GOD - What is the benefit for him/her/it ??

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Ashok,

Consider this way. Brahman or God is the reality where all the effects including the space time inhere in. In the physical reality we sat x is the cause of Y. In the spiritual reality there is no such separation. There is only one monolithic whole. Whereas physical reality started with space time and then all the energies and mass that ensued. So physical reality is a reality of effects separating from the cause.

So IMO, the two represent different levels of reality which "co-exist", one representing the absolute cause and the other, the relative causes and effects. Adi Sankara called these as Absolute and relative reality resp. These relative realities are transient realities as infinite time cannot co-exist with timelessness and thus come to an end. I think it should be an unending repetition of such realities.

Now, IMO something causes the projection of the effects from the one cause and these effects including the space time, form the physical world. That something is called as maya in advaita school of thought. If you ask me why there is such a projection the answer given by Adi Sankara is it is in the nature of God just as breathing is in our nature. So there is no real reason for creation though the experiences borne out of such a lower existence may be the cause of bliss in the spiritual reality. This is also according to Sankara who says it serves like a sport for God.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri AshokIndeed Ji,

Stalwarts in this Forum have spoken. But let me share my experience about the very questions you ask - may be it would be of some benefit.

From very young age (perhaps because i lost my dad when I was barely 5) I always thought about the questions you ask.

Over time, all my questions culminated in to, what I found later to be a classic human question: 'Who am I?'

Answer to this question will either lead you to the majority view on this earth - that there is a Creator and you have a definite connection to that entity. Based on your emotional, cultural and intellectual proclivities, you may accept one of the million different ways to acknowledge this connection, per any of the religions or devise a separate arrangement for yourself.

But you may be one of those persons who belong to the minority - who believe that you are just a living organism with no connection to a Creator, if there is any to start with. People who take this view usually adopt Science as their only religion and the reason for that goes back to the original question.

After 60+ years on this earth and contemplating this question, my answer has so far been very simple. I am a very frail human being and the only thing I can control is how I behave in this world. As much as possible, I do not judge others on their human frailties. When negative thoughts pop up in my mind about others (and they do quite often) I try to steer my mind away. Besides, everyday I marvel at the 'magic' of this reality. I do not ask the 'Who am I?' question anymore. Instead I ask to be allowed to see divinity in all human beings and this is my religion.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Regards,
KRS

 

[renuka]

I do not ask the 'Who am I?' question anymore. Instead I ask to be allowed to see divinity in all human beings and this is my religion.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS Ji,

Well said..direct to the point.

Isn't that "Who am I" is all about? The fact that its Ayam Atma Brahma so are you and me.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Raghy Ji,

Let us stop all this nonsense about 'desireless desire' and 'desired desirelessness'! (Sorry sister )

You have not told us about your one month wedding experience in India and how it went. We are all ears.

Regards,
KRS

Sowbagyavathy Renuka, I was honoured!

"Desireless desire!"..... That was brilliant! I would be explaining that to my daughter. Sometimes, the amount of philosophy flows in this web site is just brilliant!

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sister,

Advaitha is not easy to practice. I figure I am at step 0.5 of it, if at all.

Controlling ahamkaram is very tough, because one needs it to be successful in the material world, to fulfill Dharma, Artha and Kama. When it comes to Moksha, one struggles.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS Ji,

Well said..direct to the point.

Isn't that "Who am I" is all about? The fact that its Ayam Atma Brahma so are you and me.

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Sri AshokIndeed Ji,

Stalwarts in this Forum have spoken. But let me share my experience about the very questions you ask - may be it would be of some benefit.

From very young age (perhaps because i lost my dad when I was barely 5) I always thought about the questions you ask.

Over time, all my questions culminated in to, what I found later to be a classic human question: 'Who am I?'

Answer to this question will either lead you to the majority view on this earth - that there is a Creator and you have a definite connection to that entity. Based on your emotional, cultural and intellectual proclivities, you may accept one of the million different ways to acknowledge this connection, per any of the religions or devise a separate arrangement for yourself.

But you may be one of those persons who belong to the minority - who believe that you are just a living organism with no connection to a Creator, if there is any to start with. People who take this view usually adopt Science as their only religion and the reason for that goes back to the original question.

After 60+ years on this earth and contemplating this question, my answer has so far been very simple. I am a very frail human being and the only thing I can control is how I behave in this world. As much as possible, I do not judge others on their human frailties. When negative thoughts pop up in my mind about others (and they do quite often) I try to steer my mind away. Besides, everyday I marvel at the 'magic' of this reality. I do not ask the 'Who am I?' question anymore. Instead I ask to be allowed to see divinity in all human beings and this is my religion.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS sir,

You will kindly notice that I have recorded a "like" for your above post, which should come as a surprise to many because we do not normally have that amount of synchronization of views on most topics.

I find that you have taken the correct path in your spiritual (ātmīka) journey. (Perhaps, and most probably, you are likely to find a very big swollen head behind this statement; I will not blame you for that nor will I take any offence if you write some sarcastic sentences in this regard.)

From my very limited and humble experience, what we should avoid is trying to find the so-called "divinity" in all human beings; this is because God, Divinity etc., have got so vulgarly distorted through the agency of organized religions, that when we say "Divinity" what we aim to find is something akin to the Gods of our scriptures and religion and the truth is that such divinity is not present in any living being (including elephants - Ganesha; boars-Varahamurthy: lions-Narasimha and so on).

Instead, kindly try to explore, through calm, profound and repeated contemplation (which ācārya śaṃkara calls nididhyāsana) the power which acts within your body and provides "life" to it. It is not easy but is within the grasp of most people like you. You will then realize the true divinity which virtually throbs in all living things.

My suggestion, given above, may (and mostly, will) appear as insolence on my part but honestly, mine is an earnest attempt to let you know what exactly ācārya śaṃkara's advaita means, when shorn of all the massive metaphysical baggage it has accumulated. This was what Ramana Maharshi advised.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sister,

Advaitha is not easy to practice. I figure I am at step 0.5 of it, if at all.

Controlling ahamkaram is very tough, because one needs it to be successful in the material world, to fulfill Dharma, Artha and Kama. When it comes to Moksha, one struggles.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

Controlling ego is indeed tough but IMHO doing that also ensures success in the material world contrary to what many believe. Even without ego you can achieve the goal of Artha, dharma and kama. You make money and help make life better for many, you have desires but ones that yearns to make the world a better place. One needs to be without ego to accomplish these worthier objectives otherwise the focus can easily go astray.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sarma-61 Ji,

I am honored that you would take time to give me advice. Sir, I have specific roles in this Forum; one as a member and one as a Moderator.

Our paths mainly crossed on the account of the latter role. This is perhaps the first time where you advised me on a personal matter.

Believe it or not, I value it highly, coming from a person of your quality. Like my dear brother Nara Ji's, I may not at all agree with your philosophy, but I know enough to recognize genuine love that is masked behind 'isms'.

No sir, I do not think that you are wrong in giving me your advice. Besides, you have mentioned the names of my Guru (who, in my opinion chose to bestow his smile upon me) and by extension the great Acharyal. I sincerely thank you for your kind advice.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS sir,

You will kindly notice that I have recorded a "like" for your above post, which should come as a surprise to many because we do not normally have that amount of synchronization of views on most topics.

I find that you have taken the correct path in your spiritual (ātmīka) journey. (Perhaps, and most probably, you are likely to find a very big swollen head behind this statement; I will not blame you for that nor will I take any offence if you write some sarcastic sentences in this regard.)

From my very limited and humble experience, what we should avoid is trying to find the so-called "divinity" in all human beings; this is because God, Divinity etc., have got so vulgarly distorted through the agency of organized religions, that when we say "Divinity" what we aim to find is something akin to the Gods of our scriptures and religion and the truth is that such divinity is not present in any living being (including elephants - Ganesha; boars-Varahamurthy: lions-Narasimha and so on).

Instead, kindly try to explore, through calm, profound and repeated contemplation (which ācārya śaṃkara calls nididhyāsana) the power which acts within your body and provides "life" to it. It is not easy but is within the grasp of most people like you. You will then realize the true divinity which virtually throbs in all living things.

My suggestion, given above, may (and mostly, will) appear as insolence on my part but honestly, mine is an earnest attempt to let you know what exactly ācārya śaṃkara's advaita means, when shorn of all the massive metaphysical baggage it has accumulated. This was what Ramana Maharshi advised.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sravana Ji,

I think we are not talking about the same thing.

What I meant was that you need a healthy ego to strive for accomplishments, because to be recognized you need to overcome your competition. Even to have the altruistic view to make the world 'better'. one needs an inflated ego. I was talking about a Sanyasin's desired state of lack of ego.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

Controlling ego is indeed tough but IMHO doing that also ensures success in the material world contrary to what many believe. Even without ego you can achieve the goal of Artha, dharma and kama. You make money and help make life better for many, you have desires but ones that yearns to make the world a better place. One needs to be without ego to accomplish these worthier objectives otherwise the focus can easily go astray.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri Sravana Ji,

I think we are not talking about the same thing.

What I meant was that you need a healthy ego to strive for accomplishments, because to be recognized you need to overcome your competition. Even to have the altruistic view to make the world 'better'. one needs an inflated ego. I was talking about a Sanyasin's desired state of lack of ego.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

We need to be clear on what being without ego means. IMO, it means not to be struck by emotions which cannot happen when there is ego. Don't you think one who is free from the afflictions of emotions, being always in control of himself is at an enormous advantage over others.? I think there is a misconception that being without ego means being without drive. But Lord Krishna asks us to not worry only about the fruits and NOT to not act. That means you can be without ego and initiate and accomplish a number of things without being muddied by emotions. So being without ego is about having clarity of thought and has only a positive correlation with achievement

 

[sravna]

I am getting a little interested with Renkua's concept of "desireless desire". Let me try to illustrate it. Imagine you start with the objective of becoming rich. You achieve it and you "enjoy" the fruits but something happens and you become broke. But what happens is your enthusiasm for life hasn't faded a bit. You continue to "enjoy" your life in a different way and for different reasons. See now, the enjoyment is the desire but when it is gone you are not affected by it. Can we call that a "desireless desire"?

 

[renuka]

I think the problem starts cos there is not exact English word to describe Ahamkara.
Ego only comes close but it makes it sound that some sense of "pride" is also there.

Actually Aham=I and Kara=Doer just means that we identify ourselves with the act preformed.

A person can be very very humble and selfless in nature(Note : I am not using the word desireless here cos I might be accused of cooking up stuff!!!LOL)
but he and she might even identify themselves with any act preformed.

For example..that act of eating..he/she might think I have eaten and my hunger is satisfied.
Even a simple thought of eating and satiety still comes under Ahamkara.

Its almost next to impossible for us mortals to be sans Ahamkara.
Only when one is a Jeevan Mukta or liberated after death Ahamkara is dissolved.

 

[KRS]

Excellent point Sri Sravan Ji.

But Lord Krishna was talking about doing one's dharma without attachment. To get there, to do one's dharma, not only one needs to understand what that dharma is, but to prepare for it. Do you think Arjuna got to be the best archer in his day without any ego? To be the 'best' of what you do requires an ego that essentially make you to adhere to the 'I' principle of 'I can do it'. Different folks have different degrees of this ego. Have you not seen it in your work life? This is the difference between a person being satisfied with their job at a particular level and a person who aims at being nothing less than a CEO. These are natural drives in a human being and are mainly supported by his/her ego.

What Lord Krishna said about concerns how one should act in his/her current job. He did not address the ego driven striving to advance.

Just my two cents......

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

We need to be clear on what being without ego means. IMO, it means not to be struck by emotions which cannot happen when there is ego. Don't you think one who is free from the afflictions of emotions, being always in control of himself is at an enormous advantage over others.? I think there is a misconception that being without ego means being without drive. But Lord Krishna asks us to not worry only about the fruits and NOT to not act. That means you can be without ego and initiate and accomplish a number of things without being muddied by emotions. So being without ego is about having clarity of thought and has only a positive correlation with achievement

 

[ozone]

I am getting a little interested with Renkua's concept of "desireless desire". Let me try to illustrate it. Imagine you start with the objective of becoming rich. You achieve it and you "enjoy" the fruits but something happens and you become broke. But what happens is your enthusiasm for life hasn't faded a bit. You continue to "enjoy" your life in a different way and for different reasons. See now, the enjoyment is the desire but when it is gone you are not affected by it. Can we call that a "desireless desire"?

wouldnt that be indifference or a dont care now type of an attitude?

 

[renuka]

I am getting a little interested with Renuka's concept of "desireless desire". Let me try to illustrate it. Imagine you start with the objective of becoming rich. You achieve it and you "enjoy" the fruits but something happens and you become broke. But what happens is your enthusiasm for life hasn't faded a bit. You continue to "enjoy" your life in a different way and for different reasons. See now, the enjoyment is the desire but when it is gone you are not affected by it. Can we call that a "desireless desire"?

Aiyyo Sravna,

Thats actually not my concept... I read it in some text.
You can even Google search and you will find many sites with the same word "Desireless Desire" used.

As it is I have been "accused" of a "crime" I didnt commit.
The crime of so called cooking up a terminology!!LOL

 

[KRS]

Aiyyoyo, Aiyyoyo, dear sister,

My comment was a joke, Actually, when one thinks about it the 'desireless desire' makes sense - which in my opinion rationalizes altruism, which makes it noble.

Regards,
KRS

Aiyyo Sravna,

Thats actually not my concept... I read it in some text.
You can even Google search and you will find many sites with the same word "Desireless Desire" used.

As it is I have been "accused" of a "crime" I didnt commit.
The crime of so called cooking up a terminology!!LOL

 

[sravna]

Excellent point Sri Sravan Ji.

But Lord Krishna was talking about doing one's dharma without attachment. To get there, to do one's dharma, not only one needs to understand what that dharma is, but to prepare for it. Do you think Arjuna got to be the best archer in his day without any ego? To be the 'best' of what you do requires an ego that essentially make you to adhere to the 'I' principle of 'I can do it'. Different folks have different degrees of this ego. Have you not seen it in your work life? This is the difference between a person being satisfied with their job at a particular level and a person who aims at being nothing less than a CEO. These are natural drives in a human being and are mainly supported by his/her ego.

What Lord Krishna said about concerns how one should act in his/her current job. He did not address the ego driven striving to advance.

Just my two cents......

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

My point is you do not have to consciously aim to be the best. But act according to dharma at your job. You will without conscious effort become the best. The real cause of your achievement is only your adherence to dharma and that is a better way to become the best. By acting according to dharma I mean not following dharma blindly but judiciously. In kali yuga you may need to act in a different way than in say treta yuga to preserve the highest dharma.

Coming back to the point, it is focus on the duty that is more important and not the focus on the result.

 

[renuka]

Aiyyoyo, Aiyyoyo, dear sister,

My comment was a joke, Actually, when one thinks about it the 'desireless desire' makes sense - which in my opinion rationalizes altruism, which makes it noble.

Regards,
KRS

Annachiiiiiiiiiiii,

It wasnt you yaar who said I was cooking things up.It was someone else in an earlier post.
To be exact it was SarmaJi.
It's no big deal anyway. I am writing all this in a light hearted mood.

 

[sravna]

wouldnt that be indifference or a dont care now type of an attitude?

Dear Ozone,

I think in the case of indifference, genuine effort wouldn't have been there. In other words you don't try to really "cause" the effect. In this case you are not affected by the effect in spite of putting in sufficient cause. What ever you may call it the latter is very healthy.

 

[ozone]

Dear Ozone,

I think in the case of indifference, genuine effort wouldn't have been there. In other words you don't try to really "cause" the effect. In this case you are not affected by the effect in spite of putting in sufficient cause. What ever you may call it the latter is very healthy.

Dear Sravna,
In the example you took, you mentioned that but something happens and you become broke.
there is no effort here since you also mention that You achieve it and you "enjoy" the fruits.
I derived that you refer to the state of some one not getting depressed, agitated or at times, ego taking over.
I feel this is not desireless desire, since I believe he did not let this happen, but it happened.

 

[Ashokindeed]

Respected elders,

I started this thread just clarify certain subject & with great respect to all, I am sincerely thank you so much for your contribution.

Now, this thread has taken up a new direction/ dimension & new thoughts pouring in from you people.

like, I want to mention " desireless desire " Ahamkara, (Renuka Mam`s exceptional philosophies....!!!)

By the way, still I did not have a straight answers from anyone !!! I am analysing every post which has been posted here. But one or other way I could not able to make it.

Extremely Sorry !! (vidiya vidiya raamayanam kettu...!!!)

I hope, you can understand!!!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sravana Ji,

Unfortunately, this is not how life works.

When one is in the first 3 phases of life, one has to satisfy each of them in succession to go to the next. And in each one of those one can not escape ego. Because if your theory that just following each one's dharma will lead you to be the 'best' does not make sense if one asks, 'best' among who?

What you are saying is that one can become the 'best' if one follows one's dharma - but within the limits of one's god given talent. But even to accomplish that one needs an ego.

Again, I think you are not understanding what I am saying. Hinduism never denies ego in the development of a soul through life's progression. Having an ego is necessary to have a healthy and wealthy life. Except that when you are in the fourth stage of life, it is not desirable. That is why you get out of Samsara life.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

My point is you do not have to consciously aim to be the best. But act according to dharma at your job. You will without conscious effort become the best. The real cause of your achievement is only your adherence to dharma and that is a better way to become the best. By acting according to dharma I mean not following dharma blindly but judiciously. In kali yuga you may need to act in a different way than in say treta yuga to preserve the highest dharma.

Coming back to the point, it is focus on the duty that is more important and not the focus on the result.

 

[KRS]

Dear Thangachiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,



Regards,
KRS

Annachiiiiiiiiiiii,

It wasnt you yaar who said I was cooking things up.It was someone else in an earlier post.
To be exact it was SarmaJi.
It's no big deal anyway. I am writing all this in a light hearted mood.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,
In the example you took, you mentioned that but something happens and you become broke.
there is no effort here since you also mention that You achieve it and you "enjoy" the fruits.
I derived that you refer to the state of some one not getting depressed, agitated or at times, ego taking over.
I feel this is not desireless desire, since I believe he did not let this happen, but it happened.

Dear Ozone,

Exactly. I was referring to not getting affected by the event of becoming broke in spite of putting in efforts to becoming rich. By desireless desire I would understand it as not the ego driven desire but conscience driven desire. Because desire is in general with reference to self it may be apt to call the altruistic desires as desireless desire. In my example becoming rich is probably one of the means to achieve a higher objective. So he is not affected by becoming broke.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravana Ji,

Unfortunately, this is not how life works.

When one is in the first 3 phases of life, one has to satisfy each of them in succession to go to the next. And in each one of those one can not escape ego. Because if your theory that just following each one's dharma will lead you to be the 'best' does not make sense if one asks, 'best' among who?

What you are saying is that one can become the 'best' if follows one's dharma - but within the limits of one's god given talent. But even to accomplish taht one needs an ego.

Again, I think you are not understanding what I am saying. Hinduism never denies ego in the development of a soul through life's progression. Having an ego is necessary to have a healthy and wealthy life. Except that when you are in the fourth stage of life, it is not desirable. That is why you get out of Samsara life.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

Yes the concept of dharma in Hinduism is not absolute. But you can always go one level higher and decide which among the dharmas is the best. So the answer to the question whether egoless state is better or not than the egoistic one , it is a YES. Whether it can accomplish as much as or better than the latter, the answer is again a YES. I think this is what we are debating.