introduction from VISWANATHAN KRISHNAMURTHY (fwd)

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

> My whole discussion will be based on what I deduced from what I know.  I am
> not well versed with our scriptures except Gita (english translation) and
> this I attribute to my lack of knowledge in Sanskrit.
>
> Now I going through a course in Sanskrit.
>

Bravo.  One should not be satisfied with insipid translations written by
people who more likely than not do not have a clue when with just a little
effort one can have the real thing.  Just reading is not enough though.
Not just because until recently 99% of people in India were illiterate and
few of those who were literate knew Sanskrit (even though that's true) but
also because we have always placed a great emphasis on oral transmission
of our traditions.  Often a lot of the context is left unstated in the
written shastras.  So to get a true understanding one also has to observe
and listen to the living sages and scholars and to study history.

> --My opening discussion-
>
> My whole discussion will be based on the fact that I don't believe on
> GOD(s)  who/whom we follow in our daily life.  I believe in only one GOD
> and that is SHIVAM.
>
> To me SHIVAM is the singularity from which this whole universe sprung.
>
> I believe that sages of our ancient times did find out that SHIVAM is the
> GOD and other GOD(s) where only the images of SHIVAM.
>
> GOD(s) will be henceforth referenced as IMAGES  in my discussions.
>
>
> As SHIVAM has no characteristics which could be understood by ordinary
> humans, sages did not want the people to believe in something that they
> cannot comprehend.

This is not the Vedantic view.  Despite the inadequacies of everyday
language, Brahman _is_ knowable and comprehendable.

>
> So they exploited the most important human factor hero worship.  So they
> imaged SHIVAM in human form so people could comprehend.
>

Well what about all the devatas that don't have nomal human form?

> People can now comprehend but will they follow.  So charm and character was
> added to IMAGES.
>
> But did anything good delivered by this.  So virtues were added to the
> IMAGES.
>
> Resultant - GOD.
>
> This aspect I strongly believe is only for society to function properly.

No it is for love of God.  That's it.  Any other benefits are purely
incidental. As you are not a believer it may be hard for you to understand
but the relationship between a Bhakta and Bhagawan is more than that of a
person and his reflection in a mirror.  For instance in the Vaishnava sect
of the Vallabhacharis, the bhakta often sees themself as Yashoda the
mother of Krishna Bhagawan--a naughty boy who is always stealing ghee and
butter! How is that concept of God explained by your theory?

>I believe that HINDUISM propounds that it should have two branches. They are
>
> 1.      PHILOSOPHER -  who's only duty it to realize his self.
> 2.      SOCIETY - Family - which is responsible in giving birth to the above
> category.
>

Your terminology is unusual but this is basically correct.  1. would
better be called sannyasi.  A philosopher is someone who thinks a lot.  A
philosopher is just someone who thinks a lot not neccessarily about
realizing the self.  A sannyasi is one who has given up all worldly
desires. Probably by thinking a lot but not neccessarily.

> So far so good now what role does advitam plays in this theory?
>
> As I mentioned that the whole universe sprung from one point (singularity -
> according to scientists) ie. SHIVAM, which only means that everything in
> this universe has a part of it.  To further simplify,  SHIVAM (GOD) is part
> of everthing.
>

Dubious science aside, this is not the Vedantic view.  Brahman is _more_
than the sum total of perceivable things.

> So we can't think about the fact that we are different and SHIVAM is
> different - it also means that IMAGES are our own images and only thing
> that we may lack is all the charm, character and virtues.
>

Actually the only thing that seperates us is ignorance.  Those virtues
etc. are also a product of ignorance.

> What other proof do we have to prove that we are part of SHIVAM?
>
> Pass the sunlight through a prism.  What do you see ? A spectrum.  To
> understand something we have to split it.
>
> To see what a cell is composed of we use magnifying lens.
>
> Similarly SHIVAM wanted to know what it was, so it started splitting itself
> or started magnifying itself.  Result is today's universe. Everything which
> is part of this SHIVAM ( the whole universe) has this curiosity embedded
> with itself.

Vedanta does not impute any desires such as curiosity to Brahman.  The
creation and destruction are only apparently real because of maya.

>
> But why is it that only humans think that they possess this urge?  Basic
> flaw here is that we are so arrogant to think that we are the only
> intelligent beings in this world.  Point is it is not true.  It is only
> that we have a communication gap between ourselves and
> everything around us.
>
> WE ARE SHORT SIGHTED.
>
> This argument should not impress upon the readers that whoever wrote this
> has a pessimistic view.  Views are relative.  BUT TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE.
>

At least one view must also be true otherwise we have no means of knowing
the truth.  Vedanta is the attempt to find this truth.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>