Grace of God
Miguel Angel Carrasco
nisargadata at MX3.REDESTB.ES
Thu Jan 8 13:32:41 CST 1998
In this line of debate, two elements have come up: Personal God and God's
Sorry, but I just don^Òt understand what ^ÓPersonal God^Ô might mean. If by
that, you mean something like Zeus, Isis, Ala, Jahveh, etc., it^Òs OK, but I
can^Òt believe in that. The only thing I can believe in is the
One-without-two, the One without any limitations, without any form or shape
or actions or volition or any imaginable thing that could be found in a
dictionary. I dislike the very concept of ^Óperson^Ô which comes from the
Latin persona, the masks that classic actors used to wear on stage. Person
means a role, a part in a play, a social image. I think there can^Òt be
persons but in a web of social relationships. The One is not a member of
any society, or of anything whatsoever. He can^Òt have any attibutes of any
kind. Ever. Not even in Saguna. There can^Òt be two eras in God, first
Nirguna then Saguna. He is always Now. Here. The One. There is nothing
Even this mail is an illusion appearing in His consciousness.
About God^Òs Grace. That^Òs something I^Òve never understood. That sounds to
me terribly dualistic. I don^Ò t mean that it is so, don't feel offended.
Nothing I say should be
so. I am saying nonsense all the time. It just seems to me so. If I am
nothing, absolutely nothing apart from That, how could I (That) grant me
Grace? Also all the talk about purifying one^Òs mind seems to me harder and
harder to understand. Who is to purify what? I am nothing. I just appear to
be something. And that is ^Ómy^Ô only and very great pain: what I appear to
be. What a terrible pain!
This morning I was walking on the street. I thought: I see many people
around, most of them I don^Òt know. Some appear and then disappear to let
others appear instead. There is only one there who I know all
the time, Miguel Angel. My God, what I would give to lose sight of him for
ever! Why am I to put up with this bore, to carry this heavy load so long?
If I am not him, why this constant nightmare, this stupid person appearing
in my consciousness again and again? How to get rid of him for good? Where
to hide and become invisible to him? Knowing that he is nothing, just a
ghost, and I the only Reality doesn^Òt help, he keeps calling uninvited.
Anyone knows the way to dodge him for ever short of killing him?
Ready to pay a handsome reward.
>From Thu Jan 8 14:58:15 1998
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:58:15 -0500
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Subject: Re: Bhagavad kr^pa (grace of God)
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
> ........ But, we falsely think we have individuality and in order to
> explain our falsely proclaimed individuality, we invoke Saguna
> Brahman. Although it may be controversial, let me state that without
> invoking Saguna Brahman, we can feel our direct identity with
> Nirguna Brahman.
Is Brahman Nirguna or Saguna? This is an age-old question, which even
the master-philosophers of the sages and seers have not solved. The
best one can do, is to take sides with one or another of them, according
our Taste and Evolutionary level. Sankara claims that Brahman by itself
is Nirguna. But when we try to understand Brahman with our physical and
psychological limitations we identify Him as Saguna Brahman. These
limitations are called Upaadhis or the result of Avidya. Looking at
Brahman using a scientific framework is possible. Science views
Production and Creation differently.
Creation is unique and is always a scientific puzzle. Creation
necessarily implies that something has come out of nothing. When
something comes out of something, it is called transformation and the
process is known as the production technology. If we assume that
something has come out of nothing then the origin has to be nothing!
Looking from this intellectual point of view, it appears that Brahman,
the Super Intelligence, responsible for the Creation is Nirguna. From
the pure scientific point of view, something can never come out of
nothing and consequently, everything other than Brahman is an Illusion.
With this framework, Sankara's logic is flawless.
Science defines Production unambiguously. Engineers apply the Material
Balance Approach to describe Production. According to this approach,
all inputs used in a manufacturing plant are fully accounted by the
products of the process. For example, Gold Bangle uses gold, energy and
labor and defining a recipe and the process to produce the gold bangle
is possible. Everyone with the resources and technology can produce
gold bangles. The idea of a gold bangle is creativity or Super
Intelligence. Looking from this intellectual point of view, the origin
of all ideas comes from Brahman. In addition, material resources and
people are necessary to explain all the changes that take place in this
universe. With this framework, Madhawacharya's logic of A Saguna
Brahman is flawless.
Does this exercise resolve the age-old question? The answer is No. Both
these approaches use intellectual frameworks and do not allow the human
intellect to go beyond the human limitations to explain the nature of
Brahman. There is little disagreement about the existence of the "Super
Consciousness" or "Brahman." The nature of Brahman is still known. The
declaration that we know the nature of Brahman, undermines the TRUTH.
The only person that can know the TRUTH is TRUTH! The seers of the
Upanishads were very successful in their discussions and
deliberations. According to the Vedas, the intellect has limitations
to explain either the Beginning or the End. Only Brahman knows the
Beginning and the End. When we go beyond our limitations, we can
realize Brahman and know Brahman. Until, then let us proceed with the
slogan from the Upanishads: "Life is a Bridge, enjoy while crossing and
don't build any castle on it"
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list