One God in all life and common sense in all living life.
The Gita says that an equivalent God exists in several human incarnations and appears like divided (Avibhaktam Vibhakteshu). But, God isn't divided because God isn't an imaginable item with spatial dimensions. God, being unimaginable, exists totally in each human incarnation and therefore the concept of division, which is applied to imaginable items of the planet , cannot apply to God, who is beyond space. Hence, the logic applied to debate the imaginable components of imaginable creation fails in God as said within the Veda (Atarkyah…, Naishaatarkena…). now of inapplicability of worldly logic in God is that the reason to mention that God is unimaginable, the idea being absence of spatial dimensions in God. this is often the elemental foundation concept of the whole spiritual knowledge and no-one should forget this and make God imaginable. If you create God imaginable, different people will think different imaginable items as God thanks to multiplicity of imaginable items. The unity is that the unique characteristic of unimaginable God and hence only God is one. The above verse of the Gita is additionally applied to the soul existing in several living beings. Here, the soul should be taken because the final filtrate of pure awareness after filtering it from all the qualities. Such pure awareness is qualitatively one and therefore the same in any living being since such pure awareness is essentially the nervous energy. This nervous energy is fundamentally a stream of electrical pulses travelling through the neuro cells, which is estimated at about 55 milli volts. The brain, the medulla spinalis and therefore the network of nerves constitute the entire system.
It is scientifically proved that the notice is merely a selected work sort of energy functioning within the specific systema nervosum . If this technique is absent, awareness isn't within the least generated as in the case of a stone. If you say awareness as God, does one mean that God may be a generated product of a materialized system? The logic of ancient India wasn't so developed the maximum amount because the present Science and this is often the rationale for the traditional Indian philosophers to think that the pure awareness is beyond the things of creation and to conclude that it's God. This pure awareness is given top most place within the items of creation and hence, it's called because the best item of the character (Para Prakriti). The Gita divides the character (Prakriti) into two sub-categories and one is ‘Apara’ where because the other one is ‘Para’. It [Pure Awareness] are often seen as energetic pulse through the scientific instruments and therefore the Veda says that scientists having very sharp intelligence have seen it (Drushyate tvagraya buddhya). Even the Gita says an equivalent (Pashyanti Jnana Chakshushah). Even the Brahma Sutras established this fact saying that God can't be the soul since the rationale opposes it (Netaronupattheh). the rationale is that God is unimaginable and soul is imaginable. Thus, the essential concept of misconstrued Advaita Philosophy gets smashed by the advanced experimental Science. there's no difference between this Science and therefore the ancient logic (Tarka Shastram) since both affect the analysis of creation only. If the traditional philosopher, who is scholar in ancient logic, criticizes Science, it means he's criticizing himself only.
However, the soul existing altogether the living beings can stand as a comparison for the God existing in various human incarnations present within the same time. The simile allows only the comparison in one aspect without touching the opposite aspects. If you compare the face to Moon, the sole permitted aspect is that the pleasantness of the face and therefore the Moon. Other differences shouldn't be touched. The Moon appears within the night only but the face is seen within the day also. The Moon has black spots and therefore the face is obvious . The Moon disappears once during a month through growth and reduction. The face isn't so. Hence, the sole aspect that ought to be taken here is that the common existence of an equivalent pure awareness qualitatively altogether the living beings, which may be compared to the common existence of an equivalent unimaginable God altogether the contemporary human incarnations. Coming to the differences, the pure awareness is quantitatively different altogether the living beings in terms of its units like calories or ergs or joules etc. the notice in an elephant is quantitatively considerably compared thereto of an ant. But, within the case of God altogether the contemporary human incarnations, God is same qualitatively and quantitatively since these two concepts don't apply in unimaginable God. Like this, several other differences are often contemplated.
Living Beings Differ supported Qualities.
Madhva told that the living beings are different from one another since they exist in several levels. this is often supported the amount of the qualities. This pure awareness is mixed with different qualities and hence, the difference within the souls as high and low. Sattvam is sweet whereas Rajas and Tamas are bad. The difference between the souls is thanks to the difference within the associated qualities as per Madhva. Shankara says that the soul is one and therefore the same altogether the living beings and here, we've to require the qualitative unity of the soul altogether living beings because the pure awareness. Hence, both are correct from the view of associated qualities and therefore the qualitative unity of pure awareness. This analysis should be the background in understanding the verse within the Gita, which says that the students see the unity altogether the living beings like dog, cow, elephant, Brahmin and a non-vegetarian cobbler (Panditaah samadarshinah). this suggests that you simply should find the interior true unity within the external true difference. you ought to respect or reject supported the associated qualities. you'll go near a pious cow but you can't go near a canine . The unity of the soul helps you to form an attempt to vary the qualities of the cobbler to rework him into a Brahmin since the caste is set by the qualities and therefore the subsequent quality based actions (Guna Karma Vibhagashah – Gita). Ravana may be a Brahmin by birth but a cobbler by qualities and actions. Shabari may be a cobbler by birth but Brahmin by qualities and actions. Therefore, the class structure should be properly understood with the assistance of this analysis. within the Gita, within the above verse, while mentioning the cobbler, the word ‘Shvapaka’ is employed for the cobbler. The dog is that the embodiment of religion and helps the humanity. Killing another living being is taken into account to be the very best sin and non-violence is that the top most good quality (Ahimsa Paramodharmah). The respect and rejection is for the qualities and not for the soul, which is that the possessor of the qualities. Caste means the classification of those qualities. Basically, there are only two categories or two castes. The caste of excellent qualities that ought to be respected and therefore the caste of bad qualities that ought to be rejected. This verse is usually quoted by some people, who argue that an honest person and a nasty person are equal consistent with this verse and hence, the person should be also respected and worshipped sort of a person . Such an ignorant logic results thanks to improper analysis, which results in the misunderstanding of the scripture. The photo of Shabari is kept within the worship room within the houses of Brahmins, which indicates the reference to qualities regardless of the birth. All the sages made ‘Bhrurishrava’, a pot maker because the president of a sacrifice conducted in Naimisha forest (Refer: the Bhagavatam).
When you find a nasty person and an honest person, it's said that you simply should find the common soul or pure awareness existing in both. The soul in both has an equivalent power of achieving any quality and rejecting any quality. this means the likelihood of transformation of bad soul into good soul during which bad qualities are rejected and good qualities are achieved. By watching the soul, you're reminded about the likelihood of transformation, which is your duty. After transformation, you'll respect the great soul.
Shri Phani: You say that Sattvam is sweet and Rajas and Tamas are bad. Sattvam represents Vishnu, Rajas represents Brahma and Tamas represents Shiva. Does this mean that Vishnu is sweet where as Brahma and Shiva are bad?
Shri Swami: an equivalent word can have different meanings within the Sanskrit language. As far because the qualities are concerned, these three words substitute the above said sense. once you apply these three words within the case of the activities carried on by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, different meanings are available to picture thanks to different angles of application. Rajas means the action (Rajah Karmani Bharata). Brahma is involved always within the action of creation. Creation is an activity, which is dynamic. Sattvam stands for knowledge and also maintenance of the prevailing status. Vishnu is involved within the maintenance of the planet and also administration, which involves sharp analytical knowledge. Tamas stands for lack of discrimination as within the sleep, which is ignorance (Tamastvajnanajam viddhi). Shiva is involved in destroying the entire creation within the end with none discrimination. Hence, supported these meanings, an equivalent three words are used for the three divine sorts of an equivalent unimaginable God.
The Gita says that an equivalent God exists in several human incarnations and appears like divided (Avibhaktam Vibhakteshu). But, God isn't divided because God isn't an imaginable item with spatial dimensions. God, being unimaginable, exists totally in each human incarnation and therefore the concept of division, which is applied to imaginable items of the planet , cannot apply to God, who is beyond space. Hence, the logic applied to debate the imaginable components of imaginable creation fails in God as said within the Veda (Atarkyah…, Naishaatarkena…). now of inapplicability of worldly logic in God is that the reason to mention that God is unimaginable, the idea being absence of spatial dimensions in God. this is often the elemental foundation concept of the whole spiritual knowledge and no-one should forget this and make God imaginable. If you create God imaginable, different people will think different imaginable items as God thanks to multiplicity of imaginable items. The unity is that the unique characteristic of unimaginable God and hence only God is one. The above verse of the Gita is additionally applied to the soul existing in several living beings. Here, the soul should be taken because the final filtrate of pure awareness after filtering it from all the qualities. Such pure awareness is qualitatively one and therefore the same in any living being since such pure awareness is essentially the nervous energy. This nervous energy is fundamentally a stream of electrical pulses travelling through the neuro cells, which is estimated at about 55 milli volts. The brain, the medulla spinalis and therefore the network of nerves constitute the entire system.
It is scientifically proved that the notice is merely a selected work sort of energy functioning within the specific systema nervosum . If this technique is absent, awareness isn't within the least generated as in the case of a stone. If you say awareness as God, does one mean that God may be a generated product of a materialized system? The logic of ancient India wasn't so developed the maximum amount because the present Science and this is often the rationale for the traditional Indian philosophers to think that the pure awareness is beyond the things of creation and to conclude that it's God. This pure awareness is given top most place within the items of creation and hence, it's called because the best item of the character (Para Prakriti). The Gita divides the character (Prakriti) into two sub-categories and one is ‘Apara’ where because the other one is ‘Para’. It [Pure Awareness] are often seen as energetic pulse through the scientific instruments and therefore the Veda says that scientists having very sharp intelligence have seen it (Drushyate tvagraya buddhya). Even the Gita says an equivalent (Pashyanti Jnana Chakshushah). Even the Brahma Sutras established this fact saying that God can't be the soul since the rationale opposes it (Netaronupattheh). the rationale is that God is unimaginable and soul is imaginable. Thus, the essential concept of misconstrued Advaita Philosophy gets smashed by the advanced experimental Science. there's no difference between this Science and therefore the ancient logic (Tarka Shastram) since both affect the analysis of creation only. If the traditional philosopher, who is scholar in ancient logic, criticizes Science, it means he's criticizing himself only.
However, the soul existing altogether the living beings can stand as a comparison for the God existing in various human incarnations present within the same time. The simile allows only the comparison in one aspect without touching the opposite aspects. If you compare the face to Moon, the sole permitted aspect is that the pleasantness of the face and therefore the Moon. Other differences shouldn't be touched. The Moon appears within the night only but the face is seen within the day also. The Moon has black spots and therefore the face is obvious . The Moon disappears once during a month through growth and reduction. The face isn't so. Hence, the sole aspect that ought to be taken here is that the common existence of an equivalent pure awareness qualitatively altogether the living beings, which may be compared to the common existence of an equivalent unimaginable God altogether the contemporary human incarnations. Coming to the differences, the pure awareness is quantitatively different altogether the living beings in terms of its units like calories or ergs or joules etc. the notice in an elephant is quantitatively considerably compared thereto of an ant. But, within the case of God altogether the contemporary human incarnations, God is same qualitatively and quantitatively since these two concepts don't apply in unimaginable God. Like this, several other differences are often contemplated.
Living Beings Differ supported Qualities.
Madhva told that the living beings are different from one another since they exist in several levels. this is often supported the amount of the qualities. This pure awareness is mixed with different qualities and hence, the difference within the souls as high and low. Sattvam is sweet whereas Rajas and Tamas are bad. The difference between the souls is thanks to the difference within the associated qualities as per Madhva. Shankara says that the soul is one and therefore the same altogether the living beings and here, we've to require the qualitative unity of the soul altogether living beings because the pure awareness. Hence, both are correct from the view of associated qualities and therefore the qualitative unity of pure awareness. This analysis should be the background in understanding the verse within the Gita, which says that the students see the unity altogether the living beings like dog, cow, elephant, Brahmin and a non-vegetarian cobbler (Panditaah samadarshinah). this suggests that you simply should find the interior true unity within the external true difference. you ought to respect or reject supported the associated qualities. you'll go near a pious cow but you can't go near a canine . The unity of the soul helps you to form an attempt to vary the qualities of the cobbler to rework him into a Brahmin since the caste is set by the qualities and therefore the subsequent quality based actions (Guna Karma Vibhagashah – Gita). Ravana may be a Brahmin by birth but a cobbler by qualities and actions. Shabari may be a cobbler by birth but Brahmin by qualities and actions. Therefore, the class structure should be properly understood with the assistance of this analysis. within the Gita, within the above verse, while mentioning the cobbler, the word ‘Shvapaka’ is employed for the cobbler. The dog is that the embodiment of religion and helps the humanity. Killing another living being is taken into account to be the very best sin and non-violence is that the top most good quality (Ahimsa Paramodharmah). The respect and rejection is for the qualities and not for the soul, which is that the possessor of the qualities. Caste means the classification of those qualities. Basically, there are only two categories or two castes. The caste of excellent qualities that ought to be respected and therefore the caste of bad qualities that ought to be rejected. This verse is usually quoted by some people, who argue that an honest person and a nasty person are equal consistent with this verse and hence, the person should be also respected and worshipped sort of a person . Such an ignorant logic results thanks to improper analysis, which results in the misunderstanding of the scripture. The photo of Shabari is kept within the worship room within the houses of Brahmins, which indicates the reference to qualities regardless of the birth. All the sages made ‘Bhrurishrava’, a pot maker because the president of a sacrifice conducted in Naimisha forest (Refer: the Bhagavatam).
When you find a nasty person and an honest person, it's said that you simply should find the common soul or pure awareness existing in both. The soul in both has an equivalent power of achieving any quality and rejecting any quality. this means the likelihood of transformation of bad soul into good soul during which bad qualities are rejected and good qualities are achieved. By watching the soul, you're reminded about the likelihood of transformation, which is your duty. After transformation, you'll respect the great soul.
Shri Phani: You say that Sattvam is sweet and Rajas and Tamas are bad. Sattvam represents Vishnu, Rajas represents Brahma and Tamas represents Shiva. Does this mean that Vishnu is sweet where as Brahma and Shiva are bad?
Shri Swami: an equivalent word can have different meanings within the Sanskrit language. As far because the qualities are concerned, these three words substitute the above said sense. once you apply these three words within the case of the activities carried on by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, different meanings are available to picture thanks to different angles of application. Rajas means the action (Rajah Karmani Bharata). Brahma is involved always within the action of creation. Creation is an activity, which is dynamic. Sattvam stands for knowledge and also maintenance of the prevailing status. Vishnu is involved within the maintenance of the planet and also administration, which involves sharp analytical knowledge. Tamas stands for lack of discrimination as within the sleep, which is ignorance (Tamastvajnanajam viddhi). Shiva is involved in destroying the entire creation within the end with none discrimination. Hence, supported these meanings, an equivalent three words are used for the three divine sorts of an equivalent unimaginable God.
No comments: