Like or Dislike: 0  0

More like the day when understanding would bloom, based on one’s propensity and relationship with the Lord.

After all, that knowledge is not ‘gained’ by us, but ‘given to us’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

But anyway, I am not asking you to do anything (least of all lose your faith). I’m happy you have found your truth, and your bliss/satisfaction is all that should count for you, and for each of us, in his/her own way.

And “day of reckoning”? I didn’t know there was a day of reckoning in this faith. But, if you meant standing face-to-face with Krishna, I would be looking forward eagerly for that day, because I can get to ask Him my question then…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The definition of faith itself is open to subjective interpretations.

But no matter how the insinuations are, faith is required for anything that does not involve direct experience.

So, I would rather trust my faith on my teachers and the scriptures, built upon close of 10 years of study and practice, cultivated by the mercy of my teachers, and prepare my way back, rather than subject myself to the mental agony of worrying about why should God have tormented us his presence in a form similar to us. He does not do that to me anymore, so I guess that is why I find that particular question irrelevant.

May be your time for reckoning will come. Soon.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ambi:

Just to clarify (as I too have done again and again), I CAN understand the constitutional position and natural propensity of service to God. I only CAN’T understand WHY it is necessary to do service to God WHO IS IN A FORM SIMILAR TO US (which is the root cause of our jealousies/aspirations to be Him, and the subsequent problems)?

But, anyway, we have both put our sides forward, as best as we can. Thank you once again.

I had just come back to share a quote (a profound one, I think, about the nature of faith itself) which I found a couple of minutes back:

“Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness” ~ G. I. Gurdjieff (1872-1949)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fish –> Soul. Fine.
Water –> God? This is exactly what I called over-extension of analogy to suit one’s own purposes.

The original explanation is this: just like a fish’s real place is inside of water, the soul’s real place is in the position of service to God. That is what is meant by ‘constitutional’ position, the natural position and propensity.

I have explained enough, over and beyond what I would normally even attempt to. But again you go back to the same question. So be it. One can go on speculating back and forth, for eternity, and yet not find the answer to a question about why the Lord does something by his will, no matter the intellectual, scholarly prowess or expert logical discerning and debating ability. I don’t say this… shastras do.

So, without trying to understand the position, qualities, opulence and nature of the Supreme Lord (which is possible only through unalloyed, pure devotional service), one cannot understand his actions.

Since I am no way qualified at that level, I will simply leave you with one final reading exercise: http://vedabase.net/bg/10/2/en.

May the Truth find you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yes, I can that understand He is the world but transcends it. And we are mere components in the world. But then, why does He take the form of a mere component in the world if He is greater than all the components of the world?

If the actual reality is “fish in water” then my question is: “Why does the water want to take form of fish?” Why not something that conveys “I am water, you are fish”, instead of something that conveys “We are equals”?

Why does the ocean take the form of drops, causing drops to aspire to be Him?

If you ask: “Why not?”, I would say: Because it causes these further problems (aspirations to be Him, and consequently for Him to create the material world, and for us to stay in it). If you say: “It’s not such big trouble for Him to create the material world”, to this I would say: “Then, it also shouldn’t be such big trouble for Him to take a form demarcating the difference between Him and us”.

And finally, if you say “Only Krishna can answer this”, then I would say a very heartfelt thank you for your efforts to explain all of the above to me.

(Also, I will get my Manuvada understanding clarified from a Manuvada scholar/expert).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well, the way science is taught now, its way opposite.

‘Constitutional position’ – like that of a fish to live in water… the actual reality.

I meant if one removes Krishna, the Supreme Person, in any form, from the picture, there is nothing spiritual in anything. But it is impossible, as stated by Gita too. I am not trying anything… just stating what is given in the scriptures and taught by the acharyas.

He IS the world, in one sense… but he is also not part of it. He is within everything single being, yet they are not him. This is explained in the Gita clearly as the mystic opulence of the Lord. He can simultaneously do both… get it?

“Again, WHY the blissful formless souls needed to shift to the painful material world of form, nobody knows (because that is ‘inconceivable’).”

Yup. Very True.

No, your understanding of Mayavada is not correct. But I am not going to get in to explaining it and confuse you further.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And science, my friend, starts off by labeling everything as theories (even proven ones), not stating them as truth (let alone absolute truth).

Care to explain the phrase ‘constitutional position’?

And, no I don’t understand what you mean by “remove Krishna, and you have nothing”. (I am assuming you meant the form of Krishna) By saying this, you are tying to capture the formless in the form. An ocean in a drop.

I am saying that even if Krishna (in the form) is not present, He will always be with us as the world itself. Because He IS the world.

And I am not an expert in Mayavada too, but their position seems that our current predicament in the material world, and the very existence of the material world and us (in human form) is an anomaly of trying to capture the our formless soul in a form.

Again, WHY the blissful formless souls needed to shift to the painful material world of form, nobody knows (because that is ‘inconceivable’).

The thing common about your explanation and the Mayavadis’ is that the VERY ROOT CAUSE of this unnatural behaviour of wilfully going from the blissful spiritual to the pitiful material world is not known (as it is “inconceivable”).

Like or Dislike: 0  0