absolute reality

agrasen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[aryayouthgroup] Re: : Absolute Reality

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respected Bhavesh Merja Ji,
Namaskar!

The problem is that our previous knowledge may it be from Vedas, Satprakash or ved Vesa or anyother source gets our mind channelized into one specific pre set direction. Being myself a scientist, I left aside all the scriptual knowledge mentioned in any religion known including Hindu or Sanatan Dharm and then asked my own self:
what is the truest reality or the absolute reality possible in this universe!!!???

Frankly speaking I got the answer that I EXIST ETERNALLY!

Rest of my deductions from this answer later, I have already described in my last two mails which, need not be repeated. This logic of mine is applicable to people all religions, theists, atheists , animals, insects, micro-organisms and may be even to non-living matter. To my mind even non-living matter must be having Ego of existence!

Now coming to your point raised, I would respond as follows:

IF ONE GENUINELY BELIEVES THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL OR ULTIMATE REALITY IS BEYOND CONCEPTION, THEN HE SHOULD NOT ENGAGE HIMSELF IN SUCH DEBATE.

I have not entered in any debate but simply tried to describe my mind as to what I feel about the absolute reality!...I could be even totally wrong! But, when I look at any other description scietific, philosophic, religious...all are full of doubts of some or the other type.

Bhavesh Ji, come on leave God aside, can you tell me: Who you call yourself as truly YOU???!!!

I would l love to have your answer whch, should be independant of any previous ou side knowledge input from religion, science etc!

BECAUSE WITHOUT CONCEPTION THE THING CANNOT BE DESCRIBED. LANGUAGE EXPRESSES OUR CONCEPTION & IDEAS - OUR INNER THOUGHTS.

Not very true!! See, you or I is beyond conception which you would agree after due deep thought now or later. But you or I both are described with our various properties. But partly since after death we are not described by those properties with which we used get described. Later we are described by Atamas so to say.

Exactly same way, my definition of GOD is beyond conception but one of its infinite properties is "this" our universe with which it is described and that too partly. When this universe would seize to exist as Scientists feel so, then my defined GOD would be described by some other non materialistic property!!

I hope I am clear in expressing my view point!



With warm regards!


I am
KKK
(Kuldeep Kumar Kaul)


--- On Fri, 2/7/10, Bhavesh Merja wrote:


From: Bhavesh Merja
Subject: Re: : Know Thy Vedas- Vedic GURU is a Learned Preceptor
To: "Kuldeep Kaul"
Cc: psabhlok@hotmail.com, aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com, aryasamajonline@yahoogroups.com, michael@shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk, ktsvsarma@yahoo.com, kvshastri@yahoo.co.in, sadhaka@yahoogroups.com, ksk@marsun.com, khemakaul@gmail.com, kamal_sharma50@yahoo.com, awara32@gmail.com, apexpreci2000@yahoo.co.in, magaphoor@hotmail.com, whindu@yahoo.com, peacebliss@yahoo.com, ramaraobudda@yahoo.co.in, innervoice@hindustantimes.com
Date: Friday, 2 July, 2010, 5:32 PM


SRIMAN KULDEEP JI, NAMASTE !

IF ONE GENUINELY BELIEVES THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL OR ULTIMATE REALITY IS BEYOND CONCEPTION, THEN HE SHOULD NOT ENGAGE HIMSELF IN SUCH DEBATE, BECAUSE WITHOUT CONCEPTION THE THING CANNOT BE DESCRIBED. LANGUAGE EXPRESSES OUR CONCEPTION & IDEAS - OUR INNER THOUGHTS.

IN THE VERY FIRST APHORISM OF VEDANT DARSHAN (UTTAR MIMANSA OR BRAHMA SUTRA) MAHARSHI VYAS SAYS – “LET US INQUIRE INTO THE NATURE OF BRAHAMAN (GOD).” THEN THROUGHOUT IN THIS DARSHAN GOD HAS BEEN MADE A SUBJECT OF SERIOUS DELIBERATION & SCRUTINY. SIMILARLY GOD HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN VEDAS, UPANISHADS, DARSHANS AND OTHER WORKS OF GREAT VEDIC RISHIS.


I BELIEVE THAT GOD CANNOT BE FULLY DEFINED, BUT HE CAN SURELY BE EXPLAINED.

THEREFORE I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR VIEW THAT GOD OR SOUL IS BEYOND CONCEPTION.

= BHAVESH MERJA




On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Kuldeep Kaul wrote:

Respected Bhavesh Merja Ji,

NAMAS/AKAR !

Thanks for your evaluation of my response! Not exactly I am impressed by Shankaracharya's Adwaitvaad.

For example, according to him the duality or plurality we see around in this Universe is nothing but illusion (Un-Real).
But on the other hand (may be wrongly), I feel that duality or plurality is also true and just a property of the ultimate reality which we term as GOD, the absolute!

My basis of what I feel and think to be true is the logic that I AM AS UNKNOWN AS THAT ultimate reality (as explained in last mail), so probably must be same or identical.

Coming to your inquiry about the name(s) of the fundamental entity (ies). To my mind, that/those fundamental entity (ies) are beyond conception either physically or metaphysically senses. Still, if you want me go to the nearest to that fundamental entity and speak something about that SOMETHING I would imagine it to be some sort of energy/force/SOMETHING/turbulence....etc put any any physically defined entity say a thundering sound AAAAAAAUUUUUUUMMMMMM (SOME SORT OF SHABDA).......Everything else we see manifested, un-manifested, physical, metaphysical or meta metaphysical etc. are just clear cut properties of that fundamental entity (ies)




I am
KKK
(Kuldeep Kumar Kaul)



--- On Thu, 1/7/10, Bhavesh Merja wrote:


From: Bhavesh Merja

Subject: Re: : Know Thy Vedas- Vedic GURU is a Learned Preceptor

Namaste Kuldeep ji,

I appreciate you for taking pain in responding to these points raised on Sublokji's writings.

Your comments show that you are influenced by Shankaracharya's Adwaitvaad.

Before I comment on your views I would like to have one important clarification:

Please inform me the name(s) of the fundamental entity (ies) (= anaadi padaarth = moolbhoot dravyas) you believe in, and also indicate their basic (natural = swaabhaavik) attributes (gunas).


= Bhavesh Merja



On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Kuldeep Kaul wrote:

My dear Bhavesh Merja Ji,
NAMA S/ AKAR !

Meaning, I bow to that shape of HIS which, resides in you!

I am not fully AWARE about the difference of opinion between you and Sablok Ji but, I would like to response to your 13 points raised on Sablok Ji' writing! Before I do so, I may clear I am not any scholar of Vedas or Shastras and the like. Yes, I have read and understood to an extent Shrimad Bhagvat Gita Ji and am also aware of Adhi Sankacharya's Aadivt Bhawa Philosophy and Kashmiri Shaivism to some extent.

Now, I would use my simple logic to describe ME & GOD as much as my limited intellect can reason out, leaving aside even whatever I have learnt from B. Gita or Aadivt Bhawa Philosophy !

To my mind, the absolute reality as I feel is that I EXIST ETERNALLY. Now if I am asked to describe myself, I would miserably fail. Still Me (Unknown) and others (second and third person) would describe me with respect to my physical body shape size, structure and mental memory, my feeling and reaction (mind) etc. When I die, public would say I died confirming that I was not the body which was representing me till I died. No sooner I died, my identity has changed people tell now on I am in astral body (Atma). Again it is told may my soul or Atma rest in peace, implying that I am not even Soul as well. From all that I concluded I am SOMETHING which is beyond physical and metaphysical conception. Yes, I would say I am Consciousness and has limitation within the physical or metaphysical contour of Individuality...Due to the existence of my mind & personified Ego, I have Individual Consciousness. If I can some how come out of this Individualistic Ego my limitation would vanish and develop unlimited ego of existence in whole of existing Universe/Universes and could have unlimited or Universal Consciousness. Wonderfully still, I would remain as SOMETHING beyond conception physically or metaphysically. THAT SOMETHING MAY BE NAMED AS GOD OR REVERSE of that DOG, won't make much difference!

Probably that is why Hindu Mythology mentions I AM GOD OR KAN KAN MAIN BHAGWAN.

On the basis of my above feeling I would try to respond your 13 points in green as under:




(i) God being Almighty and omnipotent doesn’t need any assistance from anybody for creation, sustenance and dissolution of the world. He is self-sufficient in execution of His works.





I consider GOD as SOMETHING which has whole infinite physical and metaphysical universe(s) as its unique properties. Therefore there is no question of assistance for anything we conceive!










(ii) God (Brahman) is not only nirguna, He is saguna also. He possesses His natural & positive attributes like omnipresence, mercy, justice etc. so He is saguna. He doesn’t have many negative attributes like absence of weight, dimentions, visibility, colour, avidya, delusion etc. which are found in Souls and matter. So in that that way He is nirguna also. Please refer Satyarth prakash 1st chapter. Not only God, but all substances are saguna as well as nirguna at a same time.





GOD is SOMETHING which is beyond both Nirguna and Saguna! It is Guanteet as said in B- Gita





(iii) The statement – “The souls in all human beings are the subtle particles (ansh) of the same Supreme Soul- Paramatma.” - shows that here author follows Shankar’s Adwaitvaad. God is Omnipresent and ‘aditi’. He is not divided into numerous small fractions. Souls are fundamentally different than God. Both are unborn & eternal. We can’t think of a relationship of Ansha-Anshi (whole-fraction) between them. Please refer Satyarth Prakash for further clarity.





Both GOD & SOUL are one and the same thing which I described as SOMETHING. Yes, they differ in feeling existential ego. Soul has Individual or limited while GOD has Universal or Unlimited consciousness!!





(iv) God is not nameless. OM (aum) is His natural name. ‘Tasya vaachak pranavh’ says Patanjali. Brahman is also His one of the names.




Man could give him any name. But in reality he is not only nameless but even beyond conception as I repeat it is SOMETHING exactly as YOU and MEare viz.. UNKNOWABLE!!




(v) Upanishads don’t describe only Nirguna Brahma. They explain saguna attributes of God also.




Both Nirguna & Saguna Brahma are just properties of SOMETHING which you free to call GOD








(vi) Vedas say He is formless (niraakaar). So to say that – “ for each form, He is the Model” is meaningless. Whatever is seen with the eyes is not God.





I consider GOD as SOMETHING beyond conception!








(vii) Yes, He pervades the matter and the entire creation, but this doesn’t mean that the matter and creation is nor inert. God is pervader; souls & matter (universe) are pervaded.





The matter and the entire creation, souls and what not ALL within conception and beyond conception are just properties of GOD whixh is just SOMETHING




(viii) Yes, “He (God) lives within you and you live within Him”, but we are not His (God’s) tiny living cells. God doesn’t consist of any cells. He is not made of any combination. He is pure consciousness.





True, we are not his cells but he is not pure consciousness as well. He HAS pure (Universal) and not IS consciousness but, HE is SOMETHING beyond even consciousness, as described earlier!




(ix) Description like this - “the entire universe is His (God’s) body. Sun and Moon are His eyes, Earth is His feet and Heaven is His head” etc. - is metaphorical just to show the Divine nature of God. He doesn’t have such body organs in reality. If one consider such description actual, then should we say that one eye of God (Sun) is very big as compared to His another eye (Moon)?




I would agree with the description that “the entire universe is His (God’s) body". But not the body as we understand! The body as properties which describes HIM. Not Sun as one bigger eye and the moon as the other smaller. Definitely Yes, the way the body describe us as explained at the start of my feeling that We as Individual and GOD as Universal are similarly unknowable but properties viz. bodies are different!!





(x) The author writes – “The most beautiful description of Brahma is given in the Vedantic School of Indian philosophy, based on Upanishads.” This shows that he doesn’t admit pre-existence of Prakriti (material cause) as Swami Dayananda & his Arya samaj believes. Here he appears Neo-Vedantin using Veda-mantra in his own way.




Prakriti as its literal meaning itself says that it is nothing but property of GOD (SOMETHING) and therefore ought exist eternally as the GOD itself!!





(xi) God has not created Prakriti. Prakriti is also unborn & eternal.




Very correct but exists as GOD's property!




(xii) Yes, Sun, Moon, mountains, sea and even (bodies of) human beings etc., are created by God, but these are nor God. They are creations of God.


I beg to differ here in Toto! No creator and creation business. Only GOD EXISTS ETERNALLY AND REST WITHIN PHYSICAL METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTION ALL ARE JUST HIS PRAKRITI OR PROPERTIES !!!




(xiii) “His forms are His creative art Maya” – this is again one more confusing statement. Maya in Vedas is used for knowledge, Creative power, etc. Please refer Nighantu. Shankaracharya has used this word maya to prove his so-called philosophy of Adwaitvaad (Monisum).


I AM BOUND TO REPEAT:

GOD IS SOMETHING SO IS EACH EVERY LIVING BEING ! ONLY GOD EXISTS ETERNALLY AND REST WITHIN PHYSICAL METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTION ALL ARE JUST HIS PRAKRITI OR PROPERTIES !!!




I would love to respond further, if you have any doubt in my feeling and derivations from that helping me to respond your exciting 13 points!!!!!




With deep regards,



I am
KKK
(Kuldeep Kumar Kaul)