Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 287

Thread: Does science have all answers?

  1. #41

    Re: Does science have all answers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    . . . Who will know the difference? What in you is capable of discerning the difference?


    . . . Who will know the creator? What in you is capable of knowing anything?


    . . . On the other hand, if you agree that the uncreated spirit in you and the creator are non-different then all is well. We then must both strive to know the Self only.



    Dear Atanu:

    While I enjoyed your self-inquiry method and acknowledge truth in it, but for many others and me where human personality dominates, my reality is in my creator who is apart from me.

    You have articulated well to bring your point across. With all due respect, without assuming an adversarial role let me say this: your self-inquiry leading to self-realization to the knowledge of the Creator assumes a giant leap along the human journey. To inquire “who am I?” really means trying to find out the source of the ego or “I thoughts” and destroy them as quickly as they arise. That is a tall order! Besides, when the knowledge of own self is full of unresolved doubts, to know the creator by inquiring within would only lead us to a very muddied view at best.

    In fact, the great Ramana Maharishi who is the proponent of such “who am I?” inquiry, only ends up admitting the following: “The true import of the Sastras cannot be learnt except from Jnanis, that is, those who have had and live in the direct experience of reality; no one can understand the true spirit behind any of the Sastras merely by his command over language or by his keenness and superiority of intellect.”

    BTW, “I am this body but I have separate existence”, which is used as the base and teach four Yogas (Karm Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, and Jnana Yoga) as a path to a perfect happiness. In each of these Yogas, there must be an “I”: an I to do action without attachment to the fruit thereof. In all these four Yogas the individual existence of an “I” in the form of “I am this” or “I am so-and-so” is indispensable. Without this “I”, no yoga can be performed.

    The “I” in me experiences the reality of life through my senses, how can I denounce it? The followers of “I am Brahman (Advaita)” and “neti-neti” schools share a common belief that the “self” can be discovered by the mind either through affirmation (advaita) or by negation (you propose). Given the challenges, these methods remain theoretical at best. Therefore, to make such a leap is unrealistic and impractical.

    In human journey there is a role of creator and our cord with Him whether you are at a lower level or higher level in your knowledge. The divine “grace” plays a key role in our journey and not the practice of self-inquiry. Moreover, grace does not differentiate between higher-self and lower-self.

    Self is like a fetus in a womb. It has different stages of development from gestation to full maturity; 3 months, 6 months and 9 months. Yet in all these stages it still is attached to placental cord to connect with the source of energy. Similarly, “self”, in whichever stage of development it is, in its journey needs the hand of grace for the journey, thus, establishes the role of creator outside of “self”. Even the highest-self holds on to the cord of the creator as evidenced by the sages (just look at the lives they lived untouched by matter). In the manifested creation, no matter how enlightened you are, a state of highest-self does not exist where the hand of grace is no longer needed.

    If knowing self (self-inquiry) is a sufficient condition to know the non-self - God, why sages like Ramana, Ramakrishna, Shankara, Chaitanya etc, had tears in their eyes in their Bhakti? If they all had attained higher-self why would they do that? Because, even in that state, they were crying out to the Creator who is apart from them. Such a cry can be heard from ancient sages when they were in utter helpless state trying to know the creator had this to say:
    Asatoma Sadgamaya, “ Lead me from untruth to the truth….”
    Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya, “Lead me from darkness to light”
    Mrityoma Amritangamaya, “Lead me to the life from this death…”

    Purified atman, the spirit, is the spark of the creator but not the creator Himself! Yes, God’s spirit is in us, therefore, God is in us but God is not us!! A child is of mother but child is not the mother! Why would Jesus Christ say, “ No one comes to my Father except through me”. Why not, come to me only, instead. This is very telling of the separate personality (albeit of the same essence) called creator. Therefore, the very assumption you make (sufficiency in knowing self) bypasses the reality and misses the true picture.

    Instead, why not take a more practical and realistic approach that Christ Jesus offers. When Jesus said these words, “I am the way, the truth and the light”, I believe, it was not meant to be a mere sermon material for Sundays but truly meant to be taken seriously. No man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the “son” activating Christ Consciousness within creation.

    Swami Paramahansa Yogananda so aptly puts it this way:
    The Christ Consciousness present in Jesus, and in all vibratory creation and phenomena, is the noumenon, “truth,” the primary substance and essence of life everything in creation. No human being who is a part of vibratory creation can take his consciousness to cosmic consciousness, “the Father”- which lies beyond vibratory creation and the immanent Christ consciousness-without first experiencing the Christ-imbued Cosmic Vibration, or Holy Ghost, that manifests vibratory creation, then passing through the God-reflection of Christ Consciousness.

    In other words, to “come unto the Father” every human consciousness has to expand and attain realization of the Christ Consciousness, in order to reach Cosmic Consciousness.
    From his book: Second Coming of Christ Part II

    In the end, all these practices and individual efforts mean nothing if there is no hand of grace that can lead you. We struggle and strive to please Him, never really sure we have succeeded, at times frustrated over the pressure we think He is putting on us, and yet afraid to stop trying. Don’t you think that kind of life is sheer misery?

    Complete unconditional surrender to the higher power – God and fully dependent on His grace - would lead one to realize Him in a more accessible and practical way. Because, it is His grace through complete surrender that bestows wisdom upon you and me to know Him intimately. Christ was very clear on such issues when He said, “you have to be like children to enter the kingdom of God”, He was not referring to a biological reversal of aging but to have a heart and mind of a child, who is completely dependent on parents, who completely surrenders to the will of the parents in its development.

    When divine grace works its way into a person, he begins to understand God the creator. It is befitting that many saints and sages were able to accomplish the same through this route.

    Therefore, to me, a complete surrender to the will of the Father and begging for mercy to know God is more appealing than going through rugged practice towards an unattainable goal.

    In that sense, Christ’s teaching is not delusional as some may think. Therefore, when He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”, it is settled for many. Because implicit in that is the assurance: “my grace is sufficient for you.”


    Blessings,
    nirotu

  2. #42

    Re: Does science have all answers?

    Let me put God = Isvara, so that we are on the same page. Advaita's Brahman is not the topic you can be concerned in this discussion as it is beyond all notions of surrender, grace, devotion etc, so we have to step down a bit for common denominator.


    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    Complete unconditional surrender to the higher power – God and fully dependent on His grace - would lead one to realize Him in a more accessible and practical way. Because, it is His grace through complete surrender that bestows wisdom upon you and me to know Him intimately. Christ was very clear on such issues when He said, “you have to be like children to enter the kingdom of God”, He was not referring to a biological reversal of aging but to have a heart and mind of a child, who is completely dependent on parents, who completely surrenders to the will of the parents in its development.


    Nirotu, I beleive you have not understood the idea of "self enquiry". It does imply and depend a lot on grace. The "unconditional" surrender you are talking about is not at all possible without the knowledge of God. So, you are actually in a loop - a true surrender cannot result without the knowledge of the divine, and knowledge of the divine cannot result without true surrender. You have to break out of the loop at some point - that is why a spiritual(Yogic) path is needed. Self Enquiry is one of them.

    According to Hinduism, the superficial knowledge of God obtained from a book cannot enable one to "completely surrender" to God. There is every situation in life when you do not "surender" at all. Surrender cannot be just in word, it should be in thought and actions. You have some control over actions allright. But you have no control over thoughts, such unconditional surender is not possible without addressing the mind that produces the thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    When divine grace works its way into a person, he begins to understand God the creator. It is befitting that many saints and sages were able to accomplish the same through this route.


    Right, but how many saints who understand God are you seeing in practice? According to Hinduism, such a soul called the jivanmukta is not at all common, only one in ten million perhaps. If grace is spontaneous should'nt we all be knowing God already? Why are you knowing God only through the scripture Nirotu? Why not directly right now? Does God's grace acts only after death? Why not right now, when I am still alive?

    Do you even know that God exists? How? And if you do not know, isn't your surrender based on the assumption that a higher power exists? What if this higher power is non different from you? Why should you surrender at all, in the way you suggested? Without knowing anything about this higher powers, except a few words of scripture - how is such a surrender different from say, a surrender to a local king for protection?



    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    Therefore, to me, a complete surrender to the will of the Father and begging for mercy to know God is more appealing than going through rugged practice towards an unattainable goal.


    No contradictions, except we are having different ideas of "complete surrender". Can you define "complete surrender" please?


    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    In that sense, Christ’s teaching is not delusional as some may think. Therefore, when He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”, it is settled for many. Because implicit in that is the assurance: “my grace is sufficient for you.”


    Possible. Belief in Christ and following his way maybe sufficient to get you a conducive next birth, so that you can do Yoga. That is what all teachers teach anyway. Didn't Christ say that the path to heaven is very narrow and that to hell is very wide? What do you make out of that? That means surrender to Christ cant be too easy.

  3. #43

    Re: Does science have all answers?

    Dear Truthseeker:
    The "unconditional" surrender you are talking about is not at all possible without the knowledge of God. So, you are actually in a loop - a true surrender cannot result without the knowledge of the divine, and knowledge of the divine cannot result without true surrender. You have to break out of the loop at some point - that is why a spiritual(Yogic) path is needed. Self Enquiry is one of them.

    Yes, it is a question of chicken and the egg, isn’t it? The only the hand of grace can break that loop.

    Does an infant have a knowledge of mother? Yet, she cries knowing that mother is there to pick her up. Does a child ever hesitate to jump in the pool if father is there to catch him? Such a level of knowing is surrender. Granted, in the eye’s of Gyani’s there may be an element of ignorance but for that child having that kind of faith was suffiencient. Such a faith is the surrender that breaks the loop.

    Perhaps, ponder over what Christ really means when He says, “Have a child like faith to enter the kingdom of God.” It is nothing but surrender!

    In that moment of baby’s knowing, his own “I” gets lessened. His ego’s hold gets lessened.

    According to Hinduism, the superficial knowledge of God obtained from a book cannot enable one to "completely surrender" to God. . .

    ….. Why are you knowing God only through the scripture Nirotu? Why not directly right now? Does God's grace acts only after death? Why not right now, when I am still alive?

    Who wants to go by the book knowledge? These are historical facts. The lives spent by Sages, munis are facts proving how they overcame this loop. When Christ says, “come unto me”, He never asked for detailed anaysis or knowledge of Him before coming. Not at all!! Just come. If you truly surrender and have that kind of faith, then nothing else would matter.

    Do you even know that God exists? How? And if you do not know, isn't your surrender based on the assumption that a higher power exists? What if this higher power is non different from you? Why should you surrender at all, in the way you suggested? Without knowing anything about this higher powers, except a few words of scripture - how is such a surrender different from say, a surrender to a local king for protection?

    Rather going on a tangent and diluting the topic, I would suggest, Please, reread my response again! I will say this again, Sages have validated the existence of the Creator and they were mortals just like us!


    Blessings,
    nirotu

  4. #44

    Re: Does science have all answers?

    Hey, nirotu!

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    Yes, it is a question of chicken and the egg, isn’t it? The only the hand of grace can break that loop.
    But when does the grace act? If it is unconditional, why I should care about that aspect of God at all? If it is conditional, what is the condition? Just beleive in God and go my way?

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    Does an infant have a knowledge of mother? Yet, she cries knowing that mother is there to pick her up. Does a child ever hesitate to jump in the pool if father is there to catch him? Such a level of knowing is surrender. Granted, in the eye’s of Gyani’s there may be an element of ignorance but for that child having that kind of faith was suffiencient. Such a faith is the surrender that breaks the loop.

    Perhaps, ponder over what Christ really means when He says, “Have a child like faith to enter the kingdom of God.” It is nothing but surrender!

    In that moment of baby’s knowing, his own “I” gets lessened. His ego’s hold gets lessened.


    Who wants to go by the book knowledge? These are historical facts. The lives spent by Sages, munis are facts proving how they overcame this loop. When Christ says, “come unto me”, He never asked for detailed anaysis or knowledge of Him before coming. Not at all!! Just come. If you truly surrender and have that kind of faith, then nothing else would matter.
    Sages and Munis were never born suddenly according to Hindu Dharma. They have all only evolved. They were able to surrender to God only through the knowledge of God. Even in certain special cases where people have become overnight saints, it is only the result of former experience of God alone.

    What would be Christianity's explanation of a big time thief becoming an enlightened sage overnight ( has happened in reality) ? And a virtuos god loving person having no enlightenment all through his life? Just God's random behaviour? Dont you see that there is something more to it than we see outwardly? Why would the grace fall on the thief, and not fall on the devout?


    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    Rather going on a tangent and diluting the topic, I would suggest, Please, reread my response again! I will say this again, Sages have validated the existence of the Creator and they were mortals just like us!
    We do admit that all souls are intrinsically divine, but they just do not know their true nature. Those who do not know this are ordinary mortals.
    Sages were not ordinary mortals like us. That is the difference between our line of thinking. Sages are more like incarnations just like Jesus - you need to become a Jesus in order to qualify in Hindu Dharma, and following his foot steps is just the starting point of a long journey! You think that is the end of the road. How could be agree from here?

    Didn't Jesus realize that he and his father were one? That is what you need to realize too - then you will get God's grace to the fuil. Your sole saviour is yourself( which manifests as God), the very divinity in you - there is absolutely no need of external agencies. The God we externally see is only "I" - you only need to know it. There is no God apart from yourself.

  5. #45

    Re: Does science have all answers?

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    Rather going on a tangent and diluting the topic, I would suggest, Please, reread my response again! I will say this again, Sages have validated the existence of the Creator and they were mortals just like us!
    You have not clarified which sages have validated the existance of the creator and which of them are reliable? Is it Jesus, is it Muhammed, is it Krishna, is it Buddha etc? How should a person like me know who among them is speaking the truth? We have never met any of them!

    Is God's grace dependent upon whom I choose to follow? What I refuse to beleive in God due to lack of evidence - what happens to the grace of the "merciful" God? Buddha denied the existance of God like Christianity, so what if he is correct? What would be the role of God's grace in Buddhism?

    Let us say that I choose to follow Christianity, but broken the ten commandments many times in life due to human weakness I am unable to overcome. What happens to me and God's grace? If God's grace are avalable to those who break commandments, then why bother to keep them at all and why not enjoy the law of "survival of the fittest". If God's grace is available only to those who keep the commandments, then why is it called grace in the first place? It is earned after all by keeping the commandments.

    So whatever way you look at it, grace has no place without merit. So it boils down to what the merit is. We say that the merit lies in deep yearning and love for God, and consequent enquiry and search for God, so deep as to reveal the true nature of God( and Self) - anything that falls short is given another chance in the next birth. As simple as that!

    Moroever, you have to compare the goals we are trying to attain. The goal of Christianity is only heaven, where you reside with God in a dualist relationship. We do not recognize that as the final goal - that is an incomplete goal. We admit that grace of God can get you to heaven and give temporary bliss of heaven. However, the ever lasting bliss of communion and oneness with the Self is not taught by Christianity, and hence Christianity cannot be expected to show the way for it. Hence our definitions for grace and surrender are distinctly different from you. There is enoromous difference between becoming a servant of God, and getting established in the Self- they require different paths and efforts. Easier, quicker ways have "smaller" attainments. The goal aspired to by Hindus take many incarnations to achieve, as obvious from the vast differences in the goals we are seeking for.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Does science have all answers?

    namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    Why would Jesus Christ say, “ No one comes to my Father except through me”. Why not, come to me only, instead.
    To a hindu, these types of quotes don't really mean much. Even to those hindus that have not read gita themselves.

    Why would a hindu listen to a third party when a direct instruction is available from bhagwan himself? just curious.
    satay

  7. #47
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Seven Principles of Theosophy

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharabhanga

    The scheme is intended to explain the subtle composition of the discreet self-contained entity that appears as an individual living body.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saidevo

    Annamaya kosha - Physical world,
    Pranamaya kosha - Physical world,
    Kama part of Manomaya kosha - Astral world,
    Manas part of Manomaya kosha - Lower Mental world,
    Vijnanamaya kosha - Higher Mental world,
    Anandamaya Kosha - Intutional world,
    The original description of the living body, the mortal abode of the immortal Jiva, has been expanded by Theosophy to provide a general description of the whole universe ~ e.g. the mortal body of Vedanta is considered by Theosophy as the whole physical world.

    The seventh principle of Theosophy (i.e. pure Atman, “beyond bodies and sheaths”) is fundamental to the original understanding, although it is implied rather than explicitly enumerated as one of the sheaths. And the implied number of this absolute Atman, existing always beyond the five elements, is surely the sixth ~ which, in this Shaiva context, is exactly equivalent with the fourth (Turiya) of Vedanta.

    The first principle of manifest Creation (the Annamaya Kosha) is essentially the same in both systems and, leaving the absolute unconditioned Atman as an unstated assumption, the remaining principles or sheaths may be compared.

    The “Etheric Double” of Theosophy, comprised only of inert non-living matter (Anna or food) and quickened only by the winds (Prana), without any Mind or Intellect, and surely without any Soul, is only a bloated corpse that has no place in Vedanta.

    And now, ignoring this sinister second principle, only the Astral, Mental, and Causal bodies remain for comparison.

    The term Karana Sharira or “Causal Body” refers to the Anandamaya Kosha, as the innermost abode of the Jiva, and Theosophy (as the 7 Principles are presented here) has completely confused the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saidevo

    5. Casual body - Sukshma sarira - Vijnanamaya kosha,

    6. Buddhi - Karana sarira - Anandamaya kosha
    If this is what Madame Blavatsky intended, then I can only say that she was mistaken in her understanding, and the two systems can never be fully equated.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Exclamation Re: Does science have all answers?

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker

    “Do I exist?” is an inappropriate question.
    Many philosophers would disagree!


    Ego cogito, ergo sum.

    Cogito, ergo sum.

    Je pense, donc je suis.

    I am thinking, therefore I exist.



  9. #49
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    NY State
    Age
    66
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    99

    Re: Does science have all answers?

    Quote Originally Posted by satay
    namaste,

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nirotu
    Why would Jesus Christ say, “ No one comes to my Father except through me”. Why not, come to me only, instead.





    To a hindu, these types of quotes don't really mean much. Even to those hindus that have not read gita themselves.

    Why would a hindu listen to a third party when a direct instruction is available from bhagwan himself? just curious.
    I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, so my opinion may be moot

    But, my take on this quote of Jesus the Christ is that the Christ is an attribute of Jesus, and it is the attribute not the man which is referenced.

    The notion of Trinity is echoed in many places to my eye in Hinduism.


    Namaste,

    ZN
    (not orthodox anything)
    yaireva patanaM dravyaiH siddhistaireva choditA .
    shrI kauladarshane chApi bhairaveNa mahAtmanA .

    It is revealed in the sacred doctrine of Kula and by the great Bhairava, that the perfection is achieved by that very means by which fall occurs.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Atman and prANa

    Namaste Saidevo,

    Atman and prANa both indicate “the breath”, and particularly “the breath of life, the spirit, the soul or principle of life and sensation”.

    The plural prANAH simply indicates “life”; and the prANAH particularly refers to “the vital airs”.

    And prANa commonly indicates the abstract ideas “respiration, inflation or inspiration, vitality or vigor, energy or power”; or the physical substance of “wind” or “the air which is inhaled”.

    Atman generally refers to “the individual soul, the self or abstract individual” or “the essence, nature, character, or peculiarity”; and quite specifically, “the person or whole body considered as one and opposed to the separate members of the body”.

    Both prANa and Atman are synonyms of brahmA; although, prANa is usually reserved for the jIvAtman, and Atman (when contrasted with prANa) refers to the paramAtman.

    And Vedanta knows prANAtman as “the spirit which connects the totality of subtle bodies like a thread” ~ i.e. the sUtrAtman or hiraNyagarbha.

    prANa particularly refers to the vaishvAnara state of Atman;
    prANAtman particularly refers to the taijasa state of Atman; and
    Atman particularly refers to the prAjńa state of Atman.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •