Shastra Dharma (Ref:( was so many things!))

[sadananda]

Ramakrishna wrote:
>Brahman is doubtless beyond dharma and adharma. But note that mere
>intellectual understanding of this and the fact that the veda-s say that
>GYAni-s may behave in atypical ways (jAbAla upanishhad) does not grant
>one the license to do whatever one pleases.

True. Even the realized sages are advised to follow dharma.  Krishna's life
itself an example.
In fact he warns:

 yadyadaacharati shreshTaH
 tattadevetaro janaH|
 sayat pramaaNam kurute
 lokasta danuvartate||

whatever whatever is done by a leader or a man of wisdom
that and that alone is followed by other people.
Whatever he does becomes an example for others to follow.

(You can see why India so corrupt - Look at the leaders!)

Following slokas he further states that He himself has no need to do any
action in the three worlds.  But if he  does not do, the ignorant who have
no knowledge of the truth only follow the wrong example.

Hence action is important.

But how to remain as a akartha, non-doer, in the midst of whole dynamic
action is the essence of his teaching in the fourth chapter of Geeta.

Destiny and free will:

I find the whole discussion on the free will and destiny that went through
is the result of confusion arising from jumping across the two frames of
references  from the point of knowledge - aham Brahmasmi and from the point
of ego-centric individual.

Sadhana which involves exercise of free will, is essential for the one who
has kartutva bhaava or the notion of agency of action.  That  helps in the
purification of the mind.  A pure mind can only comprehend (not just
intellectually - it is an understanding as understanding as a fact and
not as an understanding as an understanding as a thought! as JK puts it)
the truth of the non-agency of action. As I have pointed out in response to
the question raised by Nagi that even meditation is an action at a mind
level.  But one reaches - to use words loosely - a state where meditation
is no more an action - it is being one self in one self - aatmanyeva
atmanaa tushTaH - fulfilled oneself by oneself.

Martin wrote:

>It seems to me that God is not omnipotent. I don't see why God should be
>omnipotent.

>Martin.

Did God created man or man created God!  God, Iswara is a concept brought
in to explain the creation from the individual ego point who sees the
creation different from him.  Creation by definition is infinite. All
possibilities are within the creation.  The one who creates has to have
knowledge of the whole creation otherwise he cannot create.  Hence He has
to be sarvaJNa and sarva shaktiman - all knowledge and all powerful. Hence
he has to be omnipotent. and Creator cannot be separate from the creation
which is infinite. Hence He has to be omnipresent.
All this from the point of the ego who has the notion of separate existence
from the rest of the creation.  If one strips of all the veshas or costumes
for both the jeeva and Iswara as Sri Ramana points out

      Isha jeevayoH vesha dhiibhidaa
      satva bhaasato vastu kevalam.

then from the point of sat vastu the essence is the same.  Costume is that
which makes one inside look different from one is. From the individual
point - vehsa is the notion that aham dehaparichhinnoham, mono
paricchinnoham etc. I am the body which is limited or mind that is limited
etc.

Iswara exists in the mind of the ego when the world exists or the creation
exists.

Our notion of the creation also establishes the Iswara's attributions too
since He was brought in to explain the creation which I see in front of me
so vaste and so powerful that I think I did not create it neither any one I
know that exist or existed before has created it!

Some one asked Sir Ramana if God has a form.  His reply was - if you think
you have a form then God can have form too! In the final analysis neither
one is true!

God is created in the image of the man!

Hari Om!
Sadananda