Theory of Karma

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Talking in a practical sense, you have ego when your self importance has grown out of proportions. An example is when you think, even if it is not explicitly said that you can play God. If you think you are all powerful then naturally your attitude towards others is at the very best condescending. One needs to have a sense of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others.

Shri Sravna,

Very succintly and nicely put.

Regards.

 

[C RAVI]

Talking in a practical sense, you have ego when your self importance has grown out of proportions. An example is when you think, even if it is not explicitly said that you can play God. If you think you are all powerful then naturally your attitude towards others is at the very best condescending. One needs to have a sense of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others.

Very well said Shri Sravna,

Hardly in a relationship I could see people into self critique, carefully analyzing the other's positions and act accordingly to keep onself and the other happy.


As you have wonderfully presented in a precised manner, the lack of sense of balance regarding importance of self in relation to the importance of others is what quite commonly prevailing among humans. Ego to certain extent as natural tendency can not be ruled out and it's of no harm, IMO. It becomes destructive only when it is baseless, unreasonable and meaningless and leads to harming onself and the other. Ego helps a human to keep up his/her self respect and self dignity in tact, but that ego should never over rule his/her common sense and consciousness.


Basically, IMO, the extreme selfish motives makes a person extremely egoistic.

 

[Yamaka]

Thiru Yamaha Avarkale!
I have a genuine doubt.If the head of the family is a confirmed Athiest,but his wife and children are believers/Theists, is it possible to maintain peaceful environment in the house. Will there not be clash of interests?

Dear Krish Sir:

Yes, there will be clash.. then how will you resolve it? Will you demand that everyone toe the lines of the "head of the family"? Or will you respect their Civil Rights and accommodate?.. You have CHOICES in life!

Again, bragging my personal life here, when I proposed to my wife she knew 100% that I am an Atheists; equally she knew that I would respect her Civil Rights.

Therefore, she agreed to marry me against the wishes of her parents and families.

I proved to the astonishment of her parents and everybody that yes, wife and children could have different opinions and practices of Religion/Gods/JPK and still live happily with a self proclaimed Atheists!

Cheers.

ps. I proposed to my wife about 3 years after I met her.. her immediate question was "Y..why did you take this long to propose?" I said, "I wanted you to finish your PhD Thesis before I talk to you about matters of love and marriage!" LOL.... She blushed....

 

[Yamaka]

Sorry Shri Yamaka. Even if you clone a person, the identity of the clone would be different. Just like two different bodies are two different entitites, the "I" ness would also be different.

Astonishing that even scientists harbor the delusion that the "I" ness would be the same. You people need to shed a lot of your ego and think of less grandiose things than nailing the coffin of the concept of God.

Dear Sravna:

From what I learn about Identical Twins (natural born, not the cloned babies) - for example Brian Brothers, the US Tennis Stars - my considered view is cloned Sravna, Yamaka, Saidevo etc will be identical in "I-ness", IF RAISED in an identical environment of the parent... this is my educated guess.

Once we do the experiment and see the result, you would know whether I earn the "bragging rights" or you do!

Before this to occur, if you want to make statements like "Astonishing that even scientists harbor the delusion that the "I"ness would be the same", then it's upto you to project your EGO here! Lol.

If you suggest that "Y is the most egoistic person around", then I will concede that it's an understatement! Lol.

IMO, the majestic strides of Science & Technology have already drilled the nails....so much so, today, vast majority of Theists when they get a chest pain, they immediately think of calling the 911 for an Ambulance to the hospital/physician office than to give a ring to the Temple priests to come and mumble some slokas/hymns of the Vedas!

Scientists are dreamers, Sravna... they think gradiose things.... as a matter of profession!

My own professional grandiose is How to convert all B, C and F students into A students in a class room!

What an audacity?

You the JPK Theorists will say, B, C and F students are paying the price for their Janma Poorva Karma, leave them alone... God created them as such....poor and the suffering are after all paying their dues as per JPK Theory!!!

More later.

 

[Yamaka]

Talking in a practical sense, you have ego when your self importance has grown out of proportions. An example is when you think, even if it is not explicitly said that you can play God. If you think you are all powerful then naturally your attitude towards others is at the very best condescending. One needs to have a sense of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others.

Here is my two-cents on EGO, POWER, BALANCE, PEACE, HAPPINESS etc...

1. As people say, EGO is part and parcel of our personality...the idea or the effort that Sravna wants to refute my hypothesis itself is an act of his EGO...which is not necessarily bad, evil or in malice.

I fully concede Y is the most egotistical animal around! Lol.

2. Power comes from the knowledge....and the ability to persuade others to follow or accept your point of view... Again POWER need not be bad or evil.

3. In practical terms, what gives Y and his family JOY and Happiness:

Whenever time permits, we all gather and play games... even Kabadi in our front yard giggling and laughing like crazies.... cooking exotic dishes and see who cooks the sumptuous dish!

We keep our own identities...our views and whims and fancies... and love and cherish one another's company very much.

We always dream of "What would be a wholesome life?" And we march towards that dream...

After all, Ys are dreamers!

More later....

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Yamaka,

I wish you and the other scientists good luck with the experiments.

Karma theory doesn't tell you to not do anything. You are supposed to do all that you are supposed to do in various capacities. What karma theory tells is, if you are suffering, it is not without a reason but is based on some actions you committed in the past lives. If the suffering is because of actions committed in the past but in the same life would you not consider that as a sensible explanation? Would you consider the explanation fatalistic?

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Shri Yamaka,

I wish you and the other scientists good luck with the experiments.

Karma theory doesn't tell you to not do anything. You are supposed to do all that you are supposed to do in various capacities. What karma theory tells is, if you are suffering, it is not without a reason but is based on some actions you committed in the past lives. If the suffering is because of actions committed in the past but in the same life would you not consider that as a sensible explanation? Would you consider the explanation fatalistic?

"What karma theory tells is, if you are suffering, it is not without a reason but is based on some actions you committed in the past lives. If the suffering is because of actions committed in the past but in the same life would you not consider that as a sensible explanation? Would you consider the explanation fatalistic?"

Dear Sravna:

JPK Theory is what I oppose vehemently... not a simple Karma Theory which says "If you make poor choices, leading to poor action, you could get bad consequences in this life; alternatively, if you make good choices leading to good action, you could be rewarded well in this life"

The key here is "in this life" for there is NO rebirth and reincarnation of the soul etc... in my view.

JPK is clearly fatalistic which according to many thinkers leads to backwardness in the Society...

That's one reason it needs to be totally rejected....and I do.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

post #531&532
When two lions are fighting, it is dangerous to interfere, but here goes nothing.
If this body is like a change of cloth for the I-soul then birth and death are inconsequential. So both of you are then saying the same thing.

In this universe there is reason for every cause, and every action has results.
Just because we are not able to explain some deviation, we should not abandon the basic principle. Further being responsible for your action, is better social order than the chaos.
Look at the zihadis, they only have one life to live, committing all those terrorist acts. In nature we see order, we like to think there is order in our life too.

 

[kunjuppu]

When two lions are fighting, it is dangerous to interfere, but here goes nothing.
If this body is like a change of cloth for the I-soul then birth and death are inconsequential. So both of you are then saying the same thing.

there is much more commonality among the extremes. i think.

it is trying to find a middle position to make through life without stress, that is THE challengel. i continue to think.

 

[Yamaka]

"it is trying to find a middle position to make through life without stress, that is THE challengel. i continue to think."

Dear K:

I totally agree with you.

The stress is within us or created by the environment (problems at home, at workplace, in the neighborhood, in the country etc.. etc.)

The issue here is how such STRESS can be relieved by believing and practicing the so-called Janma Poorva Karma?

According to the JPK Theory, this stress is the result of what you have done in your previous life, as I understand it...

This is puzzling me... because I don't believe in my Rebirth and Reincarnation of my Soul...

What's your position on this JPK Theory?

Cheers.

 

[kunjuppu]

..
The issue here is how such STRESS can be relieved by believing and practicing the so-called Janma Poorva Karma?

According to the JPK Theory, this stress is the result of what you have done in your previous life, as I understand it...

This is puzzling me... because I don't believe in my Rebirth and Reincarnation of my Soul...

What's your position on this JPK Theory?

Cheers.

dear Y

never heard of JPK before this. thought it was a political party hahaha..

as far as i am concerned personally, i know only this life, and that too the curtains are fast approaching. want to go quick and not be a bother to the family.

told mrs k, when i go, have a great party, open bar, DJ and celebrate as if i was there. no point crying over me. had a great life. thankful for it.

used to wonder if i should give the family some details about minimal rituals, lest they be brainwashed (the tambram community is mostly dyed in the wool ritualizers, given a chance, and someone else spending the money), into spending huge sums. but decided to take sangom's advice - let them figure it out. why should i care? i am gone anyway, and nothing of what they do, will bring be back. a quick cremation is all i ask for. that too cheap, and no fancy casket or viewing, please !!

i dont think more than that. my personal prayers are my consolation companions to help me finish here on this earth. by and large, a fairly harmless boring life as far others are concerned. as for being a parent, the children will judge, after i am gone. i hope i pass.

that is the extent of my JPK thoughts.

btw, i strongly believe stress kills. it killed my dad. killed my mom. so trying to avoid stress in all aspects of life. serious here.

ps. i remember you saying that all you wish, is a cover of white cloth and be consigned to the ground. personally, i do not wish to leave carbon prints forever. hence the choice of cremation. it is done by gas here and within the hour your remains are reduced to ashes. though eerie if you watch the chimney coming out of the crematorium. feels like being in a nazi camp.

pps. in january i met a friend, who had lost his only 24 year old son in a stupid car accident while driving from b'lore to chennai. ofcourse according to tradition the kid was cremated. he was ruing that now. he wished he had buried him, so that he could have the consolation of visiting his grave and spending time there. that way there was a chance, he figures, he could complete the grieving process. seeing from that pov, your choice of deep in the ground, has its merits ....

 

[prasad1]

dear Y

never heard of JPK before this. thought it was a political party hahaha..

as far as i am concerned personally, i know only this life, and that too the curtains are fast approaching. want to go quick and not be a bother to the family.

told mrs k, when i go, have a great party, open bar, DJ and celebrate as if i was there. no point crying over me. had a great life. thankful for it.

used to wonder if i should give the family some details about minimal rituals, lest they be brainwashed (the tambram community is mostly dyed in the wool ritualizers, given a chance, and someone else spending the money), into spending huge sums. but decided to take sangom's advice - let them figure it out. why should i care? i am gone anyway, and nothing of what they do, will bring be back. a quick cremation is all i ask for. that too cheap, and no fancy casket or viewing, please !!

i dont think more than that. my personal prayers are my consolation companions to help me finish here on this earth. by and large, a fairly harmless boring life as far others are concerned. as for being a parent, the children will judge, after i am gone. i hope i pass.

that is the extent of my JPK thoughts.

btw, i strongly believe stress kills. it killed my dad. killed my mom. so trying to avoid stress in all aspects of life. serious here.

ps. i remember you saying that all you wish, is a cover of white cloth and be consigned to the ground. personally, i do not wish to leave carbon prints forever. hence the choice of cremation. it is done by gas here and within the hour your remains are reduced to ashes. though eerie if you watch the chimney coming out of the crematorium. feels like being in a nazi camp.

pps. in january i met a friend, who had lost his only 24 year old son in a stupid car accident while driving from b'lore to chennai. ofcourse according to tradition the kid was cremated. he was ruing that now. he wished he had buried him, so that he could have the consolation of visiting his grave and spending time there. that way there was a chance, he figures, he could complete the grieving process. seeing from that pov, your choice of deep in the ground, has its merits ....

K,
I did not expect this post.
First of all who dies? Who comes back? Why feel sorry for the body, or the I-soul?
It is wrong to grieve for the dead, the living grieve for their loss which is natural. What is the point of grieving for the body? The body never was you, and you were never the body. I think that is the understanding we all need. You have discarded many cloths that you have worn, have you cried over it?
Cheer up old chap, we need your sane comments. I know Renuka is still looking forward to that trip.

 

[happyhindu]

1. As people say, EGO is part and parcel of our personality...the idea or the effort that Sravna wants to refute my hypothesis itself is an act of his EGO...which is not necessarily bad, evil or in malice.

I fully concede Y is the most egotistical animal around! Lol.

2. Power comes from the knowledge....and the ability to persuade others to follow or accept your point of view... Again POWER need not be bad or evil.

3. In practical terms, what gives Y and his family JOY and Happiness:

Whenever time permits, we all gather and play games... even Kabadi in our front yard giggling and laughing like crazies.... cooking exotic dishes and see who cooks the sumptuous dish!

We keep our own identities...our views and whims and fancies... and love and cherish one another's company very much.

We always dream of "What would be a wholesome life?" And we march towards that dream...

After all, Ys are dreamers!

More later....

Nice one Y. People like me and yourself happily accept we have egos because we recognise it (maybe on our own scale of measurement), perhaps unlike those who "imagine" they are humble...

Talking in a practical sense, you have ego when your self importance has grown out of proportions. An example is when you think, even if it is not explicitly said that you can play God. If you think you are all powerful then naturally your attitude towards others is at the very best condescending. One needs to have a sense of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others.

Dear Sravna,

Am curious now.

1) How would you measure self-importance?

2) What if your scale of measure (of self-importance) varies with an other person equally grounded as yourself but having a different outlook?

3) How would you measure self-importance (on your scale) in those who demonise and disparage, and yet compose beautiful poetry on asuras? Would you think this is not condescending? And would you think such people have a sense of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others ?

4) How would you measure self-imporance (as per your scale) in those who delude themselves with piety and yet demand and take bribes (as a common thing / way of life) ?

5) How would you measure self-importance in people who require a competitive personality in order to progress at work?

6) Please elaborate on "playing God" -- lets say God has created ego in you (which in your scale of self-importance is high). Why do you think God has done so? And if you "play god" will it in anyway contradict God? Who gets to decide this?

Regards.

 

[sravna]

Nice one Y. People like me and yourself happily accept we have egos because we recognise it (maybe on our own scale of measurement), perhaps unlike those who "imagine" they are humble...


Dear Sravna,

Am curious now.

1) How would you measure self-importance?

2) What if your scale of measure (of self-importance) varies with an other person equally grounded as yourself but having a different outlook?

3) How would you measure self-importance (on your scale) in those who demonise and disparage, and yet compose beautiful poetry on asuras? Would you think this is not condescending? And would you think such people have a sense of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others ?

4) How would you measure self-imporance (as per your scale) in those who delude themselves with piety and yet demand and take bribes (as a common thing / way of life) ?

5) How would you measure self-importance in people who require a competitive personality in order to progress at work?

6) Please elaborate on "playing God" -- lets say God has created ego in you (which in your scale of self-importance is high). Why do you think God has done so? And if you "play god" will it in anyway contradict God? Who gets to decide this?

Regards.

Dear Smt.Happyhindu,

We have a beautiful and most precise instrument in ourselves called the conscience for measuring fairness in our actions.It always says with deadly accuracy when we are being fair in our actions and thoughts and when we are not. When you are not listening to it, your ego is at work overriding your conscience. So whenever you do this, you are giving yourself the importance at the expense of others.

 

[happyhindu]

We have a beautiful and most precise instrument in ourselves called the conscience for measuring fairness in our actions.It always says with deadly accuracy when we are being fair in our actions and thoughts and when we are not. When you are not listening to it, your ego is at work overriding your conscience. So whenever you do this, you are giving yourself the importance at the expense of others.

Dear Sravna,

So you are saying when ego overrides conscience, that's when self-importance comes into being. Good one. I like it.

Now, do you think in the questions (3) to (5) asked in the post above, the people in question allow/allowed their ego to override their conscience? Also, what are your views on question (6) ?

 

[sravna]

2) What if your scale of measure (of self-importance) varies with an other person equally grounded as yourself but having a different outlook?

It's about being fair to others. As long as a person does that his self importance is not inflated.

3) How would you measure self-importance (on your scale) in those who demonise and disparage, and yet compose beautiful poetry on asuras? Would you think this is not condescending? And would you think such people have a sense of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others ?

People with high ego do not have the sense of balance. People with high ego have a different type of intelligence. They are generally extremely analytical overall.

4) How would you measure self-imporance (as per your scale) in those who delude themselves with piety and yet demand and take bribes (as a common thing / way of life) ?

Use the yardstick of conscience.

5) How would you measure self-importance in people who require a competitive personality in order to progress at work?

Again if they are not acting in an unfair manner to compete it is ok.

6) Please elaborate on "playing God" -- lets say God has created ego in you (which in your scale of self-importance is high). Why do you think God has done so? And if you "play god" will it in anyway contradict God? Who gets to decide this?

Advaita in specific answers this. People who have ego are the typical cases who are affected the most by maya.
Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Srvana,

For my understanding, am seeking explicit answers, which your post unfortunately seems to evade for some questions. Hence have elaborated on my questions.

2) What if your scale of measure (of self-importance) varies with an other person equally grounded as yourself but having a different outlook?

It's about being fair to others. As long as a person does that his self importance is not inflated.

Lets say S and Y are very grounded individuals who respect everyone around them very much. However, they have different outlooks when it comes to beleif in god. How will you measure self-importance and ego in each of them in this case?

3) How would you measure self-importance (on your scale) in those who demonise and disparage, and yet compose beautiful poetry on asuras? Would you think this is not condescending? And would you think such people have a sense of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others ?

People with high ego do not have the sense of balance. People with high ego have a different type of intelligence. They are generally extremely analytical overall.

Do you think those who demonised and composed did not have a high ego? Were they not analytical people? Did they have a "sense" of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others? What "kind" of intelligence did they have?

4) How would you measure self-imporance (as per your scale) in those who delude themselves with piety and yet demand and take bribes (as a common thing / way of life) ?

Use the yardstick of conscience.

This person feels he has a conscience, is religious, observes fasts, does annadanam, and yet takes bribes as a matter of daily routinue. Bribery is not something listed negatively in his "yardstick of conscience". So if your yardstick is different from his, who gets to decide what is self-importance, what is 'correct" and how is ego defined in such cases ?

6) Please elaborate on "playing God" -- lets say God has created ego in you (which in your scale of self-importance is high). Why do you think God has done so? And if you "play god" will it in anyway contradict God? Who gets to decide this?

Advaita in specific answers this. People who have ego are the typical cases who are affected the most by maya.
Regards.

I request you to elaborate because your answer does not explain the questions asked. Thanks.

Regards.

 

[sravna]

For my understanding, am seeking explicit answers, which your post unfortunately seems to evade for some questions. Hence have elaborated on my questions.

Lets say S and Y are very grounded individuals who respect everyone around them very much. However, they have different outlooks when it comes to beleif in god. How will you measure self-importance and ego in each of them in this case?

I am a stauch adherent of advaita. It is ok if you do not believe in personal God. God is someone who is defined by his good qualities. Therefore what is important is whether you set for yourself high standards when it comes to values. Do not forget as per advaita we all are God. And ego is something that obscures the conscience or the God in us.

Do you think those who demonised and composed did not have a high ego? Were they not analytical people? Did they have a "sense" of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others? What "kind" of intelligence did they have?

Those who have high ego demonize others. People with high ego have predominantly analytical intelligence. Their selfish nature implies they do not look at the big picture. It also implies that they care less for others


This person feels he has a conscience, is religious, observes fasts, does annadanam, and yet takes bribes as a matter of daily routinue. Bribery is not something listed negatively in his "yardstick of conscience". So if your yardstick is different from his, who gets to decide what is self-importance, what is 'correct" and how is ego defined in such cases ?

One's conscience may be clouded by ego. But it is nevertheless there always waiting to emerge. Because our real nature is Godliness, conscience will not go away. Though a person may think he is right even when he does something wrong, it is because his he is not acting by his conscience.

Ego is in general is anything that promotes self even at the expense of others. Such acts are contrary to the nature of conscience.

 

[happyhindu]

Lets say S and Y are very grounded individuals who respect everyone around them very much. However, they have different outlooks when it comes to beleif in god. How will you measure self-importance and ego in each of them in this case?

I am a stauch adherent of advaita. It is ok if you do not believe in personal God. God is someone who is defined by his good qualities. Therefore what is important is whether you set for yourself high standards when it comes to values. Do not forget as per advaita we all are God. And ego is something that obscures the conscience or the God in us.

Here you need to clearly define what is god?

In Buddhist Shunyatavada, the emptiness of mind attained upon meditation, has no attributes, it is nirguna. But advaitins like yourself give this emptiness an attribute that it is "good" or "divine" instead of leaving it as a void. And yet claim it is nirguna !!

Frankly Sravna i wud say advaitins, including Adi Shankara did not develop the 'void' ontology sufficiently enough. If one meditates and goes blank, it is neither good nor bad, its just a 'state' that's there. That is what a tibetan monk explained to me. This 'state' cannot be defined with any attribute (as advaitins like you do). If you do, then you become a 'judge' and you become the saakshat manifestation of ego that you so much try to define on a yardstick of conscience.

Defining god as conscience is another bottleneck. What you speak of are attributes of Conscience that are based on judgemental values and emotive qualities. Being 'good' to one is not God. Qualities of being 'good', feeling happiness, feeling pain, etc is the work of conscience that is consciousness and judging. Not of conscience that is non-conscious and withdrawn from all external stimuli and emotive qualities.

Your premise of defining god as conscience is therefore a judgement of a conditioned conscience. Which is subject to change in every individual. If you say ego obscures conciousness, that is acceptable, as ego hampers the ability to ponder in a 'conscious' or 'aware' manner. But when you say ego obscures conscience, that is illogical. As then you will need to provide your premise of the nature of conscience. And if you define attributes of conscience then it is NOT nirguna !!

Moreover you are saying 'God' is defined by 'his good qualities'. Which are those good qualities? Now lets say, my yardsticks of 'good qualities' are hardworking nature, honesty, ability to accept situations as they are, and always be there for others when they need you. If this be my yardstick then i cud say Y is more of a god than S.

But if you set a yardstick, you may say 'good qualities' are beleif in god but not necessarily a personal god, shunning certain emotions, etc. Ravi may say 'good qualities' are defined as good souls offered to brahmins for moksham. Renu may say 'good qualities' are ardent faith in god. So all these are individually defined attributes.

Therefore, am sorry to say, Sravna, that juxtaposing god as conscience and moreover atrributing a quality called 'good' to it not Nirguna. Such a nirguna cannot be obscured by ego because it itself is the product of ego-defined atrributes / qualities.

Therefore if you say someone has been obscured by ego, then you are speaking from your own ego, that is, ego-defined conscience.

Do you think those who demonised and composed did not have a high ego? Were they not analytical people? Did they have a "sense" of balance regarding importance of self relative to the importance of others? What "kind" of intelligence did they have?

Those who have high ego demonize others. People with high ego have predominantly analytical intelligence. Their selfish nature implies they do not look at the big picture. It also implies that they care less for others

So those who demonised asuras (powerful ones) and gave the word a negative meaning were having high ego, were highly analytical and selfish, and cared less for others. Thankyou for telling it out explicitely.

This person feels he has a conscience, is religious, observes fasts, does annadanam, and yet takes bribes as a matter of daily routinue. Bribery is not something listed negatively in his "yardstick of conscience". So if your yardstick is different from his, who gets to decide what is self-importance, what is 'correct" and how is ego defined in such cases ?

One's conscience may be clouded by ego. But it is nevertheless there always waiting to emerge. Because our real nature is Godliness, conscience will not go away. Though a person may think he is right even when he does something wrong, it is because his he is not acting by his conscience.

Ego is in general is anything that promotes self even at the expense of others. Such acts are contrary to the nature of conscience.

Suppose i say unconditioned conscience or unconditioned consciousness as our real nature, which is a void, or nothingness with no attributes, then your definition of ego would not apply very well. Also godliness by being good to one does not mean a man is 'good', unless in the process he takes care not to become hurtful to another. What is hurtful to another can range from anything to everything. Unless a man sits in an isolated place, completely cuts himself off from external stimuli, makes his mind totally blank, until then, he cannot be 'good' per se. But then again, if he does so, he cannot be called 'good' as his state of mind is blank, without attributes.

What are your views on this?

Thanks.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Sravna,

Kindly accept my Hats off :yo: and a big round of applause to you :clap2: for your patience, modesty, accuracy, clarity and exemplary projections, in your post #540, #541 and #543..


Shri H.H., I should appreciate your quest to learn in detail by shooting your questions relevently, that brought the best out of Shri Sarvana..


These helped many of us to have better understanding.

 

[renuka]

Dear HH,

You wrote:

Renu may say 'good qualities' are ardent faith in god.

I know this is just an example but let me share with you my borrowed definition of good qualities.

Its actually very simple to type but very hard to put in practice and I am still struggling to do so.

The definition is:

Love All Serve All.

 

[C RAVI]

. Ravi may say 'good qualities' are defined as good souls offered to brahmins for moksham.

Dear HH,

You seem to have mistaken me and just want to stick to it to showcause your talent.

Off course I would say that good qualities are defined as good souls of those who don't make their life pleasurable and successful at the cost of others and who don't make others suffer mental agony by their speach/communication by any medium etc.

But I never said that Good souls are offered only to Brahmins and by default all the brahmins are good souls and are by default destined to attain moksham.

I generally appreciate your knowledge and talent. But please don't demonstrate them at the cost of others (myself, renuka and any other member in future), by making your own claims.


Thank you..

 

[sravna]

In Buddhist Shunyatavada, the emptiness of mind attained upon meditation, has no attributes, it is nirguna. But advaitins like yourself give this emptiness an attribute that it is "good" or "divine" instead of leaving it as a void. And yet claim it is nirguna !!

Frankly Sravna i wud say advaitins, including Adi Shankara did not develop the 'void' ontology sufficiently enough. If one meditates and goes blank, it is neither good nor bad, its just a 'state' that's there. That is what a tibetan monk explained to me. This 'state' cannot be defined with any attribute (as advaitins like you do). If you do, then you become a 'judge' and you become the saakshat manifestation of ego that you so much try to define on a yardstick of conscience.

I think there is a great misconception that nirguna is void. I myself have tried several times in this forum to explain what I think should be the correct interpretation. Nirguna I would interpret as not being characterized by a particular guna. That is you cannot say sattvic is its guna, rajas is its guna and so on. It has a perfect blend and excess of none. It is meaningless to interpret nirguna as void. On the contrary it is fullness and completeness which only would make sense for an omniscient, omnipotent brahman.

Defining god as conscience is another bottleneck. What you speak of are attributes of Conscience that are based on judgemental values and emotive qualities. Being 'good' to one is not God. Qualities of being 'good', feeling happiness, feeling pain, etc is the work of conscience that is consciousness and judging. Not of conscience that is non-conscious and withdrawn from all external stimuli and emotive qualities.

Your premise of defining god as conscience is therefore a judgement of a conditioned conscience. Which is subject to change in every individual. If you say ego obscures conciousness, that is acceptable, as ego hampers the ability to ponder in a 'conscious' or 'aware' manner. But when you say ego obscures conscience, that is illogical. As then you will need to provide your premise of the nature of conscience. And if you define attributes of conscience then it is NOT nirguna !!

HH, everything is in nature brahman. In an evolving self this nature is hidden or obscured. How is an unevolved or an evolving self characterized? He is characterized by his obscured vision that doesn't recognize others as his complements but as his competitors.So he is obsessed with selfish interests. So what obscures the godly nature of anyone is what I define as ego meaning selfishness. And conscience always prompts you to do the right things. It pricks you if you commit a wrong. Even if something is for your interest if it is not right it pricks you. So I take it to be the universal or the divine voice
This is obscured or not listened to when your ego or selfish interests predominate.

Moreover you are saying 'God' is defined by 'his good qualities'. Which are those good qualities? Now lets say, my yardsticks of 'good qualities' are hardworking nature, honesty, ability to accept situations as they are, and always be there for others when they need you. If this be my yardstick then i cud say Y is more of a god than S.

But if you set a yardstick, you may say 'good qualities' are beleif in god but not necessarily a personal god, shunning certain emotions, etc. Ravi may say 'good qualities' are defined as good souls offered to brahmins for moksham. Renu may say 'good qualities' are ardent faith in god. So all these are individually defined attributes.

Defining good qualities is simple. Whatever you possess that are not solely determined by selfish motives are good qualities. The less you possess selfish qualities the more of good qualities you possess. But a caveat. Just as you do not be bad to others for furthering self, excess of compassion is also bad as you may unnecessarily sacrifice rightful self interests.
Therefore the need for balance or nirguna which is a perfect blend of qualities.

 

[Brahin]

Dear HH,

You seem to have mistaken me and just want to stick to it to showcause your talent.

Off course I would say that good qualities are defined as good souls of those who don't make their life pleasurable and successful at the cost of others and who don't make others suffer mental agony by their speach/communication by any medium etc.

But I never said that Good souls are offered only to Brahmins and by default all the brahmins are good souls and are by default destined to attain moksham.

I generally appreciate your knowledge and talent. But please don't demonstrate them at the cost of others (myself, renuka and any other member in future), by making your own claims.


Thank you..

ye santa banta ki kahani kya hai
aur mujhe door se jwaalaamukhi fatne ki awaaz bhi aa rahi hai

 

[happyhindu]

I think there is a great misconception that nirguna is void. I myself have tried several times in this forum to explain what I think should be the correct interpretation. Nirguna I would interpret as not being characterized by a particular guna. That is you cannot say sattvic is its guna, rajas is its guna and so on. It has a perfect blend and excess of none. It is meaningless to interpret nirguna as void. On the contrary it is fullness and completeness which only would make sense for an omniscient, omnipotent brahman.

Dear Sravna,

1) You are giving nirguna attributes of fullness and completeness. If so, then how does it become nir-guna?

2) If something is full and complete, then what is its quality? What makes it full and complete?

3) Is it sufficient to claim nirguna is something without satvic, rajasic and tamisic gunas? Is that sufficient to define "lack of gunas" (in nirguna) according to you ??

4) You must define what is brahman? If brahman is omniscient and omnipotent, all powerful, then how can it be nir-guna ?

What you are defining is an omnipotent all powerful saguna brahman. But you are claiming it to be nirguna.

Then again sravna, you must remember that your knowldege domain is not advaita; because advaita's nirguna defined by Adi Shankara, is not the same, as defined by you. Therefore i suggest you please select a name for your form of philosophy.

HH, everything is in nature brahman. In an evolving self this nature is hidden or obscured. How is an unevolved or an evolving self characterized? He is characterized by his obscured vision that doesn't recognize others as his complements but as his competitors.So he is obsessed with selfish interests. So what obscures the godly nature of anyone is what I define as ego meaning selfishness. And conscience always prompts you to do the right things. It pricks you if you commit a wrong. Even if something is for your interest if it is not right it pricks you. So I take it to be the universal or the divine voice
This is obscured or not listened to when your ego or selfish interests predominate.

The conscience that pricks you does so because it is judgemental and analytical.

This conscience understands the action was "wrong", because it analyses and judges. Only after that, it pricks. How can such a jugemental-conscience be nir-guna ? On the contrary, such a conscience has an ego, because it is analytical and judgemental.

Also Sravna, you equate nirguna with an omnipresent omniscient brahman. So, where is the connection between such a judgemental-conscience, nirguna and brahman?

Am so sorry Sravna, but your explanation is totally un-connected to nirguna, as an atrributeless quantity, as put forth in my post.

Anyways, am surprised you define ego in such a simple and trivial manner as mere selfishness. Such an explanation would be considered very trivial by a buddhist. I suggest you please read up on the nature of ego as defined in buddhism and try to develop concepts to suit shankara's version of nirguna.

Defining good qualities is simple. Whatever you possess that are not solely determined by selfish motives are good qualities. The less you possess selfish qualities the more of good qualities you possess. But a caveat. Just as you do not be bad to others for furthering self, excess of compassion is also bad as you may unnecessarily sacrifice rightful self interests.
Therefore the need for balance or nirguna which is a perfect blend of qualities.

So your nirguna has a "perfect blend of qualities". And despite having atrributes yet it is nirguna according to you.

Alright, if nirguna is omniscient and omnipotent what is the necessity for it to have any more qualities at all, let alone "perfect blend of qualities"?

Further,you say "defining good qualities is simple", and that merely removing selfishness is sufficient to define good qualities. Is that correct? If so, then please let us have a list of which are "good" qualities according to you?

Thanks.