• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Theory of Karma

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Sravna,

Can Poorna actually be Void?

Can Nothing(Void) give rise to something?

What is Void?

Is it merely absence of substances as in Vacuum?

Or is it Void of effects?

Can Poorna can also be "Void".. as the source of everything yet rolls away from the effect like how a drop of water rolls of a lotus leaf.

brahmanandam parama-sukhadam, kevalam jnana-murtim, dvandvatitam gagana-sadrsham, tat-tvam-asyadi-lakshyam, ekam nityam vimalam acalam, sarva-dhi-saksi-bhutam, bhavatitam tri-guna rahitam.


Sravna..would I be wrong to say that Poorna is Full yet Void of effects?
What say you?
 
Dear Sravna,

Can Poorna actually be Void?

Can Nothing(Void) give rise to something?

What is Void?

Is it merely absence of substances as in Vacuum?

Or is it Void of effects?

Can Poorna can also be "Void".. as the source of everything yet rolls away from the effect like how a drop of water rolls of a lotus leaf.

brahmanandam parama-sukhadam, kevalam jnana-murtim, dvandvatitam gagana-sadrsham, tat-tvam-asyadi-lakshyam, ekam nityam vimalam acalam, sarva-dhi-saksi-bhutam, bhavatitam tri-guna rahitam.


Sravna..would I be wrong to say that Poorna is Full yet Void of effects?
What say you?

Dear Renuka,

You mean that poorna is full but remains unaffected by anything? I would go further by saying anything that is full and complete by itself cannot be affected by anything. It is something like being inert in the sense of not being affected. The analogy is to indicate the behavior of something that is complete by itself.

As you pointed out in one of your posts, manifestation of gunas is by the act of maya. Since nirguna brahman is unchanging, only an illusion of change can be produced. It is an illusion because it projects discreteness in the place of whole. Where from this illusion of discreteness including those separate gunas come? It can only be from the reality of nirguna brahman.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sravna,

You wrote:
Coming to our argument, as you said manifestation of gunas is by the act of maya.​

Sravna..I think you are confusing me with HH...I didnt say this line dear.

I know that everything comes from Brahman including Maya with its Avarana and Vikshepa Shakti.
Everything verily is Brahman.Ekam Advaitam Brahman.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sravna,

You wrote:


Sravna..I think you are confusing me with HH...I didnt say this line dear.

I know that everything comes from Brahman including Maya with its Avarana and Vikshepa Shakti.
Everything verily is Brahman.Eka Advaitam Brahman.

Sorry I didn't mean any argument with you. I was just having in mind the argument with HH. Sorry!
 
Dear Renuka,

You mean that poorna is full but remains unaffected by anything? I would go further by saying anything that is full and complete by itself cannot be affected by anything. It is something like being inert in the sense of not being affected. The analogy is to indicate the behavior of something that is complete by itself.

As you pointed out in one of your posts, manifestation of gunas is by the act of maya. Since nirguna brahman is unchanging, only an illusion of change can be produced. It is an illusion because it projects discreteness in the place of whole. Where from this illusion of discreteness including those separate gunas come? It can only be from the reality of nirguna brahman.

:thumb: :yo:
 
namaste smt.HappyHindu.

I should like your opinion on this post of mine, which is in response to your posts #544 and #550 about nirguNa brahman. You may please correct me where I go wrong or personal, as different from the Advaita philosophy of Adi Shankara and others, since I have only a surface knowledge of it.

• The term nirguNa, as Sravna indicated in post #548, means 'without any guNa', right? It is formed by the combination of the terms ni + guNa, ni--negation/privation and guNa--one of the three kinds sattva, rajas and tamas.

• If an entity is negated or deprived of all guNas--qualities/properties/attributes, and still it exists as consciousness, how best could it be described? As smt.ReNukA has pointed out it can only be a state of consciousness, which is beyond the triguNas.

• One way to describe that state is shUnyatA--emptiness, as in the Buddhist philosophy. But then this description raises the questions, "If it is empty, how can it be consciousness?", "If consciousness can somehow be emptiness, how can it be aware of itself?", "If it is emptiness, why should and how can there be existence?", "If there is no existence as universal consciousness what sustains this flow of life of sentient and insentient beings?"

• Another way to describe that state is pUrNatvam--fullness, as in the Advaita philosophy, enunciated in the famous shAnti mantra AUM pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam.

• In science, the outer space was initially thought to be empty. Today scientists agree that it is not so, because an ultimate form of energy fills all space and acts as the substratum. Thus, there is no absolute emptiness or absolute rest in the physical universe.

• So, if that state is fullness, what is it filled with? This is where the Advaitin identifies it as sat-chit-Ananda.

• The fullness of NirguNa Brahman is sat because it is the absolute state of existence and reality. It is chit because it is the absolute state of consciousness. And it is Ananda because it is the absolute state of bliss and peace.

guNa and karma go together. Since this state is nirguNa, it is also the state of niShkarma and niShkAma--actionless and desireless. Thus, it can be described as a state of absolute bliss of the consciousness of existence, that only stands as a witness, being actionless and desireless in itself.

sukha--pleasure, and duHkha--pain, are not attributes but states. They cannot be attributes because one man's pleasure can be another man's pain. However, they can be tinged with the shades of the three GuNas.

shAnti--tranquility/peace, is a state that one gets into when that person is beyond the states arising out of the shades of pleasure and pain. Ananda--bliss, as absolute state of happiness, free of all pain, is another name for shAnti.

• We experience peace in deep sleep but we are not conscious of it. Yet that peace fills our mind when we wake up from deep sleep.

• You said in post #544 that according to a Tibetan monk,
"If one meditates and goes blank, it is neither good nor bad, its just a 'state' that's there."

This raises the question, what was the Tibetan yogi conscious of in his samAdhi? How did he 'know' that state as shUnyatA--emptiness/blankness? If he knew it, then who or what was that knower in him? In what way does this state differ from the unconscious, blank state of deep sleep?

• The awareness of existence, knowledge and peace is usually described as pure, white light. In the waking state of existence, this light is colored by the activities of our mind and senses. In the dream state, it becomes colored by the mind. In the deep sleep state, the light seems to be off with only darkness prevailing, yet the state as absolute peace reasserts itself as feeling of fullness, as completely recharged, upon waking up.

• The state a yogi enters into in meditation is the fourth state of turIya, which is not actually a fourth state, but the substratum of all the three other states. The fourth state of turIya asserts itself in the sandhi--junction of every kind of duality: heart-beat, clock tick, thoughts, breathing, and so on.

• With a little practice anyone can easily 'feel' the absolute peace and bliss of turIya by contemplating this sandhi. With training, the awareness of that state of bliss grows, consciousness expands, all knowledge shrinks to the knowledge of the Self as the ultimate reality, and this leads to the touch and go of savikalpa samAdhi.

Once a yogi has a taste of savikalpa samAdhi he becomes a mumukShu--desirous of mokSha, and rehearses that absolute state in his nirvikalpa samAdhi, living his life as a jIvan mukta expending his prArabdha karma, awaiting final release from the cycle of reincarnation and karma.
 
An Observation and a comment on God, Religion and Janma Poorva Karma & the Indian Society at large:

Here I read posts on Consciousness, guNa, Shanti, Anandam etc.. all jibing up very perfectly with the thoughts of Sanathana Dharma, Ishwara and Janma Poorva Karma..

ALL these ideologies led finally to a "calmed down" society which accepts whatever is given by the Ishwara and the JPK...

So much so, nearly 900-1000 million people in India are living near the Federal Poverty Line (Please read my post in Politics & Current Affairs for details).

Do you see the permanent damage that your non-existent Gods and the JPK have done to the backwardness of the Society at large?

This ideology has been devised by the very narrow slice of the fortunate people who happen to be the Upper Middle Class of the Indian Society who don't want to see the pernicious effect of all this.....

That's a shame, IMO....

More later...
 
An Observation and a comment on God, Religion and Janma Poorva Karma & the Indian Society at large:

Here I read posts on Consciousness, guNa, Shanti, Anandam etc.. all jibing up very perfectly with the thoughts of Sanathana Dharma, Ishwara and Janma Poorva Karma..

ALL these ideologies led finally to a "calmed down" society which accepts whatever is given by the Ishwara and the JPK...

So much so, nearly 900-1000 million people in India are living near the Federal Poverty Line (Please read my post in Politics & Current Affairs for details).

Do you see the permanent damage that your non-existent Gods and the JPK have done to the backwardness of the Society at large?

This ideology has been devised by the very narrow slice of the fortunate people who happen to be the Upper Middle Class of the Indian Society who don't want to see the pernicious effect of all this.....

That's a shame, IMO....

More later...


Dear Yamaka,

I dont see your post anywhere in line with what is being discussed.
You know you surely sound very very "JaDa".
 
I should like your opinion on this post of mine, which is in response to your posts #544 and #550 about nirguNa brahman. You may please correct me where I go wrong or personal, as different from the Advaita philosophy of Adi Shankara and others, since I have only a surface knowledge of it.
Dear Saidevo,

Had dealt with this as a teenager. Now am completely different. All the teaching has been forgotten in bulk, over the years. Will give inputs from whatever little i know. Sangom Sir is highly knowledgable in this. So Sangom sir and others, please correct me, whereever have gone wrong.

Before i begin, wud like to mention these things:

1) All this is from the religious pov, which at best can be considered speculative, especially for those who have not experienced certain alter states of consciousness.

2) There are many divergent views and it is possible to create one's own concept of brahman; provided one is able to argue like a proper vedantin, with proper supporting material as pramana, against all the objections raised.

Here Pramana is similar to the 'references" we give to butress our arguments. One has to give references for his concept, by providing phrase(s) that could be interepreted to support his argument. Like Purnaamadah...purnamevavashishtaye, from an upanishad to support his concept that 'brahman is whole'.

3) Various schools have had their stand-offs. Ex: Brahmasutra (II.i.3) declares the view of Patanjali's Yoga stands refuted where it shows the Samkhya view is unsound. Samkhya argues based on logic, that pradhana or Prakriti is the cause of evolution. But Badrayana went against the view of Patanjali.

4) To argue like a vedantin, one has to forth basis by which his anumana is confirmed by pratyaksha. If one is a 'hindu', he must use the vedas and/or vedantas as his source of validation, not a buddhist or jain text. IMO basically anyone can butress their arguments by cherry picking points from vedantas, and vedas. This can lead to a situation where one is seen as 'taking sides'. Lets hope one does not want to take sides. But lets say, one wants to take sides, then all he needs to do is to butress his POV, or validate it, by providing references for his points from vedas and/or vedanta.

4) Additionally, one can been viewed as a person arguing like an escapist. By using vedanta as means of escape. Ex: One can say Pradhana of the Samkhyas is not the cause of the universe, just because it is not mentioned in the Upanishads. To butress this point, a vedantin can give some observable examples and go on to write / declare "this fact is clear from the fact of seeing / obervation (or thinking)".

5) From the religion pov, all this may be an exercise of concepts or words. Some concepts may not make sense to scientific thought. Ex: IMO, classifying so many emotions into just 3 categories of sattva, rajas, tamas is grossly insufficient. Descriptions on it are impractical, because, no one in this world can be ONLY sattva, ONLY rajas, and ONLY tamas.

Having said the above caveats, by which arguments in this subject can go in any direction, will proceed below.

• The term nirguNa, as Sravna indicated in post #548, means 'without any guNa', right? It is formed by the combination of the terms ni + guNa, ni--negation/privation and guNa--one of the three kinds sattva, rajas and tamas.
Yes agreed.

• If an entity is negated or deprived of all guNas--qualities/properties/attributes, and still it exists as consciousness, how best could it be described? As smt.ReNukA has pointed out it can only be a state of consciousness, which is beyond the triguNas.

• One way to describe that state is shUnyatA--emptiness, as in the Buddhist philosophy. But then this description raises the questions, "If it is empty, how can it be consciousness?", "If consciousness can somehow be emptiness, how can it be aware of itself?", "If it is emptiness, why should and how can there be existence?", "If there is no existence as universal consciousness what sustains this flow of life of sentient and insentient beings?"

• Another way to describe that state is pUrNatvam--fullness, as in the Advaita philosophy, enunciated in the famous shAnti mantra AUM pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam.
I agree with Renu. The nirguna of Shankara is similar to the buddhist Shunyata. So some people feel Adi Shankara (AS) should have used the word Aguna instead of Nirguna. On that basis, Sravna may have a point in saying his kind of brahman is 'nirguna'. But he cannot call it the nirguna-brahman of advaita, or that of Shankara.

In his Bhasya on Brahmasutra (BB), Adi Shankara accedes to the upanishadic view of brahman. So, Renu is right in saying sarvam khalvidam brahma, or, all this is verily brahman. This brahman is a whole. But this brahman is not the nirguna-brahman of AS. AS clearly differentiates between saguna-brahman and nirguna-brahman, as explained below.

We must be careful with the terms here. Those who wish to propound their own version of brahman must be able to discredit Adi Shankara's nirguna first, before proceeding to call "that", the nirguna of advaita.

In the Samanvaya section of BB, where AS deals with the first cause possessed of consciousness, AS establishes that this 'whole brahman' (of upanishads) is omniscient and the cause of the universe. AS postulates that this brahman has "eternal consciousness", it has no body, and is not dependent on means of knowledge.

This eternal consciousness being omniscient is ofcourse beyond all gunas. This consciousness is not empty. Being the 'universal consciousness' it sustains the flow of life of sentient and insentient beings. But this is not the nirguna-brahman of AS. Here the difference is in approach.

Nirguna-brahman is an atrributeless entity. One must be able to understand the differences between the terms used by Adi Shankara, that is 'conditioned-brahman', 'absolute brahman' and 'nirguna brahman'.

What an advaitin sadhaka seeks is the nirguna-brahman (to dissolve his consciousness into). 'Awareness' is what he experiences on the way.

For clarity, although not defined that way by AS, i would like to mention here what my guru said. My guru had said nirguna-brahman can be called an 'approach' by which a sadhaka seeks to merge himself into the 'absolute brahman'. Adi Shankara explains the same thing in his Brahmasutra Bhasya, in this manner :-

A sadhakas's organs merge in the mind, and mind merges in prana vital force, then prana merges in the soul, and prana merges in the self. In Shankara's advaita, a sadhaka first attains a brahman with attributes or a 'conditioned brahman'. Here again there is a difference in approach between Badrayana and Adi Shankara.

Badrayana says the soul gets merged in a 'conditioned brahman' but AS states in his BB, that this 'conditioned brahman' is designated that way because of its nearness to the 'absolute brahman'. IMO this premise of argument is not very sound (will not go into that now though, lets stick to the views of AS).

According to the view of AS, after the the soul merges in 'conditioned brahman', there comes a time when the world of 'conditioned brahman' gets dissolved. Thereafter, it attains a higher world. After reaching the highest "light", the soul becomes manifest in its own nature, that is, it attains liberation and becomes inseperable with the 'absolute brahman'.

Hope have been clear. IMO sravna is confusing the terms, 'whole brahman', 'conditioned brahman', and Nirguna-brahman. Agreed everthing is verily brahman, but this 'whole brahman' is not nirguna in advaita. This 'whole brahman' has attributes but is one without a second. Now we can bring out fallacies in the arguments of Adi Shankara. But will leave that for later.

Will continue on the rest of your points in the next point.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Dear Yamaka,

I dont see your post anywhere in line with what is being discussed.
You know you surely sound very very "JaDa".
Renu, Yamaka gave his observations. If you have counter-info, that's fine, a diccussion wud be good. Instead of doing that, no use making such blank ad-hominem comments...
 
Renu, Yamaka gave his observations. If you have counter-info, that's fine, a diccussion wud be good. Instead of doing that, no use making such blank ad-hominem comments...

That one line was my counter info and disccusion.I dont like to use many words these days.Time constrain.

Anyway Yamaka is one fine person who can handle any situation.

Thank you for your suggestion.
 
nirguna brahman,is the wholeness.from this wholeness everything got created,sustained,destroyed and the cycle keeps repeating from time immemorial meaning here is no start time or end time,as time itself is a human construct.humans are from the wholeness.karma is a tool which manifests for beings to go back to wholeness,as only wholeness.i think a shanthi mantra poornamidam....says in a nutshell.the body decomposes but the conscious subtle body takes another form to work out the karmas.i advaita darshana is so subtle fine,an experiance from an experianced teacher is a must,guru is the answere.
 
Let us cut the unnecessary show of emotions. Writing long post about your personal mistakes is not making a case. Just because you are smart in wring does not make you a problem solver.
The original thread was about Karma. Karma is purely taking personal responsibility of ones own action. You dont want to believe in that theory it is your own problem.
Y generally knows, what he is talking about.
Y,
Population is poor, and you are well to do who is responsible? What have you done? Just like the rest of us you too ran to get yourself comfortable. So why cry about it now. You did what you thought was expected of you. Now if you go out and do charity, you can feel little less guilty. If you think you can wash your hands by blaming it on Hindu Religion alone you are wrong.

Why is people in Haiti, or Somalia, or so many other country so poor. You do not believe in god, karma, or religion, so what does your innerself tells you. Quit moaning and find a solution. Throwing up your hand in air is not an answer.

Kabir Das says:
Pothi Padh Padh Kar Jag Mua,Pandit Bhayo Na Koye
Dhai Aakhar Prem Ke, Jo Padhe so Pandit Hoye

Translation
Reading Books and Scriptureseveryone died, No one became Pandit
Two and Half Words of Love, Who ever reads, Pandit he becomes

Meaning
Forget about book learning, no mater how many books you read, you won't become wise, you won't became the Pundit. A few words of love and you'll becomePundit. Try it.

For those who do not know hindi Prem used 2 1/2 alphabets. प्रेम=love
 
Last edited:
Yes my dear...It is Sanskrit.Hey Yams..look it up..Science has provided us with a computer to right click at that word and Google search it.LOL!!!

Hi Renuka:

Can you address the issue without going into your Sanskrit?

I charge that the Janma Poorva Karma - the core of Hinduism - has a pernicious effect on the poor Hindus, nearly 800 millions of them, who have been locked inside the Gates of Hell of Poverty.

JPK contends "Such abject poverty is due to what they have done in their previous births".

This is an atrocious explanation given by mostly the Affluent Hindus...

What's your argument against it, if you have any?
 
Last edited:
at least affluent and not so affluent hindus tried to explain yamaka.be happy with that.poorva janma karma is the answere for the happenings around us in our life.its natural in its inference,as to the cause and effect.i think its a noble explanation.
 
at least affluent and not so affluent hindus tried to explain yamaka.be happy with that.poorva janma karma is the answere for the happenings around us in our life.its natural in its inference,as to the cause and effect.i think its a noble explanation.

Nachi:

Then are you saying

1. All this people who are devout worshipers of Hindu Gods all day everyday are locked inside the Gates of Hell of Poverty because of their sins (actions) happened several generations ago?

2. Therefore, no policy changes in the Civil Administration is necessary, as per JPK Theory, because all will fail....that's the Will of God?

Do you have any solutions at all to these God loving poor people?
============================
Dear Sravna:

Since you started this Thread on Karma, can you please address the questions I raised above, if you want to?

Thanks.

Y
 
Last edited:
Hi Renuka:

Can you address the issue without going into your Sanskrit?

I charge that the Janma Poorva Karma - the core of Hinduism - has a pernicious effect on the poor Hindus, nearly 800 millions of them, who have been locked inside the Gates of Hell of Poverty.

JPK contends "Such abject poverty is due to what they have done in their previous births".

This is an atrocious explanation given by mostly the Affluent Hindus...

What's your argument against it, if you have any?


See Yamaka..its not that I dont want to give my views cos whatever I say you will say Neti Neti..oops Sanskrit again.

Ok Ok..I will give just 1 view:Who ever told you that someone is born poor due to previous birth sins?
Karma is not always measured with the material scale.
 
Last edited:
poverty is actually a term for have nots.are you saying only hindus experiance 'have not syndrome'.i know a ton of atheist who are broke,weed smokers,hookers ,in the atheist category as well.its only karma which gives a noble explanation.its your karma not to understand it in the forum,i accept you and your perspective here.
 
Therefore, no policy changes in the Civil Administration is necessary, as per JPK Theory, because all will fail....that's the Will of God?

poorva janma karma or simply karma is a term to explain an act of a being or work of a being .civil administration or policy changes requirement are based on interest of a party or collectively as a national need.some societies do well materially as well as spiritually,because the commerce brings in the moolah for distribution of wealth.material wealth and spiritual wealth bring happiness in different people differently.so in actuality it gets reduced to individual happiness ultimately.by comparing with others,some get happiness and unhappiness.for instance,there is one earth but we humans have divided it into many nations.did god ordain such an act for humans or did humans act as gods and acheived this state?
 
Dear Shri Yamaka,

The philosophy of science and that of religion are so different that one who follows science finds religion uttering gibberish and the one who is religious finds science as something we can do away with. The problem therefore is one does not or does not find it necessary to understand the other. With this caveat let me proceed with my pov.

Every soul coming into the physical world comes in to being with the least spiritual knowledge and so has to learn and acquire such knowledge to attain what hinduism calls as moksha or liberation from the physical world. Since soul is spiritual in nature, to be in the physical world it has to dwell in a physical body. The physical world serves the purpose of deluding the soul. Why should it delude the soul? Because spiritual knowledge is not acquired on a platter. Only if you go through all possible experiences, both sufferings and happiness do you really get a feel of all of them. To be able to rise above both the feelings of joy and sorrow and to attain liberation you have to have these experiences.

I am sure to be fair to all the souls , each one of them goes through similar experiences, at least equivalent experiences in their path towards moksha. It is only that each one is at a different stage in the process of evolution we seem to see the differences in the conditions of people.

Hinduism I repeat is not fatalistic. Only when something says that do not do anything because everything is predetermined then you can call it fatalistic. And Karma theory I think is a rational explanation given the premise of underlying spiritual reality.
 
Thory of Karma

Without adequate erudition or eloquence to discuss the subject, I enter into this thread with atmost reverence. I wish to share the view point of Sri Madhwacharya expressed in his "The Gita Tatparya" a companion volume to his "Gita Bhashya".

"Here, Karma yoga is explained in a vigorous way. Accordingly there is no freedom from activity.There is only freedom in activity. The basic rules of Karmayoga are:[FONT=arial !important]

(i)Exclusive obligation to act
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial !important](II) The absolute forbidding of selfish desires and the fruits of the act.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial !important](III) Surrendering all acts to God and[/FONT]
[FONT=arial !important](IV) Not to be intimidated to inaction.
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial !important]Gnana, Karma and Bhakthi are not exclusive to one another. All of them go together.Gita teaches us only the Samucchaya of gnana karma and Bhakthi. Social service is to be deemed as service to God, Madhva says so in Gita Tatparya.On the whole Gita is a guide to a robust human life and Bhashya and Tatparya strengthens it with nourishment ".
[/FONT](from Maadhva Philosophical literature)


Sri Madhwacharya gives an extraordinary definition to the concept of Karma in his
commentary for the following verse in Gita:

ArurukShOrmunEryOgam karma kAraNamucyatE |
yOgArUDhasya tasyaiva shamaH kAraNamucyatE || 6 - 3 ||

"He says karma is “nAnA janasya shushrUSha” or serving different people is karma for those who are striving in the path of mOkSha sAdhane ! . . . AchArya gave a new dimension to the social face of sAdhane which none of the pUrva AchAryas thought of! Social service is one of the most important aspects of spiritual upliftment".
(from Discourse on the gIta (chapter 6) by Shri Bannanje Govindacharya.)

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.



 
Contd from post 584, ..

• In science, the outer space was initially thought to be empty. Today scientists agree that it is not so, because an ultimate form of energy fills all space and acts as the substratum. Thus, there is no absolute emptiness or absolute rest in the physical universe.
Sir, i would suggest for now, better not to compare physics / astrophysics / universe with concepts put forward by our philosophers. We could do this later (after we have understood advaita concepts of shankara well).

• So, if that state is fullness, what is it filled with? This is where the Advaitin identifies it as sat-chit-Ananda.

• The fullness of NirguNa Brahman is sat because it is the absolute state of existence and reality. It is chit because it is the absolute state of consciousness. And it is Ananda because it is the absolute state of bliss and peace.
As explained in post 584, there is a difference between conditioned-brahman, absolute-brahman, and nirguna-brahman. A sadhaka feels ananda in the state of conditioned-brahman, because he is conscious and aware of his experiences.

But some sadhakas may describe, based on their experiences, that the blank-state of mind also feels like bliss. Such a claim could be dubious. As it would mean the sadhaka is still the experiencer, so he is still feeling something. He still has not attained the nirguna kind of blank-state, which is required to merge into the absolute-brahman.

Then there are sadhakas who "claim" that they have reached the 'light" of the absolute-brahman and feel bliss. But this is subjective really. One can suspect, without samadhi or entering nirguna first, how did they attain 'absolute-brahman'.

Anyways, there are many advaitin gurus who will explain the sat-chit-anand concept in various ways. So it depends really...

guNa and karma go together. Since this state is nirguNa, it is also the state of niShkarma and niShkAma--actionless and desireless. Thus, it can be described as a state of absolute bliss of the consciousness of existence, that only stands as a witness, being actionless and desireless in itself.
Reg the state of nirguna and bliss have explained above. But you are very right in bringing out the point of Karma. This thread being about Karma is infact imo, the crux of advaita.

Adi Shankara makes it clear that the sense of bondage emerges in the grahas (perceivers) through their sense-objects, as well as atigrahas (objects of perception). This is determined by past works or karma. The soul rests on karma or work we do during a lifetime.

Markandeya Rishi sums up Karma, beautifully in a single shloka -- janmamrityu jararogam piditam karma bandhanai..(beseeching Lord Mrityunjaya to release one from the repeated karmic cycle of birth, death, disease and rebirth). Am sure you and i resonate with this view.

There are numerous claims about karma, or karma-concept by various philosophers. IMO this point is also misused because some link this to caste. IMO every soul's intrinsic desire is moksham whether it is consciously aware of that or not. And IMO every soul is endowed with the ability to merge into brahman.

Reg the BG point of nishkama karma / desireless action, its utility can vary. To me, all actions have a desire. If one does not "desire" moksham, he will not become a sadhaka in the first place. If there is no desire, he won't keep persevering as a sadhaka despite so many difficultires. So, IMO, this point of nishkama karma is actually meant to keep out expectations, so that we do our actions without pinning hopes on things. It depends on where we utilise it.

sukha--pleasure, and duHkha--pain, are not attributes but states. They cannot be attributes because one man's pleasure can be another man's pain. However, they can be tinged with the shades of the three GuNas.
True.

shAnti--tranquility/peace, is a state that one gets into when that person is beyond the states arising out of the shades of pleasure and pain. Ananda--bliss, as absolute state of happiness, free of all pain, is another name for shAnti.
True.

• We experience peace in deep sleep but we are not conscious of it. Yet that peace fills our mind when we wake up from deep sleep.

• You said in post #544 that according to a Tibetan monk,
"If one meditates and goes blank, it is neither good nor bad, its just a 'state' that's there."

This raises the question, what was the Tibetan yogi conscious of in his samAdhi? How did he 'know' that state as shUnyatA--emptiness/blankness? If he knew it, then who or what was that knower in him? In what way does this state differ from the unconscious, blank state of deep sleep?

• The awareness of existence, knowledge and peace is usually described as pure, white light. In the waking state of existence, this light is colored by the activities of our mind and senses. In the dream state, it becomes colored by the mind. In the deep sleep state, the light seems to be off with only darkness prevailing, yet the state as absolute peace reasserts itself as feeling of fullness, as completely recharged, upon waking up.
This is what i hear from various advaitins (who follow AS and His brahmasutra bhasya):--

On attaining conditioned-brahman, there is total bliss and peace (since a sadhaka is still the experiencer who can perceive / experience this. This is ofcourse totally different from sleeping).

But on attaining nirguna-brahman, all awareness ceases. Its a complete blank / shunyata. One can say its like a point of death. A yogi is not aware of his samadhi. And after attaining this nirguna-brahman blank state (or samadhi), a soul enters a higher world, that is, it merges into absolute brahman. When it merges into absolute brahman, soul becomes omniscient. It is here that there is "light". It is without a second (advaita).

So, the flow is:
Conditioned-Brahman leading to >> Nirguna-Brahman leading to >> Absolute-Brahman.

But we must understand one thing -- Adi Shankara says such a liberated soul gets all divine powers, but it does not get the power of running the universe as the creator.

• The state a yogi enters into in meditation is the fourth state of turIya, which is not actually a fourth state, but the substratum of all the three other states. The fourth state of turIya asserts itself in the sandhi--junction of every kind of duality: heart-beat, clock tick, thoughts, breathing, and so on.

• With a little practice anyone can easily 'feel' the absolute peace and bliss of turIya by contemplating this sandhi. With training, the awareness of that state of bliss grows, consciousness expands, all knowledge shrinks to the knowledge of the Self as the ultimate reality, and this leads to the touch and go of savikalpa samAdhi.

Once a yogi has a taste of savikalpa samAdhi he becomes a mumukShu--desirous of mokSha, and rehearses that absolute state in his nirvikalpa samAdhi, living his life as a jIvan mukta expending his prArabdha karma, awaiting final release from the cycle of reincarnation and karma.
There are different kinds of Samadhi according to various gurus. Patanjali explains asamprajnata. While the meaning of the words, savikalpa, nirvikalpa, asamprajnata, turiya, etc do not change, different gurus might approach these alter-states in different ways. hence the utilisation of these words may vary. We must remember that teachers of various schools need not agree with each other. Which is why people will try different gurus until they settle down with one that feels like 'home'.

IMO there are many gurus who guide their sadhakas in advaita in different ways. We need not depend on the exact words of Adi Shankara. We say 'shankaracharya madhyamam' because the initial base was created by him after all. But the progression can be made in any way. A guru may take a bit of Patanjali, bit of Adi Shankara, bit of samkhya also, to create a path comfortable for his sadhaka. A guru can take the concepts of Vishistadvaita also. Advaita is basically flexible. And i beleive that is why it has become popular.

I read a primer on Vishistadvaita (VA) long back, loved it, it did not create as many questions in my mind as advaita did. But somehow i did not get around to studying VA more.

IMO the biggest difference between A and VA is mainly whether this 'absolute brahman' creator has a body or not. Adi Shankara uses 2 points from the Shvetopanaishad as the pramana to prove his point that 'absolute brahman' has no body. But one can make out an opposite case if he uses other points from the vedas and/or vedanta as his pramana.

It depends on the approach. If one wishes to love an idol absolutely and get self-realisation thru it as a medium, s/he is free to do so. It is in our mind, whether we wish to see an idol as a creator-god or not...one can say everything is verily Narayana...Meditating upon a emotive quality of a particular divinity, like 'Love' in the case of Krishna, is very much a valid path to absorb oneself into the mental expanse..

I feel there are many ways of creating new philosophies from our scriptures. There can also be ways of integrating new discoveries from science to complement and strengthen our philosophical concepts, whereever applicable. Personally to me, the point of approach does not matter really.....one must feel free to explore, question without fear, and feel no barriers whatsoever...

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Hi Renuka:

Can you address the issue without going into your Sanskrit?

I charge that the Janma Poorva Karma - the core of Hinduism - has a pernicious effect on the poor Hindus, nearly 800 millions of them, who have been locked inside the Gates of Hell of Poverty.

JPK contends "Such abject poverty is due to what they have done in their previous births".

This is an atrocious explanation given by mostly the Affluent Hindus...

What's your argument against it, if you have any?

Shri Yamaka,

Though this post was addressed to Smt Renuka, I feel the Karma theory together with the rebirth theory excellently aided the caste system to function smoothly and put each caste and each individual within it, to accept without any resistance, whatever disabilities and restrictions were attached to that position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top