QuickRef: The Institution of Caste in India: Positive Aspects

[Iyest]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Nara Ji,

Kindly say which of the following you find not comprehensible:

1. Every entity in the physical universe exists in space and experiences time.
2. Each entity perceives physical reality which we call direct observation .

In fact, even the above is only 'true' with reference to the waking state. In the state of dreams, another world is perceived that is "real" during that interval of time. A hungry man appearing in a dream must be given food only in the dream to satisfy his hunger. When the dream ends, the dream universe vanishes.


.

The greater the ability of the mind to interpret or go beyond the physical reality, the greater is its ability to see the hidden reality. .

I am not sure that it is best described as 'hidden'. That would be like the owl saying the sun is hidden. The underlying reality exists always but is said to be perceived when the mind is still and free of the limitation of thoughts.


.

One would say that the mental perception cannot occur without physical perception .

Doubtful conclusion. As an example, sages seem to have described planets and their properties centuries before the invention of the telescope.


.

but when the mind becomes fully developed and turns spiritual it is fit to comprehend the highest reality and that which is in sync with that reality has no need for the lower level physical existence or experience.

Not sure at all. Levels mean limitation. Logically speaking any underlying reality must encompass all so called levels since it cannot be limited to some levels.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri. Nara Ji,

The vedic seers acknowledged the problem and have classified the ways of acquisition of knowledge as through:

1. Direct perception
2. Logic
3. Faith/enlightenment

Non-believers/rationalists usually have a problem with the third one. But I am afraid nothing can be done to convince them about it as it revolts against their basic philosophy.

But to me the third one is only a final logical step in the process of seeking knowledge.

 

[Nara]

...But to me the third one is only a final logical step in the process of seeking knowledge.

Dear sravna, you have not stated the third pramana accurately, it is faith in Shruti aka Vedas, and of course you are correct that people of reason won't accept Vedas as proof of anything.

There are slight problems with #1 and #2 as pramana also. In as much as exhaustive perception is impossible we can only make conclusions with degrees of likelihood. Nothing can be conclusively established in a logical fashion.

Cheers!

 

[sapthajihva]

......You have stated that intelligent effects can arise only from intelligent cause, why? (You see I have some why questions also)....

It can be seen in the real world; the science which you speak of is testimony to this fact. I have not maintained any position which is outrageous to logic!

It is likely that the gong has been sounded signalling the closure of yet another round... I have a question for you as we tidy up (in this thread) - 'What is it that is required, for belief in God?'...:crazy:

Regards,

 

[nachi naga]

The very fact,atheists/agnostics deny existence of god constantly,is by iself a 'nama smarnam' of god indirectly,prolly they will attain moksham faster by this method,as Dr.Mu Ka was recently seen in the holy company of Mata Amritanandamayi and bhagavan sathya sai baba.Dr.Mu Ka if given a chance,will destroy,sethu samudram bridge,for few silver.its the jathi (coommie jathi)that he is born,which makes him have repulsive attitude towards god,which is residing inside all,no wonder he is blind as a bat or is it an owl,hmmm??

 

[anandb]

Dear sravna,

If there is a creator, who created the creator?
If the creator exists without a creator, then why must the material universe need a creator to exist?

Cheers!

The Hindu holy book, the Rig Veda (X:129), has a much more realistic view of the matter:

“Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it?
Whence was it born, whence came creation?
The gods are later than this world’s formation;
Who then can know the origins of the world?
None knows whence creation arose;
And whether he has or has not made it;
He who surveys it from the lofty skies,
Only he knows- or perhaps he knows not."

(source: Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science - By Carl Sagan p. 106 - 137).

Another translation of this hymn 129 -

Hymn 109 says: " Then neither Being nor not-Being existed, neither atmosphere, nor the firmament, nor what is above it . . . The One breathed windless by its own power. Nought else but this existed then.

In the beginning was darkness swathed in darkness: all this was but unmanifested water. Whatever was, that One coming into being, hidden by the void, was generated by the power of heat.

In the beginning desire which was the first seed of mind overcovered it. Wise seers, searching in their hearts, found the bond of Being in Not-Being . . ." (Rig Veda - translated by Ralph Griffith 575 - 6).


A 9th century Hindu scripture, The Mahapurana by Jinasena claims the something as modern as the following: (translation from [5])

"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before creation?... How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say He made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression... Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end. And it is based on principles."
(source: Astronomy and Mathematics in Ancient India).

All quoted from hinduwisdom.com

 

[Nara]

It can be seen in the real world; the science which you speak of is testimony to this fact.

Come on Saptha, science is not mine, it is for everyone, everyone benefits from it and suffers from it as well.

I have not maintained any position which is outrageous to logic!

I agree, I hope you don't think I implied this.

...It is likely that the gong has been sounded signalling the closure of yet another round...

Yes, we can now move on and argue about something else. What a waste of time -- I hope at least you are having as much fun wasting your time with me, as I am wasting your time as well as mine.

...I have a question for you as we tidy up (in this thread) - 'What is it that is required, for belief in God?'.

As we grow up, belief in god seeps into us, with our mothers starting us off with some sthothram or another. We see people visiting temples and otherwise being very pious, that makes us believe in God. There is so much written with so much authority about god, it is difficult to escape belief in god.

But, if your question is about what can make everyone believe in god, well, he can appear and demonstrate some of the magical powers attributed to him. That will make a believer out of me in a hurry. I will also believe in any godman who can magically grow a lost limb. Curing cancer is passe, even small time godmen claim they have done that. Show me freshly minted natural limb for an amputee, then we are talking.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

renu mentioned in spiritual frauds thread,as to how bhagavan sathya sai baba cured her brother,her father and yet ,even bagavan is suspected.lo behold,the mighty sai baba can only cure an atheist/agnostic,i guess.and the greatest rationalist in tn, has been hobnobbing publicly with bhagavan,which is an absolute cure,imo.

 

[Nara]

Dear Anand, Some of what you have cited is the reason I am a little partial to the speculative parts of Vedanta. However, Vedas also give definitive answers to many questions that are completely unfounded.

Thanks for the interesting quotations.

Cheers!

 

[sapthajihva]

......

But, if your question is about what can make everyone believe in god, well, he can appear and demonstrate some of the magical powers attributed to him. That will make a believer out of me in a hurry. I will also believe in any godman who can magically grow a lost limb. Curing cancer is passe, even small time godmen claim they have done that. Show me freshly minted natural limb for an amputee, then we are talking.

So, you too, are willing to concede for a personal favour....!!!!!:heh: I should say that you are, indeed, a Bhaktha...

How many times should Bhagavan come down? Assuming that Bhagavan did cater to your wish, every other person would want him to do the same; at last, he would be called upon to do the laundry...! :washing:

So we do not believe in those who have, with their wisdom and insight, handed down revelations. We all want to see and believe, rather believe and see...

Ultimately, it is only a gross satisfaction of the ego.

Regards,

 

[nachi naga]

sapthajihva kku 'oh' podungo

 

[Nara]

So, you too, are willing to concede for a personal favour....

Saptha, a friend of mine predicted that I will change and become a believer in due course of time and was willing to take out a bet. I agreed and asked him to specify a time frame for this change to take place. Five years was the answer I got. Then, I offered this bet, in five years if I don't change, then he must abandon theism and become an atheist. After all, if there is god, he need not worry, surely god wouldn't like to loose him and therefore, at least for his sake he will make me see the light. But my friend refused to take the bet.

I offer this bet to any takers here. Put your faith on the line if you can.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

nara

I offer this bet to any takers here. Put your faith on the line if you can.

i will challenge you,becoz i feel,you have put this mask.You are from your writings here,have given me a glimmer of hope,that you love acharya ramanuja and you have VA penchant,buried in your sub-conscious.ok,by the by what's the bet as long as no money is involved,i'm game for it.knowing full well you are well accomplished veteran in atheistic circles and can argue and debate till your last breath,i am cnfident about my faith and my faith in god,and god will make you realise him/her.

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Jai SiyaRaam

Namaste Naraji

You are playing mind game, atleast thats how I take it, even if you become a believer in our petty GOD(religion?) you may still pretend to be a non-believer

One to take(accept ?) a bet/challenge, one has to believe the other that the other is(will be ?) honest --- prerequisite

Someone who has known you for comfortable time period or a palmist who read your palm or an astrologer who studied your birth chart may take your challenge

Having said so, I still am unable to come up with a proper answer why one(I ?) would not put faith in line ---you are not (un)popular in this forum for no simple reason !!!

In some cases a believer may not want to proclaim that he/she/it as a believer and behave contrary to his beliefs so it will be a futile exercise to accept challenge from such a person

I am sorry Naraji & forum, my comments(post) are neither on your "intention(s)" nor on the nature of "faith" but on the very nature of "bet/challege" that too as I perceive it(bet)

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[nachi naga]

for nara's bet

a primer for nara :

Below is the English translation of few Q & A from Maharishi Dayanand's Satyarth Prakash:

Q: How can you prove his existence?

A: By the evidences of direct cognition, Inference, Testimony and History.

Q: But there can be no evidence of direct cognition, with regard to God?

A: "The knowledge which is the result of the direct contact of the five senses - optic, auditory, olfactory, gustatory and tactile - and of the mind, with light, sound , smell, taste and touch; with feelings of pleasure and pain truth and untruth is called direct cognition. But this knowledge must be free from error and doubt". Niyaya Shastra 1,4.

On reflection it will be clear that it is only attributes that can be known through the senses and the mind, not substances, in which those qualities inhere. As for example, we are cognizant of a solid substance when it gives rise to the sensations of touch, smell, etc., by coming in contact without four senses, such as the tactile sense, and the senses with the mind, and the latter with the soul; similarly we are cognizant of the existence of God by observing such qualities as design and intelligence in this world.

Besides, instantly the soul directs the mind and the latter directs the senses to the pursuit of a certain object either good - such as acts that promote public welfare - or bad such as theft, they all incline to the desired object and at that very moment, feelings of fear, shame , and distrust arise in the self consciousness if the action be sinful, and those of fearlessness, courage, and satisfaction of felicity, if it be good; these feelings are prompted not by the human soul, but by the Divine Spirit.

Lastly when the soul, freed from all impurities, devotes itself to the contemplation and realization of God through Yoga, it becomes cognizant of both - itself and the Divine Spirit. When we can be directly cognizant of the existence of God how can there be any doubt. His existence by inference and other evidence, because the cause is inferred from its effects.

Now that we have reasoned out HIS existence, lets try to discuss about his form:

Even though He is said to be a 4 handed person or Seated on Throne with his son sitting on his right or an Elephant head person and many more forms by people of different beliefs, but in real God is formless. If God possesses a form He could never be free from hunger and thirst, heat and cold, disease, imperfections and injuries. This proves, therefore that God is formless. If He were to possess a body, another person would be required to make the different organs of His body, such as eyes, ears and the like, for He, who is the product of the combination of the different – parts, must have an intelligent form maker. Here if it be urged that God Himself made His body simply by willing it, this too goes to prove that He was formless before He made his body. It is clear, therefore, that God is never embodied. Being without a body He is able to make the visible universe out of invisible causes.

Q. How many Gods are there in Vedas?

A. There is only one God and not many. The multitudes of names like Indra signify not different divine beings but different aspects of one Absolute existence.

“ Many people are led to the idea that the Vedas inculcate the worship of innumerable Gods and Goddesses called Devatas. This word Devata is the most fruitful source of error.” -Pundit Gurudatta Vidyarthi (The Terminology of Vedas)

What substances then, are the Devatas? They are all that can form the subject of human knowledge. All human knowledge is limited by two conditions, i.e., time and space. Our knowledge of causation is mainly that of succession of events. And succession is nothing but an order in time. Secondly, our knowledge must be knowledge of something, and that something must be somewhere. It must have a locality of its existence and occurrence. Thus far, the circumstances of our knowledge, time and locality. Now to the essentials of knowledge. The most exhaustive division of human knowledge is between objective and subjective. Objective knowledge is the knowledge of all that passes without the human body. It is the knowledge of the phenomena of the external universe. In speaking of the subjective knowledge, there is firstly the ego, the human spirit, and the conscious entity; secondly, the internal phenomena of which the human spirit is conscious. These are again divided into “deliberate activities” and “vital activities’, and it is concluded that, since our prior analysis of the knowable leads to six things, time, locality, force, human spirit, deliberate activities and vital activities, these are fit to be called Devatas. The author of NIRUKTA (the greatest authority on Vedic interpretation) has also accounted Vedic Devatas as these six things and no other.

Q. If GOD was the three 'O" as per our Vedic scriptures (Omniscient Omnipresent Omnipotent) then why do we refer GOD as HE and not SHE or HOMO or both?

A. Since God is Omnipresent no form can be associated with him; hence no gender. Since we live in a patriarchal society a lot of reference is taken as He. In Vedas God is represented as a He, She and both. Being the protector, God is referred as a He as performing the fatherly function. Being the first efficient cause or the creator God is referred as both He and She as the seeds of Father and Mother (+ve & -ve tattavas) are required for creation. Similarly, Kalagni (cause of dissolution) is the female aspect along with the Bhumi, Indragni (electricity). Matrishwa (Powerful like wind), Indra (full of lustre), Virat (illuminator of the multiform universe) etc. are the Male aspect of the almighty. Hiranyagarbha (who keeps prakriti in womb during dissolution, also means source and support of all light and luminous bodies), Prajna (whose knowledge is perfect) can be represented as both genders. Prajna can also be represented as devoid of both Genders. Now the Nij naam of God i.e. OM is neither Male nor Female. Devas and Devis are also male and female gender respectively.

Q. We can easily refer mother nature or father time as these are considered as matter, but when we refer GOD, why is the title of HE is referred?

A. As said above Patriarchal society makes the male gender prominent. Vedic teachings do not discriminate between Male and Female (i.e. does not distinguish one gender greater than the other). However, there are certain duties which prioritise the Gender e.g. In a Grihast system, beautifying a home is prioritized to the female of the house while physically demanding work of the household is prioritized to the male. I know few females are far superior in physique and strength then most males but that is not a common occurrence. Physiology studies also explain that males have more animal strength than females. In Darshan (Philosophy) Shastras Sun (with its brightness and lustre) is referred as male while Prithivi (sharan providing and loving) is represented as female.

Father is seen as the provider and protector; hence God is mostly represented as He. There is no hard and fast rule why you can not represent God with other Gender/s.

 

[Nara]

...You are playing mind game, atleast thats how I take it, even if you become a believer in our petty GOD(religion?) you may still pretend to be a non-believer

Yes Jai, you raise an important question, what if I just pretend to not believe simply to win the bet?

But that is not very logical, is it? Think about it, if I truly become a believer, what would be my motivation to pretend not to believe? Winning the bet would now indeed be a great loss for my newly acquired belief state, no? In other words, if I truly changed and truly believed in God, then my incentive would be such that I would gladly accept defeat and make sure you remain a co-believer.

So, in this bet there is internal safeguard against cheating.

Cheers!

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Jai SiyaRaam

Naraji

As I mentioned earlier, a believer may not want to proclaim that he/she/it as a believer and behave contrary to his/her/its beliefs and the logic/motivation behind this behaviour ? I dont know the reason for there could(may ?) be myriad reasons ok I can think of one reason belief is a "personal affair"

No, it wont harm your belief state ... again the reason is that belief is a "personal affair"

It is not an incentive, you are rephrasing the bet/challenge terms/conditions/rules

Self interest is the only safe guard in any bet/challenge(gambling ?)

Again, I am not commenting on your honesty and I am commenting on the very nature of "bet"

I forgot to mention in my earlier post, I have high respect/regard for your talk/words/posts

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[Iyest]

a primer for nara :

Below is the English translation of few Q & A from Maharishi Dayanand's Satyarth Prakash:

Q: How can you prove his existence? .

Nachi naga, even here the questioner is asking for proof based on the premise that the universe in the waking state alone is 'real'. But any underlying reality cannot be something that appears and disappears in different states. And even 'proving' its existence in one state does not corroborate its existence in other states.

 

[nachi naga]

Nachi naga, even here the questioner is asking for proof based on the premise that the universe in the waking state alone is 'real'. But any underlying reality cannot be something that appears and disappears in different states. And even 'proving' its existence in one state does not corroborate its existence in other states.

Iyest

Appearances and disapperances of states of reality is from cognition,isn't it?There is one reality,that is nirguna brahman,but appear as saguna brahman.paramathma is one but athmas are many.

Franky i don't remember dreams.I sleep - period.Now in wakeful state,i am conscious with almost all senses functioning.In deep sleep state,i have no vision or drishti with my normal eyes.do i dream with my third eye,via ajna chakra,i dunno.do i reach a deep state and become turiyam via my sahasrara chakra,i dunno.but i am sat chit ananda,most of the times and at times ,can be a rascal or a rogue

the questioner is asking in wakeful state only,so the existance of god is proved.

if the questioner asks in dream state,i guess,we will reply in his dream state,then,proof of the existance of god is provided to him.:happy:

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=4594545&

 

[Iyest]

Iyest

Appearances and disapperances of states of reality is from cognition,isn't it?

This is the 'reality' as known to people through cognition in different states. Not the underlying Reality.

There is one reality,that is nirguna brahman,but appear as saguna brahman.paramathma is one but athmas are many.

The danger of theories! Even these explanations are given in the waking state. That is why one is asked to have direct realization.

but i am sat chit ananda,most of the times and at times ,can be a rascal or a rogue

You seem to be a nice guy. Then again appearances can be deceptive.eace:

the questioner is asking in wakeful state only,so the existance of god is proved.

That is not possible. The questioner is asking without realizing the limitation of his question. And an answer has been given that satisfies him within the limited domain. So he accepts it as 'proof'. The same would be true if somebody had proven the opposite to him.

if the questioner asks in dream state,i guess,we will reply in his dream state,then,proof of the existance of god is provided to him.:happy:

On the other hand, he has a dream where somebody (possibly even from this forum) 'proves' to him that 'god' does not exist! He would then accept that also in his dream state. And roam around as a wherewolf for the rest of his life. Theist by day, and atheist by night! :biggrin1:


http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=4594545&[/QUOTE]

 

[nachi naga]

This is the 'reality' as known to people through cognition in different states. Not the underlying Reality.



The danger of theories! Even these explanations are given in the waking state. That is why one is asked to have direct realization.




You seem to be a nice guy. Then again appearances can be deceptive.eace:



That is not possible. The questioner is asking without realizing the limitation of his question. And an answer has been given that satisfies him within the limited domain. So he accepts it as 'proof'. The same would be true if somebody had proven the opposite to him.



On the other hand, he has a dream where somebody (possibly even from this forum) 'proves' to him that 'god' does not exist! He would then accept that also in his dream state. And roam around as a wherewolf for the rest of his life. Theist by day, and atheist by night! :biggrin1:


http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=4594545&

[/QUOTE]

iyest

mahaswamigal says in deivathin kural

"There is a Supreme Entity as the Cause for all this universe. For us also there is the same Cause. That is what created us. We are only a finite [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA[/FONT][/FONT]. But that is [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA[/FONT][/FONT], the infinite Supreme. This [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]has to go back to join that [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA[/FONT][/FONT]. Only then this [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]samsAra[/FONT][/FONT], the repetitive cycle of birth and death, the tortures to which this karma subjects us, and the unending turbulence in the mind will all end and we may reach the state of eternal happiness. It is that state which is called ‘Release’ or ‘moksha’. Once we have reached it then there is no more death and there is an eternal peace".

What would be the relationship between [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]and [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA[/FONT][/FONT]? This is an important question raised and answered by each of the schools in its own distinct way. One school says that the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]will always be distinct from the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA[/FONT][/FONT]; and in that state of moksha, the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]would enjoy infinite bliss by worshipping the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]with Bhakti – that is the Dvaita conclusion. Another says: Even though the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]will be a separate soul doing Bhakti towards [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA[/FONT][/FONT], it will have the feeling of the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]immanent in it as its soul; this is Vishishtadvaita. Still another says: When the Sun rises the stars do not lose their existence; they just disappear from view, because of the luminosity of the Sun; so also in moksha, the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA[/FONT][/FONT], though it does not lose its existence, will have its own little consciousness submerged in the Absolute Consciousness of the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]– this is the doctrine of Shaiva-siddhanta. There are still other schools of thought.

The school of philosophy propagated by Adi Shankara Bhagavat-pada is called Advaita. It says something totally different from all the above. It discards all that talk about the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]escaping from this world, from this samsara, about the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]going and joining with the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]and all the consequent underlying assumptions about this world and the so-called world of moksha and the relationship between the two. There is no such thing as ‘this world’; it is only [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]mAyA[/FONT][/FONT]. Moksha is not a place or a world. When the Atma is released from the bondage of the mind, that is moksha. It may be right here and now. One can be ‘released’ even when alive, not necessarily only after death. He whom we call a [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JnAni [/FONT][/FONT]may appear to be living in ‘this world’ but in reality he is in Moksha.

 

[nachi naga]

There is no such thing as the union of [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]and [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA[/FONT][/FONT]. A union occurs only when there is more than one. Only when there are two any question of relationship between the two arises. In truth the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]and [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]are not two distinct entities. Atma is one and one only. It is itself by itself; other than itself there is nothing. The Self being the Self as such is what it is. That is called by the name ‘[FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]nirguna-brahman’[/FONT][/FONT]. However, with that Brahman as the support and at the same time hiding that very support, there appears a ‘mayic’ show, as if it is a magic show, in the form of this universe. The movie appears on the support of the white screen. There is no show without the screen. Still that very show hides the screen itself which is its support. The screen has in no way been affected; it is still the screen and it remains as the screen. In the case of Brahman there is an additional mystery. On one side Brahman remains as Brahman; but on the other hand, by its own [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]MAyA [/FONT][/FONT]shakti, it has become several individual [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIva[/FONT][/FONT]s each with a distinct inner organ
(antaH-karanam). By a proper [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]SAdhanA [/FONT][/FONT]if we can dispose of this antaH-karana, the [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIva [/FONT][/FONT]itself turns out to be Brahman. In other words there is no ‘union’ of two things called [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIvAtmA [/FONT][/FONT]and [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]ParamAtmA[/FONT][/FONT]. The one knows himself as the other. The same entity that does not know its own real nature thinks of itself as a [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIva[/FONT][/FONT], and knows of itself as Brahman when the real nature is known. There are no two entities. It is Brahman that has the name [FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style][FONT=Bookman Old Style,Bookman Old Style]JIva [/FONT][/FONT]when there is the bondage with the mind and when the bondage is thrown off, it remains by itself as itself; thus no one gets united with some one. There is no question of relationship here. Where is the question of ‘relation’ of ourselves with ourselves? It is the release from this bondage that is called moksha; so there is no place for calling it a different ‘world’ or ‘place’ of moksha. This is the bottomline of advaita.

 

[nachi naga]

From the above posts of mahaswamigals deivathin kural,moksha is not something a brahmin has patent rights.all the four personalities of a being namely brahmana kshatriya vaishya shudra qualify for this moksham and do live in moksham,as living enlightend beings,holding to sva-dharma of a being.so,caste is a essential component of indian life and will not go away,as wished by some.

 

[nachi naga]

bhagavan sathya sai baba,integrates all religions itself,as he is the sanathana sarathy of our sanathna dharma now.swami equally emphasises people to adhere to whichever philosophical school that they may find suitable and follow the sastras and sampradayas,similiarly whichever religion one belongs to or wants to follow,do it with sincereity and faith.caste therefore is an integral instrument which profiles communities by birth or by adoption of work in a field.

 

[sravna]

Nara Ji,

I do not believe in conversion of beliefs. Definitely not by magic.It doesn't make sense in creating the universe and creating all the obstacles be it pleasure or suffering to let the soul overcome them and suddenly appear and win it over by magic. Self realization is a natural process and eventually achieved by own efforts.

There is variety in everything including beliefs for different possible perspectives and their interplay. The mind probably has to experience them all, believe in them though the sum of experience would let it shed of the delusionary ones and arrive at the true knowledge.

Vedas, for example provide a theory of spiritual reality and how having come into existence into the material world we have to conduct ourselves not only for quality of life but also to go to our rightful place of spiritual reality.

Anyway Nara Ji, could you tell us what is the real value added by Science and Technology in ensuring enduring happiness which arguably is the real yardstick of quality of life that any sane person in this world would want to possess. Any knowledge which shows that way would be the knowledge we would want to have whatever you may label it. Also you would want to lend more credence to the overall authenticity of what it says.