I am confused about something.
I think I may have a flawed understanding of the Hindu interpretation of Atman.

I have always been told that in the Hindu belief system, as you go through your lifetimes your Atman gains wisdom, and the ultimate goal is for it to be wise enough to attain Nirvana.

At the same time, I have always been told that the Atman is the unchanging part of the self that is unaffected by worldly phenomena.

If the Atman is not affected by sensual stimulation and does not change, how can it gather wisdon through experiences in samsara?

I don't get it.
Please explain what I am missing.

Thanks

I think it goes something like: you cannot "understand" your Atman (inner self, soul, etc), because it isn't intellectual in nature - you can only perceive it. The wisdom is understanding this (that you cannot rationalise it or really explain it, only experience it).
I don't understand the statement: "your Atman gains wisdom"; your "Atman" isn't "wise", but is the source of perception - not intellectualism.

There are meant to be various levels along the path to eventual salvation, or realisation (not sure what all the Hindi names are), the last is Samadhi - eventual loss of "self" and merger with "the all", or somesuch. I know one is called Dhyana (maybe no. 4), which is the state of knowing one is on the path to enlightenment, and disconnection (detachment) from materialism and deluded thought. I think the first is desire to find the path - but there are many roads to the same goal, apparently. Maybe Nirvana is the "path" to Samadhi - number 6 of 7 levels of "enlightenment". Not 100% about all this, though.

Atman is a very complex concept.

It is defined as the moral, immortal essense of self, one that is limited by maya (illusion) and the senses (indriya).

In Vedic literature, the duality of mortal being (jiva) and immortal essence (atman), have been described as two birds sitting on a tree.


Rig Veda 1.164.20 Two birds associated together, and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on.

The first bird represents a Jiva, or individual self, or soul. She has a female nature, being a sakti, an energy of God. When the jiva becomes distracted by the fruits (signifying sensual pleasure), she momentarily forgets her lord and lover and tries to enjoy the fruit independently of him. This separating forgetfulness is maha-maya, or enthrallment, spiritual death, and constitutes the fall of the jiva into the world of material birth, death, disease and old age.

The second bird is the Paramatman, an aspect of God who accompanies every living being in the heart while she remains in the material world. He is the support of all beings and is beyond sensual pleasure.

IOW, the atman can neglect or drift away from the truth when we are distracted by the wordly pleasures. An analogy can be made to a man who moves away from his homeland and forgets his roots. They exist within him, but his enthrallment with the pleasures he encounters make him forget them.

"The self-existent Lord pierced the senses to make them turn outward. Thus we look to the external world and see not the Self with in us."

Its only when we divest our being of all sensory activities and illusions that the atman can perceive what truth is.


"There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the known and beyond the unknown."

Things are further complicated by the false atman, or ego, which assumes control and is a reflection of the illusory world and our sensory slavery to it.

"There are two selves, the separate ego and the indivisible Atman. When one raises above I, me and mine, the Atman reveals Itself as the real Self."


http://www.hinduwebsite.com/atman.asp

the true self (atman) is unchanging and perfect, it's just the body that has to be perfected so that you can be what you really are.

the body is a "distraction", like a dirty glass. when the glass is cleaned, you can see clearly. that's why we go to heaven when we die, because all distraction disappears. the glass breaks and we can be what we are: heaven.

It is defined as the moral, immortal essense of self, one that is limited by maya (illusion) and the senses (indriya).


I thought the Ego was limited by maya and indriya and the Atman was not.

The quote from Wiki that give me that impression is:

It is one's true self (hence generally translated into English as 'Self') beyond identification with the phenomenal reality of worldly existence.

"There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it... It is other than the known and beyond the unknown."

"There are two selves, the separate ego and the indivisible Atman."

There's you, and there's the mask you wear.
There's also confusion about "self", and translating Sanskrit. But essentially, there is (each) Atman, and there's a "false" self or ego, which identifies with the physical body and appearance (an illusion).

I am confused about something.
I think I may have a flawed understanding of the Hindu interpretation of Atman.

I have always been told that in the Hindu belief system, as you go through your lifetimes your Atman gains wisdom, and the ultimate goal is for it to be wise enough to attain Nirvana.

At the same time, I have always been told that the Atman is the unchanging part of the self that is unaffected by worldly phenomena.

If the Atman is not affected by sensual stimulation and does not change, how can it gather wisdon through experiences in samsara?

I don't get it.
Please explain what I am missing.


If you are a westerner (born and raised here) then do the following:

Borrow a book from your local library called "The New Master Key System" which is just came in the Libraries in the USA. The old one is hard to read. The new one is edited and the language is updated. Then come back. I will explain why Atman is not affected by emotions in the sense you are thinking. You can also deduce for yourself.

Emotions color the Wisdom. However, if you understand emotion as just information within the Samsara without that biased attachment, then you can still have the unbiased wisdom.

However, if you understand emotion as just information within the Samsara without that biased attachment, then you can still have the unbiased wisdom.

Except perhaps that bias against strong emotions.

I thought the Ego was limited by maya and indriya and the Atman was not.


Correct, but while the ego dominates, the atman is suppressed.

It is necessary to 'let go' of the ego for the atman to be freed. That is the whole concept of Nirvana or Mukti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha)

the true self (atman) is unchanging and perfect, it's just the body that has to be perfected so that you can be what you really are.

the body is a "distraction", like a dirty glass. when the glass is cleaned, you can see clearly. that's why we go to heaven when we die, because all distraction disappears. the glass breaks and we can be what we are: heaven.


I find curvaceous female bodies very distracting

I find curvaceous female bodies very distractingThat's your genes talking.
It's an example of adaptive behaviour. That is, the purpose behind you being attracted/distracted, which should be obvious to anyone old enough (or who grew up on a farm maybe), to know about reproduction (inheritance), is inheritance, or persistence.
The advantage for the female, of this interaction is that it leads to reproduction (your genes are telling you they want to survive, which is to their advantage).

But that's Evolution, of course....:shrug:

That's your genes talking.
It's an example of adaptive behaviour. That is, the purpose behind you being attracted/distracted, which should be obvious to anyone old enough (or who grew up on a farm maybe), to know about reproduction (inheritance), is inheritance, or persistence.
The advantage for the female, of this interaction is that it leads to reproduction (your genes are telling you they want to survive, which is to their advantage).

But that's Evolution, of course....:shrug:

I has nothing to do with evolution. Read your bible: " go forth and multiply" From your pitifully inadequate standpoint you may regard it as evolution.

Jesus, you really are pathetic aren't you? Perhaps you need to masturbate more often.

I find curvaceous female bodies very distracting

yes. it's because you have a male body, so you think you are a man, and men need girls, to be whole, because a man is only one half of the reality that we all are (god, mind).

Jesus, you really are pathetic aren't you? Perhaps you need to masturbate more often.

Invective is the last resort of those who have nothing worthwhile to say. By resorting to such ad homs., you lose the argument - in any rational debate, that is.

Thanks for the links, Sam.
I will certainly check them out.

Invective is the last resort of those who have nothing worthwhile to say. By resorting to such ad homs., you lose the argument - in any rational debate, that is.


ahh
thanks

i make a non fallacious statement laced with invective
you make a fallacious statement devoid of invective

you win
in a rational debate that is

very clever

/kowtow

imparting godlike characteristics to this atman fella is a mistake
the fuck could be a piece of shit
a retard

ahh
thanks

i make a non fallacious statement laced with invective
you make a fallacious statement devoid of invective

you win
in a rational debate that is

very clever

/kowtow

IF
Your statement is non fallacious YOU
will not
need to have recourse to
Invective because
It does nothing
To
bolster
your
ARGUMENT

Myles, you don't have an argument.

IF
Your statement is non fallacious YOU
will not
need to have recourse to
Invective because
It does nothing
To
bolster
your
ARGUMENT

ahh
you are of course, making an assumption that the invective serves to bolster said argument

unnecessary and quite erroneous
yet it could be possible that you had divined intent
therefore....

/kowtow

I am confused about something.
I think I may have a flawed understanding of the Hindu interpretation of Atman.

I have always been told that in the Hindu belief system, as you go through your lifetimes your Atman gains wisdom, and the ultimate goal is for it to be wise enough to attain Nirvana.

At the same time, I have always been told that the Atman is the unchanging part of the self that is unaffected by worldly phenomena.

If the Atman is not affected by sensual stimulation and does not change, how can it gather wisdon through experiences in samsara?

I don't get it.
Please explain what I am missing.

Thanks

Good question
(just when I was on the brink of giving up all hope on sciforums!)



First of all the word atma generally means self, as distinct from say the body or mind.

hence statements like this

BG 13.30: One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.

IOW we are effectively doing "nothing" in this material world (rather everything is automatic due to the laws of karma)
The atma remains eternally pure, however it can get covered by conditioned nature simply due to issues of perspective - much like how the sun can get covered by clouds simply due to issues of perspective (the sun remains always unaffected by mere cloud cover on a certain portion of our planet)

hence the real issue of "progress" in conditioned life is not so much about attaining wisdom but changing perspective - eg


BG 3.39: Thus the wise living entity's pure consciousness becomes covered by his eternal enemy in the form of lust, which is never satisfied and which burns like fire.

BG 3.40: The senses, the mind and the intelligence are the sitting places of this lust. Through them lust covers the real knowledge of the living entity and bewilders him.

BG 3.41: Therefore, O Arjuna, best of the Bhāratas, in the very beginning curb this great symbol of sin [lust] by regulating the senses, and slay this destroyer of knowledge and self-realization.

There are many explanations and details about changing material perspective, but they can be generally categorized according to the three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas or goodness passion and ignorance)

BG 18.37: That which in the beginning may be just like poison but at the end is just like nectar and which awakens one to self-realization is said to be happiness in the mode of goodness.

BG 18.38: That happiness which is derived from contact of the senses with their objects and which appears like nectar at first but poison at the end is said to be of the nature of passion.

BG 18.39: And that happiness which is blind to self-realization, which is delusion from beginning to end and which arises from sleep, laziness and illusion is said to be of the nature of ignorance.

These three perspectives however are material and do not pertain to the atma, although cultivating goodness will raise one, passion will send one sideways and ignorance will send one downwards.

SB 11.13.1: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The three modes of material nature, namely goodness, passion and ignorance, pertain to material intelligence and not to the spirit soul. By development of material goodness one can conquer the modes of passion and ignorance, and by cultivation of transcendental goodness one may free oneself even from material goodness.

Rather one must cultivate transcendental goodness (or suddha sattva/pure goodness).
The reason that goodness is not suddha or pure in the material world is because it always in competition with the other two gunas. Nonetheless, it is the saving grace of conditioned existence and the default position of serious practioners who are not on the transcendental platform.

SB 11.13.6: Until one revives one's direct knowledge of the spirit soul and drives away the illusory identification with the material body and mind caused by the three modes of nature, one must cultivate those things in the mode of goodness. By increasing the mode of goodness, one automatically can understand and practice religious principles, and by such practice transcendental knowledge is awakened.

And herein lies the hint of the dynamic element of pure/transcendental goodness - to be consistently pure one must have a consistent sense of self to work out of ... IOW one must realizewhat one is, beyond one's material mind or material body.If one thinks that one's atma is ultimately the body and mind one will (hopefully) be forced to operate out of the mode of goodness (or something lesser).

Hence the final point of vedic wisdom is

CC Madhya 20.108-109: "It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa

or

BG 5.29: A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.

or

BG 7.19: After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.

atman can function unhindered in a human
all one has to do is to figure our the reasoning behind any given proposition
then validate, settling for the best fit if need be

it is what we aspire to in sci
superlatives be damned

BG 7.19: After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.

/spits

That is because...more like...that Knowledge is not available to humans....

BG 7.19: After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.

/spits

Perhaps TS Eliot?

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.

IOW we are effectively doing "nothing" in this material world (rather everything is automatic due to the laws of karma)
Here you seem to be saying that there is no such thing as free will or self determination.
However, you then go on to say:


SB 11.13.1: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The three modes of material nature, namely goodness, passion and ignorance, pertain to material intelligence and not to the spirit soul. By development of material goodness one can conquer the modes of passion and ignorance, and by cultivation of transcendental goodness one may free oneself even from material goodness.

Rather one must cultivate transcendental goodness (or suddha sattva/pure goodness).
The reason that goodness is not suddha or pure in the material world is because it always in competition with the other two gunas. Nonetheless, it is the saving grace of conditioned existence and the default position of serious practioners who are not on the transcendental platform.
[I]


So...
We do nothing, as all actions are the results of karma - however, we must cultivate material goodness. How can one cultivate anything, if one can do nothing by one's own will?

BG 7.19: After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.

/spits
If there is something appealing about the implied obliteration and meaninglessness of everything one holds dear, then it is time to start chanting the names of God.

It is not only also the non-meaninglessness of that which one holds dear, and does not - but surrenders, and does not.

Could you rephrase that?

You mean, cancel the double negative?

Here you seem to be saying that there is no such thing as free will or self determination.
However, you then go on to say:



So...
We do nothing, as all actions are the results of karma - however, we must cultivate material goodness. How can one cultivate anything, if one can do nothing by one's own will?

Two points

1) Choosing between goodness, passion and ignorance (three material gunas) is kind of like choosing between low, average and maximum security residency in a jail - no matter which choice one makes, one is still in jail. In the same way , any choice we make in material consciousness (goodness, passion or ignorance) remains a choice that can only deliver material results - arguably you could say that choices in the mode of goodness offer a higher grade of existence, but it still remains an existence curtailed by issues of repeated birth, death, old age and disease.

2) Material goodness is often glorified over the other two since it offers one unique thing the other two modes do not - the ability to actually see things as they are and act accordingly.

SB 11.13.11: One who does not control the material senses comes under the control of material desires and is thus bewildered by the strong waves of the mode of passion. Such a person executes material activities, although clearly seeing that the result will be future unhappiness.

(Even if we haven't had the experience of being unable to properly apply knowledge due to material desire, I am sure we have all seen the example numerous times in others)

In short, everyone (whether in goodness, passion or ignorance) is constantly making decisions, but it is those decisions made in the mode of goodness which offer the possibilityof liberation from samsara, while choices made under the other two influences tend to subvert or curtail it (kind of like progressing to low grade security in prison offers the hope of attaining actual freedom, as opposed to being transfered to maximum security).
Until we come to the point of acting on a platform that is free from samsara, we are not acting with the atma, but are rather acting within the three gunas (ie the consciousness "I am this body/mind")

That is because...more like...that Knowledge is not available to humans....
actually there is a different suggestion


BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

This knowledge is not available to all humans

BG 7.3 Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.

How many people like listening to classical music?
How many people like listening to rap music?

How many people are familiar with prominent and influential authors of the previous century?
How many people are familiar with prominent football teams?

The higher you go, the slimmer the odds.

Perhaps TS Eliot?

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.


another retard

one cannot postulate an end to exploration and simultaneously assert one not cease said exploration. a goddamn untenable state of affairs

/bitchslaps eliot

it gets worse....

/bitchslaps eliot again

he projects his inability to comprehend life on his fellow humans. knowledge of his initial state or condition was unknown. however, a sojourn in the goddamn wilderness finds eliot walking around in a circle. returning to the homestead, the loon remarks..i know this place now

/bends eliot over

pondering further..i must conclude eliot has actually said nothing of worth. i mean, who does not know that most shit lies within oneself?

eliot! what then, you bastard? what then?

another retard

one cannot postulate an end to exploration and simultaneously assert one not cease said exploration. a goddamn untenable state of affairs

The idea being that its not the view that is new, its the viewpoint. Ego is like the red haze of anger, it does not change what you see, just how you see it.

The idea being that its not the view that is new, its the viewpoint.
Is it something like: we only think we're walking along some road, but we're still in the same place?

The view just keeps changing, or we notice more detail?

Myles, I can't believe you said that.

Vkothii, masturbation is not the answer.

And Yorda, how in the hell did you get so enlightened?

You guys were actually on a roll there for a minute...

I'm very intruiged by Hinduism. I can relate to what I've heard and I want to hear more.

a waste of time
the semantics are antiquated and inefficient

... or alternatively, the youth of india are alka-seltzering their way through the cultural garbage in the space of about 5 years what the west has had sixty years to digest ..... and in the process are missing a few details of their own culture .....

:o

no lg
that does not follow
your point could perhaps stand on its own but does nothing to address my post which i assume you reference

How are the semantics antiquated?
Geometry hasn't changed much since back then.
In Hinduism, Sikhism and the associated traditions are the most interesting, to me. But Yoga is about the self.
The Asian martial arts tap into this same theme, and the nature and rhythm of breathing, alone. The other "senses" (internal and external) get a good workout too.

How are the semantics antiquated?
Geometry hasn't changed much since back then.
I'll take you at your word here, since I am not mathematician. But I don't think the analogy holds. Culture and psychology - both the study of and the 'things themselves' have certainly changed, and these two patterns definitely affected the language used to describe things. Judgements that were made then about what MUST BE and THE ONLY WAY TO HEAL and so on were made fitting that time, other judgements held at that time - to give another definition of 'culture' - the psychology of individuals at that time, and so on.

Imagine a male psychologist from Scarsdale in the 50s transplanted to the 2000s and giving advice to a middle class 20 years woman. One who looked a hell of a lot like his clients back then. He'd be lost, stiff and very strange with her. And hopefully he'd have the insight to pick it up.

Shift across cultures and toss in centuries and the way parents sound in Peanuts cartoons might be as effective communication.

Culture and psychology - both the study of and the 'things themselves' have certainly changed, and these two patterns definitely affected the language used to describe things.The "things we know" at this time may be more sophisticated and detailed, but the idea of "better knowledge", and "advancement", are kind of moot. How much has been forgotten, how much that "was known" is still known? How much has the "new" overturned the "old"?

We only believe that we know "more", and that the knowledge is "improving", perhaps because to believe otherwise just isn't in our makeup.
There are plenty of examples of ancient technologies that have been lost "forever".
Interestingly Ayurvedism is being looked at again by "modern" medical research, some aspects appear to be "worthy of interest". And no-one can explain acupuncture/acupressure, or the placebo effect, with Western medical "principles".

The "things we know" at this time may be more sophisticated and detailed, but the idea of "better knowledge", and "advancement", are kind of moot. How much has been forgotten, how much that "was known" is still known? How much has the "new" overturned the "old"?
For example. Cultures at that time had all sorts of authority issues, judgements of sex, judgements of emotions that have undergone changes in at least some subcultures. Their techniques of liberation have built into them these judgements and concerns about 'losing control' that may not fit some of us who want to explore something less controlled and have found that the judgements do not fit for us, at least.


We only believe that we know "more", and that the knowledge is "improving", perhaps because to believe otherwise just isn't in our makeup.

I don't think I fit in this category. I am not enamoured of Western Science for example when compared to the technologies of, say, Shamans. I see both groups however, as tending to have built in judgements about what is possible psychologically - using that rather banal word in a very broad way. I am not thinking about our ability to build cellphones or to use neural imaging devices.

I am talking about, for example, the changes wrought by Elvis' hips. Or by all the issues Freud raised.

They were afraid of the id in ways we do not need to be any more. At least I don't.


There are plenty of examples of ancient technologies that have been lost "forever".
Interestingly Ayurvedism is being looked at again by "modern" medical research, some aspects appear to be "worthy of interest". And no-one can explain acupuncture/acupressure, or the placebo effect, with Western medical "principles".

Sure, and I am with you on all of that, been to ayurvedic practictions and avoid 'barbers' unless it is something they are good at like bullet holes. But I will very likely find even the best Ayurvedic doctors to have very strong judgements about emotional expression, how one related to the unconscious and so on. In fact that is my experience.

no lg
that does not follow
your point could perhaps stand on its own but does nothing to address my post which i assume you reference
sorry, my bad

I read your comment as a response to Lori's


I'm very intruiged by Hinduism. I can relate to what I've heard and I want to hear more.

a waste of time
the semantics are antiquated and inefficient

and it appears that Vkothii did too
:o

no lg
you read correctly
as appears vkothii

/smirk

k then

back to the bubbles, eh?

http://leighhouse.typepad.com/advergirl/images/alka_seltzer_burger_1.jpg

:puke:

Is the Atman eternal?
Has it always existed?
Did my Atman exist before I was born?
Will it continue to exist when I escape samsara?

Is the Atman eternal?
Has it always existed?
Did my Atman exist before I was born?
Will it continue to exist when I escape samsara?
yes x 4

BG 2.12 Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

SB 7.7.19-20: "Ātmā" refers to the Supreme Lord or the living entities. Both of them are spiritual, free from birth and death, free from deterioration and free from material contamination. They are individual, they are the knowers of the external body, and they are the foundation or shelter of everything. They are free from material change, they are self-illuminated, they are the cause of all causes, and they are all-pervading. They have nothing to do with the material body, and therefore they are always uncovered. With these transcendental qualities, one who is actually learned must give up the illusory conception of life, in which one thinks, "I am this material body, and everything in relationship with this body is mine."

So, according to Vedas philosophy, did my Atman choose to come to this physical plane of existence?
If the Atman is perfectly wise and has an unfettered vision, it must know what this physical realm is, correct?
If it is aware of this physical realm before I arrived here, does that imply that it chose to come here?

So, according to Vedas philosophy, did my Atman choose to come to this physical plane of existence?
If the Atman is perfectly wise and has an unfettered vision, it must know what this physical realm is, correct?
If it is aware of this physical realm before I arrived here, does that imply that it chose to come here?
basically isvara, or god, can lay claim to omniscience - IOW since all cosmic manifestations (the living entity, material nature, spiritual nature etc) emmanate from him, he is in a position to know them - hence omniscience.

Both isvara and the living entity are composed of eternity(sat), knowledge(cit) and bliss(ananda) however. Cit basically means something like awareness as opposed to omniscience. IOW in the purified state one is constantly aware (whereas in conditioned life we have stages of wakefulness, dreaming and deep dreamless sleep and we are constantly bewildered by issues of the self/mind/body).

Basically one comes to the material world due to the desire to enjoy separately from isvara. If we had proper comprehension of the material world, we wouldn't make such a decision .... but anyway, here we are .....

Sometimes the living entity is described as a marginal potency - this means that it has absolutely no scope for independence and has the tendency to take shelter of either the external energy (material world) or the internal energy (spiritual world) - once having taken shelter of either, a lot of things become automatic (for instance, having taken shelter of material nature, we get decked out with a material ego, a set of genitals, etc and suddenly we have lots of things to do here ....)

Myles, you don't have an argument.

I don't need one. Jesus loves you and Gustav vecause you are his father's creatures. I love you too. As it says in the Good Book,

"Love those who inveigh against you for they are misled bt Satan."

Eugenics 2.14

Basically one comes to the material world due to the desire to enjoy separately from isvara.
Why would an entity who is a pure consciousness in perfect bliss want to leave that?

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.


If we had proper comprehension of the material world, we wouldn't make such a decision .... but anyway, here we are .....
Even if someone did want to leave that ideal state, it seems to me that a being with perfect awareness, perfect wisdom and unfettered perception would know the trappings of the material world.

Realization is the realization that there is no realization except the realization that there is no realization.

One raven
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Basically one comes to the material world due to the desire to enjoy separately from isvara.
”
Why would an entity who is a pure consciousness in perfect bliss want to leave that?
its kind of like a person who likes cake might suddenly desire to eat ice cream. It doesn't mean that they don't like cake - it just means that they are thinking "well lets try something different". In the same way, the notion of enjoying separate from god simply appears like another alternative. And that is where the analogy of cake and ice cream falls down, since those two are more or less equally enjoyable.


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If we had proper comprehension of the material world, we wouldn't make such a decision .... but anyway, here we are .....
”
Even if someone did want to leave that ideal state, it seems to me that a being with perfect awareness, perfect wisdom and unfettered perception would know the trappings of the material world.
an important concept to the machinations of the material world is that it functions on being separate from god (all by the power of illusion of course, since it technically impossible to separate from god even in the grossest conditions of existence). The living entity in a liberated state has nothing within their experience to draw a parallel to that, since they have no capacity for illusion.

its kind of like a person who likes cake might suddenly desire to eat ice cream. It doesn't mean that they don't like cake - it just means that they are thinking "well lets try something different". In the same way, the notion of enjoying separate from god simply appears like another alternative.

In your understanding of how come people become separate from God, would it be adequate to say the following is not what describes your stance accurately:

People know God, but in their evil hearts, they deliberately want to get away from him. So, even while having knowledge of him, they deny him. This is how people become separate from God.


-?

In your understanding of how come people become separate from God, would it be adequate to say the following is not what describes your stance accurately:

People know God, but in their evil hearts, they deliberately want to get away from him. So, even while having knowledge of him, they deny him. This is how people become separate from God.


-?
maybe replace the word "evil" with "contaminated" - the heart is unconstitutionally pure - when the heart is contaminated it's also not proper to really talk of knowledge of god - rather, ignorance of god

maybe replace the word "evil" with "contaminated" - the heart is unconstitutionally pure - when the heart is contaminated it's also not proper to really talk of knowledge of god - rather, ignorance of god

Just to be sure, I am contrasting what you say with something fire and brimstone Christianity says. In that Christianity, it is said that the Fall occured in full knowledge and with evil intent; that it was in no way a mistake made in ignorance or in a moment of weakness.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in your understanding of how come people become separated from God, no such full knowledge and evil intent are present.
Your understanding probably has different consequences for the way a person will relate to God - I presume the relating will not be based on guilt, but on something else.

Just to be sure, I am contrasting what you say with something fire and brimstone Christianity says. In that Christianity, it is said that the Fall occured in full knowledge and with evil intent; that it was in no way a mistake made in ignorance or in a moment of weakness.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in your understanding of how come people become separated from God, no such full knowledge and evil intent are present.
Your understanding probably has different consequences for the way a person will relate to God - I presume the relating will not be based on guilt, but on something else.
it is generally understood that material life is characterized by envy of god

for instance take this reference on how to escape unnecessary anxiety

BG 10.8 A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.

Generally we view our worth in this world by determining how we can benefit by our austerity (or "hard work"), the extent we can control a particular environment, and how everyone one else can participate in our (apparently) wonderful loving exchanges.

IOW we set ourselves up as a competitor to god.
This doesn't challenge god's position in any way, much like a 60 watt lightbulb doesn't challenge the luminosity of the sun .... but it does cause us significant problems.

The whole thing about getting back to the spiritual world is to understand what a completely stupid idea it is to maintain envy of god - so this might include dealing with issues of repentance, etc, but these are only means to the goal of purification.

IOW one doesn't have an eternal relationship with god in a state of guilt, even if they come to the material world. Dealing with issues of guilt are only in the foreground amongst those who are in conditioned life and can see the folly of it.

Once one has overcome that issue (IOW when one is liberated) it is no longer an issue. In fact there is not even any distinction between a soul that has made the folly of coming to this world (sadhana sidha) and a soul that is eternally in a state of non contact with matter (nitya siddha)

it is generally understood that material life is characterized by envy of god
...
Generally we view our worth in this world by determining how we can benefit by our austerity (or "hard work"), the extent we can control a particular environment, and how everyone one else can participate in our (apparently) wonderful loving exchanges.

IOW we set ourselves up as a competitor to god.

I agree that in effect, this might well be so. But I doubt it is also necessarily true in motivation - that is, I doubt that anyone thinks to themselves "I am now going to clean my house and I am going to do it all on my own and I am going to show God that I don't need him to clean my house".
Usually, I think one would think "I am now going to clean my house and I am going to do it all on my own" - which in effect is competition to God, but it's not specifically motivated to compete with God.



This doesn't challenge god's position in any way, much like a 60 watt lightbulb doesn't challenge the luminosity of the sun .... but it does cause us significant problems.

In a similar manner that it causes us problems if we think that whatever wisdom we have, is simply our own and of our own making and discovery, as if the fact that we have read many books and spoken with many people had nothing to do with it. (To say nothing of the fact that we have been so fortunate to be healthy and wealthy enough to be able to pursue wisdom in the first place.)



The whole thing about getting back to the spiritual world is to understand what a completely stupid idea it is to maintain envy of god

Envy - like thinking "I'm going to first try to make it on my own, and become Liberated on my own" -?
Or envy - like "I can do this better than God can" -?

Greenberg


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it is generally understood that material life is characterized by envy of god
...
Generally we view our worth in this world by determining how we can benefit by our austerity (or "hard work"), the extent we can control a particular environment, and how everyone one else can participate in our (apparently) wonderful loving exchanges.

IOW we set ourselves up as a competitor to god.
”
I agree that in effect, this might well be so. But I doubt it is also necessarily true in motivation - that is, I doubt that anyone thinks to themselves "I am now going to clean my house and I am going to do it all on my own and I am going to show God that I don't need him to clean my house".
Usually, I think one would think "I am now going to clean my house and I am going to do it all on my own" - which in effect is competition to God, but it's not specifically motivated to compete with God.
to take it a bit further, we generally clean our house with the view that it will increase our happiness - IOW the house becomes an extension of one's bodily ego (for instance if we hear that our street got flooded and some houses got swept away we are in great distress - but when we hear that it was the neighbours house we feel a great sense of relief).
This is of course a false designation, but it is built primarily on the premise of enjoying separately from god. IOW if we were forced to be conscious of god's presence in our acts of enjoying separately, we wouldn't be able to properly relish our ignorance ("Oh boy here I go again, cleaning my house just to get god out of the picture again")


“

This doesn't challenge god's position in any way, much like a 60 watt lightbulb doesn't challenge the luminosity of the sun .... but it does cause us significant problems.
”
In a similar manner that it causes us problems if we think that whatever wisdom we have, is simply our own and of our own making and discovery, as if the fact that we have read many books and spoken with many people had nothing to do with it. (To say nothing of the fact that we have been so fortunate to be healthy and wealthy enough to be able to pursue wisdom in the first place.)
there is even a term for this
its called mayapahrta jnana - basically it means one who's knowledge is stolen by illusion - it explains why many apparently adroit philosophers, scientists and artists cannot properly enter into the practice of spiritual life



“
The whole thing about getting back to the spiritual world is to understand what a completely stupid idea it is to maintain envy of god
”
Envy - like thinking "I'm going to first try to make it on my own, and become Liberated on my own" -?
Or envy - like "I can do this better than God can" -?
probably the first one is more common since it doesn't necessarily entail a detailed description of god

IOW we set ourselves up as a competitor to god.

I've reflected on this and found three very blatant examples of humans competing with God:

1. Deifying other people, other beings, things or activities, believing that they are our Alpha and Omega.

2. The desire to be deified, to be considered someone's Alpha and Omega. The desire to be adored, unconditionally submitted to.

3. Deifying oneself, developing the conviction that one can do anything - and that the reasons why one doesn't actually do everything have nothing to do with oneself.

These three are easily present in effect, but also in motivation.

to take it a bit further, we generally clean our house with the view that it will increase our happiness - IOW the house becomes an extension of one's bodily ego

What would be the appropriate view of cleaning the house?

You can't stop desiring because wanting to stop desiring is also a desire. Catch 22

You can't stop desiring because wanting to stop desiring is also a desire. Catch 22

No, it's not necessarily a catch 22.
If there is such a thing as Truth, Enlightenment or Liberation, then there is an end to desire; if there is such a thing as Truth, Enlightenment or Liberation, then there is a path of desire that leads to the end of desire.

So, according to Vedas philosophy, did my Atman choose to come to this physical plane of existence?
If the Atman is perfectly wise and has an unfettered vision, it must know what this physical realm is, correct?
If it is aware of this physical realm before I arrived here, does that imply that it chose to come here?

None can give proper answer, none knows..

When you stop searching and desiring enlightenment, you become enlightened. There is no realization because there is no self to realize it. There is no problem either.

None can give proper answer, none knows..
or at least, none that you know of .....

I've reflected on this and found three very blatant examples of humans competing with God:

1. Deifying other people, other beings, things or activities, believing that they are our Alpha and Omega.

2. The desire to be deified, to be considered someone's Alpha and Omega. The desire to be adored, unconditionally submitted to.

3. Deifying oneself, developing the conviction that one can do anything - and that the reasons why one doesn't actually do everything have nothing to do with oneself.

These three are easily present in effect, but also in motivation.
the first one is kind of a yes and no issue, since there are some persons/paraphernalia etc that is actually sacred - IOW if one treats them like an ordinary mundane object, one procures a result not conducive to spiritual life.

Number 2 and 3 are more accurate however - actually developing a sacred aspect of one's existence takes one the other direction - IOW one becomes very humble and very cautious of how one acts in relation to god


What would be the appropriate view of cleaning the house?
maintaining all material things is usually done in the spirit that "this has been allotted to me by god and I have a responsibility to maintain it". Further more one sees that result or fruit of that maintenance is somehow connected to the service of god.

BG 3.9 Work done as a sacrifice for Visnu has to be performed; otherwise work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that way you will always remain free from bondage.

For instance, people commonly have altars in their house and try to cultivate the comprehension that the house actually belongs to god (one is born with nothing and dies with nothing)

Or a person may keep their body healthy since it is the medium that one uses to perform the activities of liberation etc

Of course its a fine line, and so called spiritual practitioners can simply use it as a screen to disguise their material attachments, but its the nature of spiritual life, even if performed in a half hearted way, to pull things into their proper perspective.

or at least, none that you know of .....

including you and your scriptures..

including you and your scriptures..

How do you know that?

How do you know that?

do you agree with post #51 ?

or he himself satisfied with his answer ?

do you agree with post #51 ?

I can neither agree nor disagree with it. I do, however, allow for the possibility that someone might be speaking the truth, present the right doctrine - even though they themselves might still be subject to impurity.

Just like, for example, a student might write down the right answer to an equation on a math test, even though the student has not arrived at it the right way (ie. not via using the right principles for solving equations).



or he himself satisfied with his answer ?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence -?

including you and your scriptures..
given that you don't know me and its even more unlikely that you know the vedas, its difficult to see how you're offering a fresh angle

given that you don't know me and its even more unlikely that you know the vedas, its difficult to see how you're offering a fresh angle

You, veda pundit, could only answer in a pathetic manner to a question of why :


Basically one comes to the material world due to the desire to enjoy separately from isvara. If we had proper comprehension of the material world, we wouldn't make such a decision .... but anyway, here we are .....

You, veda pundit, could only answer in a pathetic manner to a question of why :
and from that issue, you now know me and the entire vedas?
:o

I don't assume that the answer is in vedas, or anyother scriptures of any religion.

I don't assume that the answer is in vedas, or anyother scriptures of any religion.
thats a slightly different attitude from what was presented in post 70

I don't assume that the answer is in vedas, or anyother scriptures of any religion.

In that case, are you suggesting agnosticism?

And secondly, if there is an answer - how do you suggest to find it, whose or what instructions to follow?

In that case, are you suggesting agnosticism?


And secondly, if there is an answer - how do you suggest to find it, whose or what instructions to follow?

I don't know the answer, and not satisfied with the various answers how atman/soul got messed up with illusionary maya from a pure state.

I don't know the answer, and not satisfied with the various answers how atman/soul got messed up with illusionary maya from a pure state.

Why not? What bothers you about it?

Mind you, I myself am not particularly satisfied with those answers either.