who/where is GOD?
ReplyDeleteCan you do that Arya...
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteAgain!!! :-(
I think my previous few posts summarize everything. Can you re-read it and come back if you have any specific objections...
So, Sorry.... I shall change my question this way
ReplyDeleteDefine GOD in one sentence.