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.
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.
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".
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. 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. 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.
sorry, my bad I read your comment as a response to Lori's and it appears that Vkothii did too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
k then back to the bubbles, eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!uke:
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?
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 ....)
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
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. 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 “ 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. 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.
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
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)
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. 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.) 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" -?
