02-01-2005, 12:40 AM
Regarding mergers, many devotees become deeply identified with thei guru or chosen deity.
On a lower level even we get identified with our country, religion etc. This common identity for a group of separate people could appear like a disjoint bunch. But in many cases such as a highly devotional group or a lynch-mob, the collection takes up a personality of its own.
People fall in love and have deep identification with their object of love.
Since such identifications can happen even at mundane levels, it suggests, many to one mapping that the relationship of jivas to Ishvara implies, could possibly happen at many levels too.
Of course as we move up the consciousness chain, the roots where the mergers could possibly happen are likely to become more and more sat, chit and anada.
The other way to ask the same questions is to ask whether there is just one kind of 'mukti' or many kinds. Most people mean by 'mukti' to attain to the level of the highest nirguna brahman. But for our human condition, in this school of earth, it appears that 'mukti' from even just the push and pulls of vital-emotions means a huge accomplishment. Just watch the movies, dramas, TV and read the books. A majority of drama of life on earth is written in terms of vital-emotional push and pulls, the rAga and dvesha of the lower vital personality. A 'mukti' from just that may be a hug 'mukti' for most people.
While philosophizing, it is easy to forget how far the nirguna brahman really is. From a saguna level like ours to the nirguna there may be uncountable numbers of layers.
And if someone says that one particular saguna level is especially important and is the ONLY one just below the nirguna, then I have a problem with that too. I think it is always possible to find the next element in a sequence of sagunas. There is no 'final' element at the level of sagunas. Only final element is the nirguna.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> There can not be higher and higher Ishwara because there can be only one ominiscient being. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The usage of words like 'omniscient' (all-knowing) also opens up the same problems as the usage of the word 'all' in other instances.
<b>Is an omniscient being also aware of all future, (trikAladarshI)? Then there is no meaning of 'will' as everything that is going to happen is already known to him. There can't be any purpose for the omniscient being because to him the future is already decided, he knows it. In that sense there is no role for him to play within time. No devotees to save, no dharma to protect etc., no purpose. Seen from within time, such as from our viewpoint, he will appear completely devoid of any motive or purpose, completely immovable by any demands, prayers or requests. We may wish to change the coming events, but he can't, because for him they are already fixed. That differes from the conventional idea one has about a personal God.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. The consciousness that is projected onto the anandamaya kosha or the very FIRST covering of the Atman is a subset of Ishwara's consciousness. The consciousness that is projected onto the other koshas activate the mind and physical body of the being to whom these koshas belong. It is at the level of the mind and body that all beings differ from each other and are affected by Karma and hence the other Koshas can not be part of Ishwara. If the other koshas also form part of Ishwara then Ishwara will be affected by Karma of the Jivas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why doesn't Ishvara, if he has any action on any of the koshas, not feel the reaction too? All the koshas are supposed to be linked causally. TWhy wouldn't they mutually affect each other. Even if Ishvara only deals with anadamaya, still he gets the effects of all the koshas because anandamaya itself gets affected by lower koshas.
It appears that it is being implied that Ishvara can act on the world without himself facing any reaction. This kind of separation has been proposed many times where a certain ideal entity can affect other non-ideal entities, but remains unaffected himself. Again if this were to be taken to be absolutely true then certains problems arise.
<b>If Ishvara is completely unaffected by lower things, then how can he respond to our prayers, complaints and sorrows that evidently arise in the lower realms. If his actions would only be 'actions' not 'reactions' then nothing we could do, pray or beseech from our lower level could affect him to change his intent or action. Compassion implies getting affected by others suffering.</b>
Is Ishvara a personal God, who listens to our prayers and responds to our requests and causes changes in the world based on those needs? Or Ishvara is the far far away omniscient, unattached being? It is said that he does get affected by our sorrow to respond with compassion. If he were not affected at all then his response would be stochastic.
To me it appears that to be the father & the mother, the protector and the compassionate refuge, Ishvara has to descend into all the lower realms and give loving importance to every little thing of creation. Is he happy with the joy of the world and sorrowful with the pain of the world. If he enetrs the worlds down to the level of inconscient then does he also willingly suffers the associated pains that this endeavour entails. He couldn't just be sitting far away in heaven. He is also enmeshed in the world. Christianity for example tackles this situation by seating the "father" in the heaven while the "son" wears the crown of thorns in the world.
On a lower level even we get identified with our country, religion etc. This common identity for a group of separate people could appear like a disjoint bunch. But in many cases such as a highly devotional group or a lynch-mob, the collection takes up a personality of its own.
People fall in love and have deep identification with their object of love.
Since such identifications can happen even at mundane levels, it suggests, many to one mapping that the relationship of jivas to Ishvara implies, could possibly happen at many levels too.
Of course as we move up the consciousness chain, the roots where the mergers could possibly happen are likely to become more and more sat, chit and anada.
The other way to ask the same questions is to ask whether there is just one kind of 'mukti' or many kinds. Most people mean by 'mukti' to attain to the level of the highest nirguna brahman. But for our human condition, in this school of earth, it appears that 'mukti' from even just the push and pulls of vital-emotions means a huge accomplishment. Just watch the movies, dramas, TV and read the books. A majority of drama of life on earth is written in terms of vital-emotional push and pulls, the rAga and dvesha of the lower vital personality. A 'mukti' from just that may be a hug 'mukti' for most people.
While philosophizing, it is easy to forget how far the nirguna brahman really is. From a saguna level like ours to the nirguna there may be uncountable numbers of layers.
And if someone says that one particular saguna level is especially important and is the ONLY one just below the nirguna, then I have a problem with that too. I think it is always possible to find the next element in a sequence of sagunas. There is no 'final' element at the level of sagunas. Only final element is the nirguna.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> There can not be higher and higher Ishwara because there can be only one ominiscient being. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The usage of words like 'omniscient' (all-knowing) also opens up the same problems as the usage of the word 'all' in other instances.
<b>Is an omniscient being also aware of all future, (trikAladarshI)? Then there is no meaning of 'will' as everything that is going to happen is already known to him. There can't be any purpose for the omniscient being because to him the future is already decided, he knows it. In that sense there is no role for him to play within time. No devotees to save, no dharma to protect etc., no purpose. Seen from within time, such as from our viewpoint, he will appear completely devoid of any motive or purpose, completely immovable by any demands, prayers or requests. We may wish to change the coming events, but he can't, because for him they are already fixed. That differes from the conventional idea one has about a personal God.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. The consciousness that is projected onto the anandamaya kosha or the very FIRST covering of the Atman is a subset of Ishwara's consciousness. The consciousness that is projected onto the other koshas activate the mind and physical body of the being to whom these koshas belong. It is at the level of the mind and body that all beings differ from each other and are affected by Karma and hence the other Koshas can not be part of Ishwara. If the other koshas also form part of Ishwara then Ishwara will be affected by Karma of the Jivas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why doesn't Ishvara, if he has any action on any of the koshas, not feel the reaction too? All the koshas are supposed to be linked causally. TWhy wouldn't they mutually affect each other. Even if Ishvara only deals with anadamaya, still he gets the effects of all the koshas because anandamaya itself gets affected by lower koshas.
It appears that it is being implied that Ishvara can act on the world without himself facing any reaction. This kind of separation has been proposed many times where a certain ideal entity can affect other non-ideal entities, but remains unaffected himself. Again if this were to be taken to be absolutely true then certains problems arise.
<b>If Ishvara is completely unaffected by lower things, then how can he respond to our prayers, complaints and sorrows that evidently arise in the lower realms. If his actions would only be 'actions' not 'reactions' then nothing we could do, pray or beseech from our lower level could affect him to change his intent or action. Compassion implies getting affected by others suffering.</b>
Is Ishvara a personal God, who listens to our prayers and responds to our requests and causes changes in the world based on those needs? Or Ishvara is the far far away omniscient, unattached being? It is said that he does get affected by our sorrow to respond with compassion. If he were not affected at all then his response would be stochastic.
To me it appears that to be the father & the mother, the protector and the compassionate refuge, Ishvara has to descend into all the lower realms and give loving importance to every little thing of creation. Is he happy with the joy of the world and sorrowful with the pain of the world. If he enetrs the worlds down to the level of inconscient then does he also willingly suffers the associated pains that this endeavour entails. He couldn't just be sitting far away in heaven. He is also enmeshed in the world. Christianity for example tackles this situation by seating the "father" in the heaven while the "son" wears the crown of thorns in the world.