01-29-2007, 12:29 AM
More elaboration from Balu.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3117
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->RE: [TheHeathenInHisBlindness] Re: On the Future of the NRI Community
Dear Sunil,
If we want to grasp the nature of the discussions in the Indian traditions,
there is much we need to do beforehand: (a) identify the entity they were
talking about; (b) identify the specific questions they were answering; ©
identify the generic questions that defined both the outlines of the
acceptable answers and the formulation of the specific questions; etc. (The
'cetera' indicates that I do not know how to enumerate all the things we
need to grasp.) In the case of the propositions you have formulated, I
assume that 'God' is Vishnu (or even Krishna) and not, say, Shiva or Brahma
because you are talking about the Madhvas. However, to keep the discussion
faithful to your formulations, I will use the word 'God' to refer to Vishnu.
Your proposition 1: "Creation is a spontaneous activity of God, just like a
blissful person spontaneously breaks into a song without any rhyme or
reason."
Apparently, this is answering the specific question 'why' (in the sense of
'KaaraNa', mostly translated as 'the reason why') God created (the
Universe?). The analogy to a blissful person is a very strict one. That is,
in exactly the same way a blissful person does not break into a song for a
reason, God does not create for a reason. The underlying thoughts are these:
normally, one sings a song to express some emotion or the other or even
because he/she is feeling some motion or another (love, sorrow, devotion, or
whatever else), that is, the person "intends" to express something. The
blissful person does not need to express anything; he/she is not in need of
anything, including the need to express the bliss. That is what bliss
(ananda) is all about.
So, the assumption is that 'bliss', something we human beings experience, is
what God also feels. The only difference is that God feels this all the
time, whereas only some of us can (either occasionally or after some
tremendous effort) feel that bliss. (Additional claims that God's Bliss is
our bliss raised to "the power of infinity" and such like tell us the same
thing: there is no difference in kind but, at best, a difference in degree,
between God's emotion and ours.)
In other words, the analogy explicates the nature of spontaneity (and the
meaning of that word), whether it is God's spontaneity or human spontaneity:
doing something not because one is in need of (or lacks) something. There is
no difference in kind between us human beings and God but only one of
degree. Your next proposition elaborates on this.
Your proposition 2: "The creation of the world does not serve any purpose of
God. He is "AptakAma" - there is nothing he does not have nor is there
anything he will ever need." (The 'he' here must also be read strictly:
Vishnu is sexed and he is a 'male'.)
This further tells us that creation (of something by human beings) serves
some purpose or another. Consequently, one might be inclined to say that God
is "in need" of something that he does not have, and hence the creation.
This proposition tells us that God has "everything": he is more beautiful
than the most beautiful; stronger than the strongest; richer than the
richest; the teacher of teachers; braver than the bravest, etc. Again, these
are all differences in degree: he has more of everything we "desire", he is
"more" than any of us or other 'gods'; and so on. He really does not need
anything; he is bliss personified. Therefore, creation should not be seen as
making up for some or another lack in God. In this sense, creation does not
serve any purpose: one should say that God has "no purpose" in creating. He
just creates. In other words, there is no intention behind God's creation.
Spontaneity is the absence of intention or purpose of any sort, and the
analogy drawn in the first proposition shows that action without intention
is typical of a blissful person. Because God is bliss personified, God's
creation does not exhibit his purpose or express his intention. (Should it
do so, then God needs to express his purpose, which makes God into someone
"in need" of such an expression.) Hence the notion of creation as God's
"lila". That is to say, creation is completely without purpose. To use a
modern terminology, to speak of the universe as an expression of God's
intention or God's purpose is to commit a category mistake.
Your proposition 3: "The 'creation' of the universe is just the
transformation of the prakriti from its "avyakta" state to "vyakta" state.
All the laws of the universe are an expression of prakriti's innate triguna
svabhAva."
Therefore, God 'functions' as a catalyst (to use this term from high-school
Chemistry) in the process of creation. This function enables the
'potentiality' of Prakriti to become 'actuality'. The laws of the universe,
consequently, do not express what God 'desires' or God 'wants' but express
the 'nature' of prakriti. That is, the universe retains its character of not
being the product of God's intention or God's plans or God's purpose.
Universe expresses what universe is like, what it always has been and always
will be: namely, "it is in the nature of the universe to be what it is". God
has added nothing to the universe that was not already there, nor has he
taken away something that was there earlier. "This is the way universe has
been, is, and will be, because it belongs to the nature of the universe to
be the way it was, is, and will be."
Your proposition 4: "God is at all times impartial and as an antaryami
immanent spirit, He is the power behind all the 'being' and 'becoming' (ie,
expression of their individual svabhAvas) of souls as well as prakriti".
Because God is bliss personified, he cannot be attached to anything or
anybody. Therefore, he is strictly impartial. He is the 'power' behind
everything and is everywhere: both in the individuals and in 'the universe'
(using 'the universe' for 'prakriti'). He must be an 'antaryami' (present
internally in everything and everywhere) because he would not "have
everything" if he was not. Were he not to be in a gnat or an ant, he would
lack something, namely "what it feels to be like a gnat or an ant". So, he
has to be everywhere.
Now, we can begin to sense the generic question behind these propositions:
If this is what 'bliss' is, that is, not lacking anything, and if this
entity is bliss personified and is present in each one of us (and elsewhere
too) are 'we' not, in reality, or in our essence, also identical to this
entity? Tat Tvam Asi, 'thou art that': is not this what one of the mahAvAkya
tells us? 'Aham Brhmasmi", as another of the mahAvAkya also tells us. Does
it really matter what you call this 'blissful entity' as? And so on.
From these propositions, if you draw the inference, which you want to,
"hence, he governs the Universe", you need to understand 'governing' as (a)
an impartial act; (b) by the 'power' in the 'core' of each one of us and ©
present in the rest of the Universe. One could also identify oneself with
one's 'core', and hence with the 'power' present in that 'core', and become
an advaitin. Alternately, one could differentiate this 'power' from oneself
and postulate 'another' entity: and hence the dvaita traditions.
In other words, the generic question behind these propositions brings us to
the Indian debates and Indian traditions, which are far, far removed from
the Semitic theological debates. The Biblical God is distinct from, and
alien to, the creatures He has created; he has plans and purposes in
creation; His intention (or will) expresses itself as the laws of the
Universe; we cannot know (or ask) why He created the Universe; even when He
tells us (through His revelation) why He did what He did, we do not
understand it adequately, and so on and so forth. This is what Jakob was
trying to tell you.
Friendly greetings
Balu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3117
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->RE: [TheHeathenInHisBlindness] Re: On the Future of the NRI Community
Dear Sunil,
If we want to grasp the nature of the discussions in the Indian traditions,
there is much we need to do beforehand: (a) identify the entity they were
talking about; (b) identify the specific questions they were answering; ©
identify the generic questions that defined both the outlines of the
acceptable answers and the formulation of the specific questions; etc. (The
'cetera' indicates that I do not know how to enumerate all the things we
need to grasp.) In the case of the propositions you have formulated, I
assume that 'God' is Vishnu (or even Krishna) and not, say, Shiva or Brahma
because you are talking about the Madhvas. However, to keep the discussion
faithful to your formulations, I will use the word 'God' to refer to Vishnu.
Your proposition 1: "Creation is a spontaneous activity of God, just like a
blissful person spontaneously breaks into a song without any rhyme or
reason."
Apparently, this is answering the specific question 'why' (in the sense of
'KaaraNa', mostly translated as 'the reason why') God created (the
Universe?). The analogy to a blissful person is a very strict one. That is,
in exactly the same way a blissful person does not break into a song for a
reason, God does not create for a reason. The underlying thoughts are these:
normally, one sings a song to express some emotion or the other or even
because he/she is feeling some motion or another (love, sorrow, devotion, or
whatever else), that is, the person "intends" to express something. The
blissful person does not need to express anything; he/she is not in need of
anything, including the need to express the bliss. That is what bliss
(ananda) is all about.
So, the assumption is that 'bliss', something we human beings experience, is
what God also feels. The only difference is that God feels this all the
time, whereas only some of us can (either occasionally or after some
tremendous effort) feel that bliss. (Additional claims that God's Bliss is
our bliss raised to "the power of infinity" and such like tell us the same
thing: there is no difference in kind but, at best, a difference in degree,
between God's emotion and ours.)
In other words, the analogy explicates the nature of spontaneity (and the
meaning of that word), whether it is God's spontaneity or human spontaneity:
doing something not because one is in need of (or lacks) something. There is
no difference in kind between us human beings and God but only one of
degree. Your next proposition elaborates on this.
Your proposition 2: "The creation of the world does not serve any purpose of
God. He is "AptakAma" - there is nothing he does not have nor is there
anything he will ever need." (The 'he' here must also be read strictly:
Vishnu is sexed and he is a 'male'.)
This further tells us that creation (of something by human beings) serves
some purpose or another. Consequently, one might be inclined to say that God
is "in need" of something that he does not have, and hence the creation.
This proposition tells us that God has "everything": he is more beautiful
than the most beautiful; stronger than the strongest; richer than the
richest; the teacher of teachers; braver than the bravest, etc. Again, these
are all differences in degree: he has more of everything we "desire", he is
"more" than any of us or other 'gods'; and so on. He really does not need
anything; he is bliss personified. Therefore, creation should not be seen as
making up for some or another lack in God. In this sense, creation does not
serve any purpose: one should say that God has "no purpose" in creating. He
just creates. In other words, there is no intention behind God's creation.
Spontaneity is the absence of intention or purpose of any sort, and the
analogy drawn in the first proposition shows that action without intention
is typical of a blissful person. Because God is bliss personified, God's
creation does not exhibit his purpose or express his intention. (Should it
do so, then God needs to express his purpose, which makes God into someone
"in need" of such an expression.) Hence the notion of creation as God's
"lila". That is to say, creation is completely without purpose. To use a
modern terminology, to speak of the universe as an expression of God's
intention or God's purpose is to commit a category mistake.
Your proposition 3: "The 'creation' of the universe is just the
transformation of the prakriti from its "avyakta" state to "vyakta" state.
All the laws of the universe are an expression of prakriti's innate triguna
svabhAva."
Therefore, God 'functions' as a catalyst (to use this term from high-school
Chemistry) in the process of creation. This function enables the
'potentiality' of Prakriti to become 'actuality'. The laws of the universe,
consequently, do not express what God 'desires' or God 'wants' but express
the 'nature' of prakriti. That is, the universe retains its character of not
being the product of God's intention or God's plans or God's purpose.
Universe expresses what universe is like, what it always has been and always
will be: namely, "it is in the nature of the universe to be what it is". God
has added nothing to the universe that was not already there, nor has he
taken away something that was there earlier. "This is the way universe has
been, is, and will be, because it belongs to the nature of the universe to
be the way it was, is, and will be."
Your proposition 4: "God is at all times impartial and as an antaryami
immanent spirit, He is the power behind all the 'being' and 'becoming' (ie,
expression of their individual svabhAvas) of souls as well as prakriti".
Because God is bliss personified, he cannot be attached to anything or
anybody. Therefore, he is strictly impartial. He is the 'power' behind
everything and is everywhere: both in the individuals and in 'the universe'
(using 'the universe' for 'prakriti'). He must be an 'antaryami' (present
internally in everything and everywhere) because he would not "have
everything" if he was not. Were he not to be in a gnat or an ant, he would
lack something, namely "what it feels to be like a gnat or an ant". So, he
has to be everywhere.
Now, we can begin to sense the generic question behind these propositions:
If this is what 'bliss' is, that is, not lacking anything, and if this
entity is bliss personified and is present in each one of us (and elsewhere
too) are 'we' not, in reality, or in our essence, also identical to this
entity? Tat Tvam Asi, 'thou art that': is not this what one of the mahAvAkya
tells us? 'Aham Brhmasmi", as another of the mahAvAkya also tells us. Does
it really matter what you call this 'blissful entity' as? And so on.
From these propositions, if you draw the inference, which you want to,
"hence, he governs the Universe", you need to understand 'governing' as (a)
an impartial act; (b) by the 'power' in the 'core' of each one of us and ©
present in the rest of the Universe. One could also identify oneself with
one's 'core', and hence with the 'power' present in that 'core', and become
an advaitin. Alternately, one could differentiate this 'power' from oneself
and postulate 'another' entity: and hence the dvaita traditions.
In other words, the generic question behind these propositions brings us to
the Indian debates and Indian traditions, which are far, far removed from
the Semitic theological debates. The Biblical God is distinct from, and
alien to, the creatures He has created; he has plans and purposes in
creation; His intention (or will) expresses itself as the laws of the
Universe; we cannot know (or ask) why He created the Universe; even when He
tells us (through His revelation) why He did what He did, we do not
understand it adequately, and so on and so forth. This is what Jakob was
trying to tell you.
Friendly greetings
Balu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->