Karma and our bodies

[judge]

Does Karma (or something similar) have anything to do with pains or tensions being lodged in our physical bodies. Or does any Non Abrahamic thought suggest that pains or tensions in our physical bodies are caused by our misdeeds?

[perfectbite]

That is a loaded question. The Buddha says that if you, without respite, are afraid that someone will come and rob you and harm you then eventually someone will come and rob you and harm you. It is a lot more complex than a self fulfilling prophecy.

From my experience, pain is the body's way of undergoing healing, pain isn't gratuitious and not listening or masking the pain is one way of ignoring it. Athletes are famous for not allowing sports injuries to heal before returning to heavy exercise. It really is an individual thing.

I believe that there are some NARPs that tend to judge one's karma as indicative of one's spiritual standing, something on the order of what greeted Job's trials, but Buddhism really doesn't get into that although there is a folk belief in a Buddhist area of the world that if a lot of good things happen to you in rapid succession, say goodbye to your friends and family because you are about to die.

[Chili]

Does Karma (or something similar) have anything to do with pains or tensions being lodged in our physical bodies. Or does any Non Abrahamic thought suggest that pains or tensions in our physical bodies are caused by our misdeeds?

The best I can say is that if there is no sickness and pain in heaven it would follow that being sick and having pain is evidence that you are not in heaven. From there it follows that smoking and drinking should be allowed in heaven but not in hell where it is know to cause cancer and give us a two day headache. Or at least, it must be hell to get cancer or have a two day head ache.

[kalchiran]

According to Vedanta,
everything we experiance, is the effect of the cause in past. The cause is invariably our deeds OR karma.And whatever we are doing in present, is the cause of future's effect. If we die before recieving that effect, we recieve it in subsequent birth. But we have to go through it. There is no way out. Only way you can stop performing deeds is by gaining Atma-Gyaan( SELF REALISATION)
If we have done KARMA, we are bound to get KARMA-FALA. (fruit of that deed)
Whatever we do, its effect we have to face.

[premjan]

Vedanta and Buddhism both appear to have a "mentalic" bias wherein they assume that the natural world is capable of storing up "memories" of past events and handing out retribution for the past in the future. Of course it may be that thinking constantly about something (e.g. getting cheated) may cause it to happen with higher probability (though really the opposite ought to be the case).

This is unsubstantiated philosophical speculation.

[Mountain Man]

Does Karma (or something similar) have anything to do with pains or tensions being lodged in our physical bodies.No. Karma is a religious concept that many have reified and twisted to fit everything that happens which means it actually describes nothing. It's a useless concept.

[perfectbite]

I am not so sure that karma and dharma are an entirely useless conjoined concept but, as Dharma stated, the intention of the original act (karma) seems to be central to the accrual of dharma.

[Mountain Man]

I am not so sure that karma and dharma are an entirely useless conjoined conceptIt is useless since it can only be supported by dogma, or in this case Dhogma, and circular reasoning.It's more of a tautology than anything else. but, as Dharma stated, the intention of the original act (karma) seems to be central to the accrual of dharma.Where is this accrual of dharma stored? How can it be measured? and so on....

[Chili]

It is useless since it can only be supported by dogma, or in this case Dhogma, and circular reasoning.It's more of a tautology than anything else.Where is this accrual of dharma stored? How can it be measured? and so on....

So you are suggesting that people who never get sick are just lucky?

Is luck in charge of our body while we do not know what is going on?

Just because we cannot measure it doesn't mean that it does not exist.

It could, after all, be the case that we need a new mind instead of a new measuring stick. Ever heard of that?

[premjan]

karma, dharma etc. are probably evolutionary remnants of reciprocal altruistic tendencies.

[Chili]

karma, dharma etc. are probably evolutionary remnants of reciprocal altruistic tendencies.

Would you not call that involutionary?

I would say that evolutionary is when mental memories and prejudices are liberated to bring relief from pain and suffering. I think that eternal bliss is the norm just as light is the norm in the mind of the Buddha (enlightnement would suggest this).

[perfectbite]

It is useless since it can only be supported by dogma, or in this case Dhogma, and circular reasoning.

It's more of a tautology than anything else.Where is this accrual of dharma stored? How can it be measured? and so on....

The Dhogma of karma and dharma is a decidedly secondary, dependent part of the Buddhist world view and, as such, really does appear to be simplistically tautological when separated out from the primary Buddhist Dogmas of dependent origination and Mind Only.

The main Dhogmas of dependent origination and Mind Only are the basis of karma and dharma and they are not dependent on karma and dharma for their existence so yes a circular reasoning can exist but it is in the form of an 'extracted' sidestreamed eddy and not as the main flow of Buddhist Dhogma.

The mechanics of the storage and the measuring of karma and dharma are irrelevant non-issues.

However, here, from the Dhammapada, are excellent examples of karma/dharma at work:

All that we are is the result of what we have thought.
It is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts.
If one speaks or acts with an evil thought pain follows them
as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the wagon.

Dhammapada 1

and,

Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief. Mind made are they.
If one speaks or acts with a pure mind,
because of that, happiness follows one
even as one’s shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 2



It couldn't be simpler. But ... if you forget that for Buddhism, karma and dharma are not stand-alone concepts and take them as if they were stand alone concepts then the whole thing gets tremendously unwieldly and questions arise that were not part of the original framework and Buddhism declines to answer those questions. Not because it doesn't know but because it isn't in the least important.

If you wish to find a world view based purely on karma and dharma with evolving humane standards of karma and dharma I think you will find that the law has the idea of crime and punishment as a humanly adequate temporal equivalent that will allow questions to be asked of it.

(BTW. For Buddhist karma and dharma, guilt or innocence need not be established. There is absolutely no risk of being falsely accused.)

[Mountain Man]

So you are suggesting that people who never get sick are just lucky? No.Is luck in charge of our body while we do not know what is going on?No.Just because we cannot measure it doesn't mean that it does not exist.Yes.It could, after all, be the case that we need a new mind instead of a new measuring stick. Ever heard of that?No. It makes no sense. Any more questions I can help you with?

[Mountain Man]

The Dhogma of karma and dharma is a decidedly secondary, dependent part of the Buddhist world view and, as such, really does appear to be simplistically tautological when separated out from the primary Buddhist Dogmas of dependent origination and Mind Only. Huh? :huh: That made no sense what so ever.The mechanics of the storage and the measuring of karma and dharma are irrelevant non-issues......No, there is no further discussion possible until you can answer those questions. You can't claim something exists and then do nothing to prove it exists.

[perfectbite]

OK. To put it very simply. Karma and dharma are not central to Buddhist thought. They are decidedly secondary.

Karma and dharma are side issues. Their existence is based on Dependent Origination and Mind Only which are the principal tenets of Buddhism.

Without also accepting the law of Dependent Origination and the Doctrine of Mind Only I agree that further discussion on stand alone Buddhist karma and dharma would be fruitless. I guess you'd have to be Buddhist to see that karma and dharma are really non-issues within Buddhism.

BTW. The claim isn't that karma and dharma exist in preference to some other working scheme, (e.g. Divine retribution) the claim is that that is the way things are. Just like action and reaction, Buddhism added a mental 'arena' for action (karma) and reaction (dharma) to work in. In fact, due to the idea of Mind only, karma and dharma are inexorable and inescapable. They comprise what is intended when one talks of perceiving, of being.

[Chili]

No.No.Yes.No. It makes no sense. Any more questions I can help you with?

Don't need your help Mountain Man but might I suggest that you come down off of that lofty mountain to take a good look at yourself and see that your mind is in charge of your body. Or do you think it is the other way around? Or maybe, yes, you are one of those who thinks that your mind is only in charge when you are happy!

[Mountain Man]

Don't need your help Mountain Man but might I suggest that you come down off of that lofty mountain to take a good look at yourself and see that your mind is in charge of your body.Where did I say it wasn't? :rolleyes:

[premjan]

Would you not call that involutionary?

I would say that evolutionary is when mental memories and prejudices are liberated to bring relief from pain and suffering. I think that eternal bliss is the norm just as light is the norm in the mind of the Buddha (enlightnement would suggest this).

involution (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=involution) in medicine refers to degeneration. I don't think karma and dharma are quite enough of a problem to label them as involutionary.

Your definition of evolution doesn't seem to bear any relation to the biological definition. I would refer to your concept as "liberation" or "moksha" from a vedantic point of view.

[Chili]

Where did I say it wasn't? :rolleyes:

But if your mind is in charge would it not be the cause of pain and suffering?

The argument was presented from the Idealist position wherein essence precedes existence:

All that we are is the result of what we have thought.
It is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts.
If one speaks or acts with an evil thought pain follows them
as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the wagon.


Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief. Mind made are they.
If one speaks or acts with a pure mind,
because of that, happiness follows one
even as one’s shadow that never leaves.

And so it is wrong for you to ask for and Empirical explanation. The right answer here would be to get your own data.

[Mountain Man]

But if your mind is in charge would it not be the cause of pain and suffering? No.

[Chili]

No.

So you will tell me that pain is an illusion and doesn't exist, and that suffering is an illusion and doesn't exist, just as sound and light are illusions that do not exist.

Sure, if you break a leg the broken leg is sufficient reason for pain but it is not the cause of pain. Having a baby is a good reason for pain but it is not the cause of pain or hypnosis could not remove the pain.

The point here is that pain and suffering are illusions with a purpose and therefore serve a purpose in response to our mental acivities.

But I understand your point and find it difficult to accept that if you look at a woman in lust you have already commited adultery, yet the slippery slope would have it so.

[Mountain Man]

So you will tell me that pain is an illusion and doesn't exist, and that suffering is an illusion and doesn't exist, just as sound and light are illusions that do not exist. Why do you feel the need to start everything with a strawman argument? That's why I don't bother to explain anything to you because you always twist it to be something it isn't. Sure, if you break a leg the broken leg is sufficient reason for pain but it is not the cause of pain......Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_System) read up a bit and then get back to me on that.

[Chili]

Yes well, to think that our nervous system is the cause of pain there must be two of us, one causing the pain and the other receiving it.

[Mountain Man]

Yes well, to think that our nervous system is the cause of pain there must be two of us, one causing the pain and the other receiving it.More strawmen. Is that all you can do?:rolleyes:

[Chili]

That just depends on which side of the fence you are on.

[seven8s]

That just depends on which side of the fence you are on.


And where do you think the third one sits, on the fence watching to see who wins? And from there I wonder, do you think it picks sides? :cool:

[Yeshi]

Our bodies are coagulated karma.

[premjan]

Our bodies are coagulated karma.
Sounds like a big ball of snot.

[Chili]

That can be a materialist point of view.

Bodies are beautiful because they are the expression of the mind. They need to be pruned, true enough, and can be charmed into existence which really is what life is all about.

[premjan]

This is, basically, a therapeutic rather than usefully descriptive use of the word "mind". If a body is an expression of a mind rather than the other way around.

[Chili]

This is, basically, a therapeutic rather than usefully descriptive use of the word "mind". If a body is an expression of a mind rather than the other way around.


Without any of doubt, the body is the expression of the mind. Mind you, we only have rational access to a small portion of our mind that our true nature (tm, three cheers for perfectbite), employs to make changes if necessary or convenient. To achieve this our rational or conscious mind is connected to our senses that are used to preselect that which is useful and beneficial towards survival. Such data is retained by the true nature (in Catholicism we have Mary do all of this) where it can become tied to our true nature and on into our RNA and DNA. This would be how adaptation is pitted against natural selection which has no mind to select but just is the negative constant in the rout of creation.

[Yeshi]

Sounds like a big ball of snot.

where else do you think is the repository that determines (the functioning of) the relative mind?
(if not in the physical universe aka body)

[Mountain Man]

Without any of doubt, the body is the expression of the mind....No, your body, and mind, are an expression of your genes.

[Chili]

No, your body, and mind, are an expression of your genes.

That is partially true up until we die wherefore the Buddha mind never dies. I mean, dust is dust and who really cares who runs dust.

[perfectbite]

No, your body, and mind, are an expression of your genes.

And this would be dogma or doctrine?

[Chili]

And this would be dogma or doctrine?

Or a lie, maybe?.

[Mountain Man]

That is partially true up until we die wherefore the Buddha mind never dies.There is no such thing as "the Buddha mind." I mean, dust is dust and who really cares who runs dust.Non sequitur.

[Mountain Man]

And this would be dogma or doctrine?Reality.

[perfectbite]

That sounds quite dogmatic to me.

Don't forget that the tighter you delineate what reality is the more loopholes appear for reality to have the wiggle room to become that which it only apparently is.

(Go back to phenomonology. Reality is a pragmatic, conveniently agreed upon convention that only seems to be existent and, when examined in detail, just like Xeno's arrow paradox, defies logic.)

[perfectbite]

There is no such thing as "the Buddha mind.

And you would know this how?

[premjan]

where else do you think is the repository that determines (the functioning of) the relative mind?
(if not in the physical universe aka body)
Only a small part of the body (i.e. contents of memory neuronal net strengths) are caused by the mind. There are a number of other involuntary mental effects on the body, but they are finally limited in their effect. Whereas changing the body can immediately affect the mind in drastic ways.

[Chili]

There is no such thing as "the Buddha mind."Non sequitur.

I can see why you say that.

[Mountain Man]

And you would know this how?The same way we know that Tralfamidorians do not exist.

[perfectbite]

You are begging the question. One could just as easily say that quantum states are only theoretically inferred and have no actual existence and even though they are tremendously useful they therefore have the same status as the products of Kurt Vonnegut's fiction; they are unseen, imagined entities. (As I remember, the same used to be said about bacteria and viruses.)

Others say that not only does Buddha mind (small 'm') exist but that Buddha Mind (capital 'M') also exists.

Unless you know absolutely everything there is to know in the Universe, you can only say that in your considered opinion, neither Buddha mind nor Buddha Mind exists.

[premjan]

We don't know of any mechanism whereby the universe outside of little minds, could behave as a mind. However if the little minds were to configure themselves in such a way as to project a larger mind, that could be construed as a Buddha mind.

[perfectbite]

Why not go the extra step and make allowance that a larger mind expresses itself in myriad smaller minds that then truly project a larger mind?

It's six of one and half dozen of the other.

[premjan]

The larger one is a trick of coordination of the smaller ones though.

[Chili]

We don't know of any mechanism whereby the universe outside of little minds, could behave as a mind. However if the little minds were to configure themselves in such a way as to project a larger mind, that could be construed as a Buddha mind.

I don't think the larger mind (I would call this truth) behaves or does anything but just is for us to explore and propagate into a greater good. We do this "in Him, through Him and with Him" not because 'it' is but because we are the continuity of him as willing participants "in the unity of the HS" wherein we are connected with 'it' until we are 'it' and the HS is redundant as the source of inspiration. This would be about the time we meet the Immaculate Conception as the crown of truth in the full spendor of it's beauty. IOW, she's the dust-become-gold cladding of the Buddha temple-Mind.

Hence perfectbite's distinction between the Buddha mind and the Buddha Mind is true except that is an insult to Catholicism but I'll let that go for now.

[Mountain Man]

You are begging the question.....Not me.Others say that not only does Buddha mind (small 'm') exist but that Buddha Mind (capital 'M') also exists.They can say whatever they want. I don't give a rats ass what some religious nutcase comes up with. I'm not going to "believe" in this crap just because someone says it exists. This Buddha mind is just something someone made up as part of a religion. Unless you know absolutely everything there is to know in the Universe, you can only say that in your considered opinion, neither Buddha mind nor Buddha Mind exists.Then I would be lying. There is absolutely no reason to fantasize that that this Buddha whatever exists. I'm not going to waste my time on such sillyness.:rolleyes:

[perfectbite]

I'm not going to waste my time on such sillyness.:rolleyes:

Then don't. It would save us all some time. Your method of argument is to unsatisfactorily insist that it is all a crock anyway despite what someone else says or thinks or has thought.

Some folks stick their fingers in their ears and say "La, la, la I'm not listening".

That is a fine example of rational thinking rationally expressed.

You believe in you and only you. Have at it.

[perfectbite]

Hence perfectbite's distinction between the Buddha mind and the Buddha Mind is true except that is an insult to Catholicism but I'll let that go for now.

I am having some difficulty with something being true yet still being capable of being an insult.

It is not my intention to insult anyone's belief or even lack of belief but I will not start to be 'theologically correct' in order to make my view accomodate another view.

It is Buddhist doctrine that all living beings have Buddha mind.

It is also Buddhist doctrine that this realization is attained through the realization of Buddha Mind as 'discovered' upon entry to Nirvana and the realization of our true nature.

(I suspect that this is not the case of a rose being a rose by any other name.)

[Chili]

I am having some difficulty with something being true yet still being capable of being an insult.

I am not exactly sure where to draw the line but we have such a thing as the Mind of Christ where you have the Buddha Mind wherein we can transcend our human understanding. This would make Catholics "Christian" in the same way that Buddhists become "Buddha" . . . which is beyond the Buddha mind in its transcendence of the lower Buddha mind that is native to all living organisms. Like we would have the city of God (Rome) come crashing down on us as the temple to be rebuilt (= get our thoughts in order).

We discussed this before when I wrote that it is not possible for dogs to transcend the doginess of dogs wherefore in turn we are said to have dominion over the animal kingdom and mythologies can be seen to compete with each other in height of transcendence, if you wish, or depth of penetration if you like that better.

[judge]

Without any of doubt, the body is the expression of the mind. Mind you, we only have rational access to a small portion of our mind that our true nature (tm, three cheers for perfectbite), employs to make changes if necessary or convenient. To achieve this our rational or conscious mind is connected to our senses that are used to preselect that which is useful and beneficial towards survival. Such data is retained by the true nature (in Catholicism we have Mary do all of this) where it can become tied to our true nature and on into our RNA and DNA. This would be how adaptation is pitted against natural selection which has no mind to select but just is the negative constant in the rout of creation.

Hi Chilli,
Is this your own idea?

If not where is it from?

[aupmanyav]

I have come late to the discussion. I am a hindu. God/karma/heaven/hell are all to keep people on the path that leads to social peace. .. It is nothing like what Premjan says 'Vedanta and Buddhism both appear to have a "mentalic" bias', at least not as far as hinduism goes. You are under-estimating hinduism in making stories. 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahmam' (All creation is Brahman), then who can put 'Brahman' in hell? Humans, animals, vegetation, or even inert substances are Brahman. It is only a (cosmic) game. Who plays it? Everything that constitutes this universe. It is its inherent property. Pain or pleasure, winning or loosing, praise or blame, are all parts of it. .. It is not a useless idea as Mountain Man makes it to be. .. Yes, Chilli, pain is as much real as humans are. The reality is different. Reality is strings and energy.

[aupmanyav]

In the Brhadaranyak Upanishad, it clearly states "let there be freedom from the slavery of gods, by realizing the truth of truths, for the knower of brahman becomes brahman itself, and gets freed from the slavery of gods."Beautiful post, will need to go back to Brhadaranyak and read it carefully.

[Azygos]

Beautiful post, will need to go back to Brhadaranyak and read it carefully.

->> Try this excellent commentary "the message of the Brhadaranyak Upanishad" by Swami Ranganathananda..........exposition of the Brhadaranyak Upanishad in the light of modern thought & modern needs.
->> you can buy a copy at the Ramakrishna Mission Centre, Paharganj, Delhi......
or at www.sriramakrishnamath.org

[premjan]

I have come late to the discussion. I am a hindu. God/karma/heaven/hell are all to keep people on the path that leads to social peace. .. It is nothing like what Premjan says 'Vedanta and Buddhism both appear to have a "mentalic" bias', at least not as far as hinduism goes. You are under-estimating hinduism in making stories. 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahmam' (All creation is Brahman), then who can put 'Brahman' in hell? Humans, animals, vegetation, or even inert substances are Brahman. It is only a (cosmic) game. Who plays it? Everything that constitutes this universe. It is its inherent property. Pain or pleasure, winning or loosing, praise or blame, are all parts of it. .. It is not a useless idea as Mountain Man makes it to be. .. Yes, Chilli, pain is as much real as humans are. The reality is different. Reality is strings and energy.
Brahman is similar to Logos, or perhaps a kind of immanent quantum field that periodically exhibits itself as universe. It is just a philosophical speculation, fairly elegant for its day and age.

Buddhism of course thinks of all as mind, a subtle difference (a more personal view in some respects than the impersonal Brahman).

[Chili]

Hi Chilli,
Is this your own idea?

If not where is it from?

Yes it is. It is part of my argument where the Intelligent Design is the leading edge of evolution.

[Chili]

. Yes, Chilli, pain is as much real as humans are. The reality is different. Reality is strings and energy.

Yes real in the same way as humans are real but if our human-ity is the condition of being wherein only pain is perceived it must also be true that our pain is conditional upon the existence of our persona. Hence, if we bypass our human condition and atone with our true indentity, or Buddha mind which alone is real, pain will be no more.

[Chili]

Beautiful post, will need to go back to Brhadaranyak and read it carefully.

We have the same in Gal.5:1-4. The message here is that Christians are free from the bondage of religion and of the slavery to sin. Verse 4: Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor.

[Yeshi]

In the Brhadaranyak Upanishad, it clearly states "let there be freedom from the slavery of gods, by realizing the truth of truths, for the knower of brahman becomes brahman itself, and gets freed from the slavery of gods."

Beautiful post, will need to go back to Brhadaranyak and read it carefully.

While you are at it, maybe you can also clarify how come one of the most beautiful verses there:

"Om asatoma sad gamaya,
tamasoma jyotir gamaya,
mrityorma amrita gamaya."

(Lets go from distraction to presence,
from darkness to light,
from mortality to immortality.)

Is allegedly being sung there as you SACRIFICE an ANIMAL by butchering it.

(and either you win converts or we have to admit several (unenlightened) people were adding to the oldest Vedic texts whatever disgusting morbidities they felt like adding).

[perfectbite]

Chili, you are a crypto-Buddhist.

[Yeshi]

Chili, you are a crypto-Buddhist.

its still to be seen if he is adding to the soup or genuinely re-discovering :p

[Chili]

Chili, you are a crypto-Buddhist.

Like I said, Catholicism is like a mother hen . . . (able to take all minor mythologies under her wings).

[Azygos]

While you are at it, maybe you can also clarify how come one of the most beautiful verses there:

"Om asatoma sad gamaya,
tamasoma jyotir gamaya,
mrityorma amrita gamaya."

(Lets go from distraction to presence,
from darkness to light,
from mortality to immortality.)

Is allegedly being sung there as you SACRIFICE an ANIMAL by butchering it.

(and either you win converts or we have to admit several (unenlightened) people were adding to the oldest Vedic texts whatever disgusting morbidities they felt like adding).

->> Oh but my dear friend, what is disgusting about that verse. I absolutely enjoy it; and anyway you deleted the last line.........

Om Asato maa sad-gamaya;
tamaso maa jyotir-ga-maya;
mrtyor-maa amrutam gamaya.
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih.

O Lord Lead me from the unreal to the real.
Lead me from the darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.
May there be peace, peace, and perfect peace.

I dont care whether an animal got butchered during the process...........however, where did you get the idea that an animal got butchered in the process.....perhaps, another fundie buddhist site???
.....yes, hinduism had concepts of animal sacrifice, some schools of Tantra still possess them......now, if that criticism comes from a vegetarian, i can understand the reaction, but when it comes from people who relish meat, it is rather illogical........eating an animal and sacrificing one on the altar makes no difference.........atleast, the one dying on the altar finds a passage to heaven....lol

let pseudo buddhists stop eating endangered whales, and then we will discusss the issue further...yeah, and i forgot to add, buying ivory products, tiger skins, etc........and western pseudo buddhists learn the ideal of renunciation.........

Regards,

[premjan]

Animal sacrifice was fairly common a long time ago. Anyway, due to the influence of Buddhism, Jainism, etc. it ceased in India. And now most Hindus don't do it (a few do). But Muslims still do. And Jews if they were to rebuild their temple might start doing the bull sacrifice again I suppose. And then there are some of those Caribbean religions which do blood sacrifice (Voodoo?)

[Yeshi]

O Lord Lead me from the unreal to the real.
Lead me from the darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.
May there be peace, peace, and perfect peace.

Strange, "O Lord" came into the poem although its not in any of the words.
The devotion to 'something' is so strong, it misguides even the translation?

Shanti is also not mentioned in the version i read (below), but its utterly irrelevant anyhows.

I dont care whether an animal got butchered during the process...........

OK, so mutilating/killing for obscure (religious) reasons is OK in hinduism?
Is it then to be understood as "Butcher's Paradise" religion?
Good luck with that. *vomits*

however, where did you get the idea that an animal got butchered in the process.....perhaps, another fundie buddhist site???


no, buddhists usually do not concern themselves with tenets of other religions. I only answer as you posed direct query:

source (http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/brihadaranyaka.htm)

(i thought thats direct hindu translation?)

"Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
Part One
Chapter I—Meditation on the Horse—sacrifice"

<snip>

"28

Next follows the edifying repetition (abhyaroha) only of the hymns called pavamanas. The priest called prastotri indeed chants the saman. While he chants it, let the sacrificer recite these [Yajur verses]:
"Lead me from the unreal to the real. From darkness lead me to light. From death lead me to immortality."
When the mantra (verse) says: "Lead me from the unreal to the real," "the unreal" means death, and the "real," immortality; so it says, "From death lead me to immortality," that is to say, "Make me immortal."
When it says: "From darkness lead me to light," "darkness" means death, and "light," immortality; so it says: "From death lead me to immortality," that is to say, "Make me immortal."
In the verse: "From death lead me to immortality," there is nothing that is hidden.
Then come the remaining hymns, with which, by singing them, [the chanter] should obtain food for himself. "

Excuse me if i do not enmess myself in further obscure details of the strange butchering issues. I might do so if i develop a wish to be covered with bloody horse intestines anytime later in life, but i sincerely hope that wish never arises in my dreams or waking time at all.

cheers

[kalchiran]

I think there is no problem with Animal sacrifices and meat eating in Vedic people. I think all the people who do not have higher spiritual ambitions should eat meat. there are too many people to feed. I think non veg food should be consumed by the people who wish to do it. Religion should not bar them from doing so. And Vedic religion does not do it.

All the big shots like Raam, Krishna consumed non veg food and alcohol. It was a social norm then. In ramayana, Even seeta is described soncuming meat and alcohol. Similarly with sacrifices. I think the over emphasis of buddhists on vegitarianism influenced the valor of Indians negatively. This is of course my personal opinion.

The verse mentioned by azygos is the complete version of that verse. It is usually always accompanied by OM SHANTI (thrice) . It has nothing to do with butchering.

The karma Siddhanta is extremely well dealt with in KATH-UPANISHAD.
It is one my favorites. It elaborately deals with law of Karma and death.

[Azygos]

Strange, "O Lord" came into the poem although its not in any of the words.
The devotion to 'something' is so strong, it misguides even the translation?

Shanti is also not mentioned in the version i read (below), but its utterly irrelevant anyhows.



OK, so mutilating/killing for obscure (religious) reasons is OK in hinduism?
Is it then to be understood as "Butcher's Paradise" religion?
Good luck with that. *vomits*




no, buddhists usually do not concern themselves with tenets of other religions. I only answer as you posed direct query:

source (http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/brihadaranyaka.htm)

(i thought thats direct hindu translation?)



Excuse me if i do not enmess myself in further obscure details of the strange butchering issues. I might do so if i develop a wish to be covered with bloody horse intestines anytime later in life, but i sincerely hope that wish never arises in my dreams or waking time at all.

cheers


The first words of the B. Upanishad

Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace

-ii-6: He desired, ‘Let me sacrifice again with the great sacrifice’. He was tired, and he was distressed. While he was (thus) tired and distressed, his reputation and strength departed. The organs are reputation and strength. When the organs departed, the body began to swell, (but) his mind was set on the body.

I-ii-7: He desired, ‘Let this body of mine be fit for a sacrifice, and let me be embodied through this’, (and entered it). Because the body swelled (Asvat), therefore it came to be called Asva (horse). And because it became fit for a sacrifice, therefore the horse sacrifice came to be known as Asvamedha. He who knows it thus indeed knows the horse sacrifice. (Imagining himself as the horse and) letting it remain free, he reflected (on it). After a year he sacrificed it to himself, and dispatched the (other) animals to the gods. Therefore (priests to this day) sacrifice to Prajapati the sanctified (horse) that is dedicated to all the gods. He who shines yonder is the horse sacrifice; his body is the year. This fire is Arka; its limbs are these worlds. So these two (fire and the sun) are Arka and the horse sacrifice. These two again become the same god, Death. He (who knows thus) conquers further death, death cannot overtake him, it becomes his self, and he becomes one with these deities.

I-ii-28
Now therefore the edifying repetition (Adhyaroha) only of the hymns called Pavamanas. The priest called Prastotir indeed recites the Saman. While he recites it, these Mantras are to be repeated: From evil lead me to good. From darkness lead me to light. From death lead me to immortality. When the Mantra says, ‘From evil lead me to good’, ‘evil’ means death, and ‘good’ immortality; so it says, ‘From death lead me to immortality, i.e. make me immortal’. When it says, ‘From darkness lead me to light’, ‘darkness’ means death, and ‘light’, immortality; so it says, ‘From death lead me to immortality, or make me immortal’. In the dictum, ‘From death lead me to immortality’, the meaning does not seem to be hidden. Then through the remaining hymns (the chanter) should secure eatable food for himself by chanting. Therefore, while they are being chanted, the sacrificer should ask for a boon – anything that he desires. Whatever objects this chanter possessed of such knowledge desires, either for himself or for the sacrificer, he secures them by chanting. This (meditation) certainly wins the world (Hiranyagarbha). He who knows the Saman (vital force) as such has not to pray lest he be unfit for this world.

www.celextel.org\ebooks\upanishads\brihadaranyaka_upanishad.htm


->> Many of the vedic hymns have significant esoteric meanings.......like in the above ones........so stick to your buddhist texts instead of this vain mudslinging on the hindu counterparts.....remember what buddha said "work diligently for your own salvation".....and believe me, your salvation does not lie, in text torturing hindu scriptures.

Regards,

[premjan]

I would guess that the Upanishads (including Brihadaranyaka) are not used for any ritual purpose at all. Different parts of the Veda and Vedanta are used with different purposes. E.g. the Yajur Veda is significantly associated with rituals.

[Yeshi]

->> Many of the vedic hymns have significant esoteric meanings.......like in the above ones........so stick to your buddhist texts instead of this vain mudslinging on the hindu counterparts.....remember what buddha said "work diligently for your own salvation".....and believe me, your salvation does not lie, in text torturing hindu scriptures.


Yes, i always proposed sticking to buddhist texts myself.
I even wrote that buddhists have no need to read Vedas, nor before nor after Enlightment. Yet you often proselytise that one should read Upanishads, etc to understand their 'greatness' or whatnot.

Well, i try read them, but no meaning comes over. I acknowledge the translations might be bad. In any case, there is neither "Oh Lord" nor "shanti shanti shanti" in neither of the I-ii-28 chapters.

[Azygos]

Yes, i always proposed sticking to buddhist texts myself.
I even wrote that buddhists have no need to read Vedas, nor before nor after Enlightment. Yet you often proselytise that one should read Upanishads, etc to understand their 'greatness' or whatnot.

Well, i try read them, but no meaning comes over. I acknowledge the translations might be bad. In any case, there is neither "Oh Lord" nor "shanti shanti shanti" in neither of the I-ii-28 chapters.

There are certain verses in the vedas where no meaning comes over ..........for deciphering their meaning, you need commentaries like those by shankara....anyway, personally, i skip those parts, and read those which i can understand............

For the masses, many other texts, like the Bhagavad Geeta, which are in much easier language without too much jargon, are recommended.

I am not trying to prosetylise anyone[Not in this kind of forum anyway:), and moreover hinduism is not a prosetylising religion], ..........but to do a comparitive analysis between two religions, you need to possess profound knowledge of both........
....many buddhists have no idea about the hindu religion but are constantly ridiculing it about being superstitious......it is to them, that i recommend reading the hindu scriptures in original, so that they can come out of their delusions.......

Regards,

[premjan]

Of course there is the famous story of Kumarila Bhatta who was a famous Hindu scholar 4th century AD who infiltrated a Buddhist university, was rather unfuriated by the taunts of the Buddhists, yet felt bad enough when his ruse was discovered by his professor that he burnt himself on a pyre. A rather emotional person overall. The notion of the trinity: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva was I think his idea.

[Yeshi]

....it is to them, that i recommend reading the hindu scriptures in original, so that they can come out of their delusions.......


You are breaking your ahimsa ideal by forcing 'truths' onto others then.

As noted in other hindi thread, i did read Bhagavad Gita several times and concluded only bad things from it (as did Dharma too). An avatar that calls to murder, war, fornicates, forces good people to lie, then dies and starts whole dark age of Kaliyuga, is NOT an ideal i will ever follow.

I also bought 10-15 books in my lifetime from hari krishnas (ISCKON?) and tried read them. They are unpalatable, and ununderstandable. The chief guru Prabhupad DOES have an imposing gelee smear on his forehead though. I did buy them cos i felt sorry for people selling them.

So please do not forcefeed us your own delusions in order to liberate us from ours? Boy am i glad Buddhism is a non-proselytising religion... :notworthy:

[kalchiran]

You are breaking your ahimsa ideal by forcing 'truths' onto others then.

As noted in other hindi thread, i did read Bhagavad Gita several times and concluded only bad things from it (as did Dharma too). An avatar that calls to murder, war, fornicates, forces good people to lie, then dies and starts whole dark age of Kaliyuga, is NOT an ideal i will ever follow.

I also bought 10-15 books in my lifetime from hari krishnas (ISCKON?) and tried read them. They are unpalatable, and ununderstandable. The chief guru Prabhupad DOES have an imposing gelee smear on his forehead though. I did buy them cos i felt sorry for people selling them.

So please do not forcefeed us your own delusions in order to liberate us from ours? Boy am i glad Buddhism is a non-proselytising religion... :notworthy:

You cannot compare vedic religion and Buddhism in this field.
No where has ahimsa glorified in vedic religion.Ahimsa is recommended only for those with higher spiritual ambitions. For others, it is impractical to impose AHIMSA as buddhism did.

You are forgetting the nature of Bhagvad geeta. It was told by Krishna, who was a warrior, to Arjuna, who also was a warrior. Arjuna was not an ordinary person. He was quite mature and was quite bigshot in the field of spirituality. He was not a ordinary lay man. The scenario in which Geeta is told, is a battle field. One cannot expect to preach AHIMSA on battlefield. The basic purpose of Bhagad Geeta is to arouse a warrior to fight. At all costs. Becoz Arjuna had these doubts at the 11th hour. It was no way back from there. Hence the goal of telling geeta was to arouse the warrior Arjuna.

The practical nature of vedic religion is one of the most important factor due to which it outscores Buddhism.

For another perpective, UDDHAV GEETA is nice. It was told by Krishna to his cousin Uddhav.

Regarding you not considering Krishna as ideal, it is strictly your personal choice. No one can force an ideal upon anybody.

I personaly do not like the ISKON people. I would recommend not reading their litreature. They try to ABRHAMISE Krishna and vedic religion. Thats why I hate their masquerade.

[Philippe*]

Boy am i glad Buddhism is a non-proselytising religion... :notworthy:

There is Soka Gakkai, which doesn't always give buddhism a good reputation in this field since they are quite "evangelical". They think that they follow the true buddhism and that they have the most effective mantra of this age Nam myoho Renge Kyo such as ISCKON with Hare Krishna aso... They are very concerned to impose their points of views in their social interactions. In France they are not recognized by the buddhist federation though they are about 10 millions in the world. The doctrine is quite fundamentalist and with a strong proselytising tendency, there is a very different spirit that contrasts with theravada, zen or tibetan buddhism for instance.
The vedic traditions can not be reduced to the sole vision of Prabhupada of course.

Philippe

[Azygos]

I would guess that the Upanishads (including Brihadaranyaka) are not used for any ritual purpose at all. Different parts of the Veda and Vedanta are used with different purposes. E.g. the Yajur Veda is significantly associated with rituals.

->> Upanishads have less of ritualistic portions than the samhita [hymns] and the brahmana [sacrifical] portions of the vedas.....the newer upanishads are almost devoid of them........in most upanishads, initially, there is some discussion on rituals, then philosophy before finally getting to the highest topic of nonduality of brahman, and how to perceive that.... [not believe, but perceive]....many a time, you find philosophers questioning each other; is there any imperishable reality or not? and then the enlightened sages begin their explanations...........Not once, do you find them taking recourse to a belief in an extra cosmic god.........the freedom to question and challenge all prevailing truths for the search of the absolute truth is the most remarkable thing about the upanishads, which were written 4000 yrs ago!

->> Vedanta means ved+anta [veda + end] -> the end/cultimation of the vedas.....vedanta is devoid of all rituals........the core philosophy of vedanta is formed of the upanishads, the brahma sutras and the bhagavad geeta.......

[Azygos]

Of course there is the famous story of Kumarila Bhatta who was a famous Hindu scholar 4th century AD who infiltrated a Buddhist university, was rather unfuriated by the taunts of the Buddhists, yet felt bad enough when his ruse was discovered by his professor that he burnt himself on a pyre. A rather emotional person overall. The notion of the trinity: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva was I think his idea.

->> Now my friend, where did you get this pseudo story from...

In addition to writing his own commentaries, Sankara sought out leaders of other schools, in order to engage them in debate. As per the accepted philosophical tradition in India, such debates helped to establish a new philosopher, and also to win disciples and converts from other schools. It was also traditional for the loser in the debate to become a disciple of the winner. Thus Sankara debated with Buddhist philosophers, with followers of sAmkhya and with pUrva mImAm.sakas, the followers of vedic ritualism, and proved more than capable in defeating all his opponents in debate.

The first person of this school whom Shankara met was Kumarila Bhatta, a confirmed ritualist. After his gurugula education, Bhatta disguised himself as a Buddhist monk, learned the logic of the Buddhist school under a Buddhist Guru and used the very logic to defeat Buddhism. In the process Bhatta established the ritualism of Puurva Miimamsa to its glory. But he suffered from a guilt complex because he had sinned against his Buddhist Guru (Guru-dosha). As a penance (praayachitta) he wanted to burn himself in the burning chaff (tusanala). It is when Bhatta was at the funeral pyre that Shankara came to meet him. Shankara promised to save him and requested to write an exegesis on his commentary on the Brahma-Suutra. But, Bhatta did not wish to escape his self-imposed vow of sacrificing himself for his sin. Instead, he directed Shankara to one of his illustrious disciples Mandana Mishr

Sankara's debate with viSvarUpa was unique. The referee at the debate was viSvarUpa's wife, bhAratI, who was herself very well-learned, and regarded as an incarnation of Goddess sarasvatI. At stake was a whole way of life. The agreement was that if viSvarUpa won, Sankara would consent to marriage and the life of a householder, whereas if Sankara won, viSvarUpa would renounce all his wealth and possessions and become a sannyAsI disciple of Sankara. The debate is said to have lasted for whole weeks, till in the end, viSvarUpa had to concede defeat and become a sannyAsI. bhAratI was a fair judge, but before declaring Sankara as the winner, she challenged Sankara with questions about kAmaSAstra, which he knew nothing about. Sankara therefore requested some time, during which, using the subtle yogic process called parakAya-praveSa, he entered the body of a dying king and experienced the art of love with the queens. Returning to viSvarUpa's home, he answered all of bhAratI's questions, after which viSvarUpa was ordained as a sannyAsI by the name of sureSvara. He was to become the most celebrated disciple of Sankara, writing vArttikas to Sankara's bhAshyas on the yajurveda upanishads, in addition to his own independent texts on various subjects.

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/sankara-life.html

->> Since Shankara lived around b/w 7-9th century A.D, i cannot see how your story fits in.........

[Azygos]

[QUOTE=Yeshi]You are breaking your ahimsa ideal by forcing 'truths' onto others then.


Force.....ugh....i didnt know my will power was so strong to overcome that of an enlightened buddhist thousands of miles away

As noted in other hindi thread, i did read Bhagavad Gita several times and concluded only bad things from it (as did Dharma too). An avatar that calls to murder, war, fornicates, forces good people to lie, then dies and starts whole dark age of Kaliyuga, is NOT an ideal i will ever follow.


->> I thought you were slightly more evolved than Dharma......but well, human intuition has its follies......

->> Krishna asked Arjuna, a soldier to fight for righteousness.........a soldier's duty is to defend his people and fight for them until death........arjuna had no right to quit, either because of fear or by showing sympathy for the kauravas, (because they were his cousins). The kauravas had committed many heinous crimes (including attempts to murder the pandavas, and also had taken over the latter's kingdoms.....the pandavas agreed to settle for 5 villages, but duryodhana, would not allow them even an inch of land], and their victory would have meant death of dharma in the aryan land.....

....Krishna had to resort to deceit, to defeat the kauravas, and for that he had to suffer....his whole kingdom was destroyed, and he had to die an inglorious death.....thus, even an avatar has to suffer the consequences of his actions......However, as an avatar, his mission was accompalished i.e. to restore dharma in the world so that the spiritual evolution of humanity could continue unabated.

I also bought 10-15 books in my lifetime from hari krishnas (ISCKON?) and tried read them. They are unpalatable, and ununderstandable. The chief guru Prabhupad DOES have an imposing gelee smear on his forehead though. I did buy them cos i felt sorry for people selling them.

->> Prabhupara as a dualist, had many shortcomings....but just to inform you that ISCKON is not popular in any part of rural india, and in most cities, their appeal is very limited. It is only in the west, where they managed to find thousands of converts especially during the Hippie movement of the 60s...............

->>It would have been so much better, if you had brought some excellent literature of the Ramakrishna mission/Vedanta societies, like that book i had recommended above.

So please do not forcefeed us your own delusions in order to liberate us from ours? Boy am i glad Buddhism is a non-proselytising religion...


As i told you, i am really amazed by my own will power:)

[premjan]

I think Hinduism nowadays functions less as a religion per se and more as a sort of reservoir of patriotism for Indians...I think there was someone else who was 4th century who is often spoken of in the same breath as Kumarila. You are right, his date apparently overlaps with Shankara.

[Yeshi]

As i told you, i am really amazed by my own will power:)

hehehehe :grin:

I think Hinduism nowadays functions less as a religion per se and more as a sort of reservoir of patriotism for Indians..

i got the like impression now from reading these few recent threads around.

[aupmanyav]

Buddhism of course thinks of all as mind, a subtle difference (a more personal view in some respects than the impersonal Brahman).Did Buddhism err there? Perhaps impersonal Brahman is the truth.

[aupmanyav]

Hence, if we bypass our human condition and atone with our true indentity, or Buddha mind which alone is real, pain will be no more.The pain will still be there, only we will have a better understanding of it.

[aupmanyav]

We have the same in Gal.5:1-4. The message here is that Christians are free from the bondage of religion and of the slavery to sin. Verse 4: Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor.Good for them.

[aupmanyav]

Is allegedly being sung there as you SACRIFICE an ANIMAL by butchering it.

(and either you win converts or we have to admit several (unenlightened) people were adding to the oldest Vedic texts whatever disgusting morbidities they felt like adding).Lama: what made you loose your buddhist equanimity and snap at me?

[premjan]

Did Buddhism err there? Perhaps impersonal Brahman is the truth.
The'yre both just unjustified metaphors.

[perfectbite]

Did Buddhism err there? Perhaps impersonal Brahman is the truth.

In that case Brahma would be shown with only one face and not with four.

[aupmanyav]

Just as 'Om' should not be translated into 'O Lord', it means 'impersonal Brahman'; 'Dharma' should not be translated into religion, it means 'duty'; 'Yajna' also should not be translated as 'sacrifice', Yajna means effort. Whose sacrifice? Sacrifice is always of the self. Human or horse sacrifices were ceremonial even before historical period, what was sacrificed was generally a goat, a cock, or a buffalo. If they are still practiced by forest tribes or tantrics, hindus do tell them that it should be avoided, but are too accommodating to try to stop them. Human sacrifice, however, is a matter of law.

[aupmanyav]

Perfectbite: Why should there be a face at all, that is what the 'shiva' lingam denotes, just a symbol (linga literally means that). What is important is to understand the truth; no face, one face, four faces, or more are immaterial; just as no God, one God, three Gods, or more are immaterial.

[perfectbite]

I didn't grow up with the Hindu pantheon of Gods although I do have a 'portrait' of the pantheon, with everyone except Durga, hanging in my bedroom. (I bought it in Calcutta in a different century than this one and the man who sold it to me chose it for me. I think he was devotee of Sri Rama, Rama and Sita are seated and central everyone else is standing except for Hanuman who is kneeling.) (I still can't figure out who the white haired, white bearded guy with the white stole with repeated orange writing on it is). Ganesh and Hanuman are dead give aways. I know who everyone else is and perhaps that is the idea, that we identify with these folks. We are able to name them and recognize them.

These portayals are no less symbolic than a lingam or yoni and in coming to understand the truth one's understanding could be aided pictorially.

If it were Europe I could guess at the general state of universal literacy at a given time (even at the beginning of the 20th century CE not too many folk in the West were literate) but as far as India goes I haven't a clue.

I see your 'over' question and can only tell you that symbolism alone has severe limitations because of the likelihood of misconstrual. Even the Buddha's 'Flower sermon' where he held up a single flower and said nothing has reams of written discourses as back up. Symbolism is for the iniate and that 'iniate' bit presents problems.

If you look at language, pictorial representations commonly preceded the written word and perhaps Brahma has four faces because that in itself was symbolic of Brahma.

A many armed Shiva and Parvati dancing would be very difficult to render as a purely abstract symbol and we must make our own ways to the truth. We do not have the truth fully formed as we spring from our mother's wombs.

One of the BIG differences between you writing the word 'God' and me reading the word 'God' is that the Hindu deities are companionable to humans but the single Abrahamic God isn't. Brahma is the most inoffensive, uninvolved, off puttering around in Brahma's garden till the cows come home type of God one could wish for yet you, as is your right, it is your heritage, take the idea of Brahma for granted.

What would be perfectly clear symbolism for you (the lingam) would require in depth explanation for a non-Hindu otherwise they would be convinced that the Hindu idol was a phallus. (Very pagan.)

I am not so sure that what seems immaterial to you can be applied across the board as being immaterial to others.

[aupmanyav]

Sure, Perfectbite, what may seem immaterial to us may take quite some understanding from others. It takes time to understand India and hinduism.

Let me first answer your two easy questions. Literacy in India in 2001 as per Government of India is 65%. It is possible that they have counted all people who can even barely read and write.

Thw white-haired gent in the portrait with you is most probably the family priest and adviser, Sage Vashishtha, and the writing on his stole would probably the name of Lord Rama. This is (sort of) offcial Royal portrait (commonly called Rama Darbar).

Just as hindus are not bothered about a few erotic sculptures on the outer walls of a temple, Shiva's lingam (linga, literally a symbol) does not produce a erotic image in our mind. Lingam (it is the simplest sculpture possible, think of children upturning a bucket of sand on a sea beach) represents the formless, attributeless 'Brahman' (NirAkAr, without the constraints of a shape). The yoni represents the creative aspect. The same can be represented as SAkAr (with form) for those who are not advanced in their understanding. Shiva is depicted as the Nataraja, one who makes the world dance to his tune. Shiva is also depicted as Ardhanarishwara (half male, half femate), where the male aspect represents the 'Brahman' and the female aspect represents its inherent energy, 'Maya'. Tulasidas, the writer of one of the most popular Rama stories, Rama Charit Manas, is reported to have said that when he worshipped with heart, he worshipped Rama; and when he worshipped with mind, he worshipped 'Brahman'. So, hindus see no problem with any of the forms. It is rich symbolism. The deer in the hands of Nataraja represents the living beings who are powerless against the forces of nature. And there is a lot more for the pundits. It is like a Michaelangelo painting or a Leonardo da Vinchi sculpture.

There is no problem about this symbolism. The folklore, the devotional songs, the elders discuss this all the time and the educated as well as the uneducated come to understand it. We are happiest when discussing religion or politics. You could have a profound debate even with a villager in India. The four faces of Brahma may represent the four directions or the four Vedas, but Brahma lost the race completely against Shiva and Vishnu. Perhaps the multitude of Gods and representations makes it easier for us to grasp the formless and the attributeless more easily than the solitary and overpowering Gods of Abrahamic religions. As you said the hindu deities are companionable. It is not just the idea of Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma, but what the undescribable and beyond them, which, as Vedas say, is known only by Neti, Neti (Not this, Not this).

[CaliNORML]

This is the part of certain teachings I find the most interesting, and the medical proof is starting to surface about our actions affecting our physical state. People who commit certain acts do cause a physical change within their body.

A lie detector can measure the constriction of blood vessels, causing higher blood pressure, more rapid and shallow breaths, and sweating. This stress does wear down one's body, it causes inflammation of tissue and less oxygen in our system. The pure mental stress of such acts also extracts its toll on a person, the stress not to be found out in a lie, wears a person down mentaly.

Anger, hate, and practicing deception take a negative toll on the physical forms we inhabit.

In understanding that good acts are benificial for our own personal welfare, as well as those around us one can see the reason for doing so. When action and thought motivating it are in line with each other, our body responds in a positive manner.

A random act of kindness does make you healthier, it opens the lungs and chest allowing more oxygen in our blood, blood vessels expand, delivering the needed oxygen and nutrition to our entire system.

This kindness also provides a mental boost, a person feels better about themselves. Depression is held off as one feels that they have a place in the world and do make a difference for the better. These acts are also "contagious," once witnessed, another individual will be more likely to go and commit one themselves during that day.

Good and bad actions do have a physical effect on our beings, caused by the mental motivation behind the actions. To understand that good and kind actions help ones own body be healthier, one can say it is a requirement of our physical beings to preform them.

Kindness is done not because something ordered you to do so, or a person desires a specific outcome for doing so, i.e. thanks, reward, eternal life, ect. When preformed for our own benifit here and now with no other expectations then actions match the motives and better health is established.

When actions are not done with the right mindset, they do cause stress, pain, and a wearing down of our bodies physicaly and mentaly. How we view life and the actions we preform does effect humans physicaly, for the good, or the bad.

I am not saying that illness' such as Aids, cancer, or others are brought on by one's actions alone, or are a punishment for such acts, however medicine has also shown that mental states do have tremendous effects on the recovery from disease, as such how we think and act can help a body recover or keep a person in an unhealthy state during a lifetime.

KMS

[perfectbite]

Sure, Perfectbite, what may seem immaterial to us may take quite some understanding from others. It takes time to understand India and hinduism.

I agree, Hindu India is in a class by itself spiritually, (super advanced) you'll get no argument from me on that score. However, I am from a different culture and essentially, to me, Buddhism is a stripped down version of Hindu (it could be considered the essence of Hindu spiritual thought without all the bells and whistles suitable for export) and also suitable to be accepted and adopted by other cultures. Basic Buddhist thought seems to also mirror basic Hindu thought and may be the basis of Hindu thought without the historical references.

Let me first answer your two easy questions. Literacy in India in 2001 as per Government of India is 65%. It is possible that they have counted all people who can even barely read and write.

Actually I was referring to the age in which this kind of symbolic portrayal first appeared. For the West, universal literacy has been a goal for some time now. In the middle European ages only the very well educated could read and write and that one could read and write meant being well educated so about a single digit percentage of the population could read and write and that went along with their positions of power and privilege. For the great unwashed pictures and statues would have to do. The cave paintings at Lasceux would be pre written word. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Thw white-haired gent in the portrait with you is most probably the family priest and adviser, Sage Vashishtha, and the writing on his stole would probably the name of Lord Rama. This is (sort of) offcial Royal portrait (commonly called Rama Darbar).

Nop deer evident. What is evident is a small tray with a vase looking bottle.

Just as hindus are not bothered about a few erotic sculptures on the outer walls of a temple, Shiva's lingam (linga, literally a symbol) does not produce a erotic image in our mind. Lingam (it is the simplest sculpture possible, think of children upturning a bucket of sand on a sea beach) represents the formless, attributeless 'Brahman' (NirAkAr, without the constraints of a shape). The yoni represents the creative aspect. The same can be represented as SAkAr (with form) for those who are not advanced in their understanding. Shiva is depicted as the Nataraja, one who makes the world dance to his tune. Shiva is also depicted as Ardhanarishwara (half male, half femate), where the male aspect represents the 'Brahman' and the female aspect represents its inherent energy, 'Maya'. Tulasidas, the writer of one of the most popular Rama stories, Rama Charit Manas, is reported to have said that when he worshipped with heart, he worshipped Rama; and when he worshipped with mind, he worshipped 'Brahman'. So, hindus see no problem with any of the forms. It is rich symbolism. The deer in the hands of Nataraja represents the living beings who are powerless against the forces of nature. And there is a lot more for the pundits. It is like a Michaelangelo painting or a Leonardo da Vinchi sculpture.

Your comment on the symbolism of the deer interested me greatly. Samsara is basically (it is very difficult to say what samsara is because samsara really isn't) the power that represents the forces of nature. Is it possible that the Deer park at Benares (Varanasi) that the Buddha spent a lot of time at referred not to an actual deer park but to those who of unawakened Buddha mind? Is it also possible that references to deer, when the Buddha was an ascetic sadhu, also referred to those of unawakened Buddha mind, those at the mercy of the forces of nature.

How deeply is the symbolism of the deer embedded in Hindu symbolism?

There is no problem about this symbolism. The folklore, the devotional songs, the elders discuss this all the time and the educated as well as the uneducated come to understand it. We are happiest when discussing religion or politics. You could have a profound debate even with a villager in India. The four faces of Brahma may represent the four directions or the four Vedas, but Brahma lost the race completely against Shiva and Vishnu. Perhaps the multitude of Gods and representations makes it easier for us to grasp the formless and the attributeless more easily than the solitary and overpowering Gods of Abrahamic religions. As you said the hindu deities are companionable. It is not just the idea of Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma, but what the undescribable and beyond them, which, as Vedas say, is known only by Neti, Neti (Not this, Not this).

Perhaps what one would eventually arrive at is a 'blank and empty' conception of the Divine in which there is no Divine. The symbology has been exhausted and 'What Is' is all that is left. That's plausible.

[aupmanyav]

Good and bad actions do have a physical effect on our beings, caused by the mental motivation behind the actions.I have just selected one portion of your post for emphasis, but the whole of it is beautiful and I wholly agree to it. Thanks, CaliNRML, for mentioning this.

[Azygos]

'Dharma' should not be translated into religion, it means 'duty'

->> THe word dharma can have different connotations for different people. It can mean religion; that which upholds; that which is duty; that which is nature, etc

[QUOTE]Yajna' also should not be translated as 'sacrifice', Yajna means effort. Whose sacrifice? Sacrifice is always of the self.

->> Very well put

[aupmanyav]

Vashishtha: The vase probably contains 'roli', the colour used to put a mark on Rama's forehead (tilak) as a sign of annointment as a king. Putting the mark is also a welcome and a blessing. It certainly is not liquor.

The hindu philosophy contains two major streams, the Aryan and the original mix. Pointers to the original mix are Ramayana and Srimad Bhagwat. Can hardly guess from where the stories came, how long they were recited orally, when they were first codified, how many times they were rewritten. All you get in archeology are a few shards of pottery. Overpopulation has destroyed the rest. There is not even much possibility of the scanty harappan script tablets to be deciphered soon. Indians are meaning minded and not history minded. For history we have Ramayana and Srimad Bhagwat and for travelougues we have the super-poetic Meghadootam (Cloud Messenger) by Kalidas.

As for the other stream, they had settled and mixed with the rest of Indians by 2,500 B.C. when the Taittariya Samhita of the RigVeda was being written. The time is indicated by the mentioned atronomical references. My guess is that they could have come around 3,500 B.C. I wonder as to when some of the startling verses of RigVeda were written, before or after, especially the Hiranyagarbha Sutra (commonly known as the hindu creation hymn):

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this Creation?
The Gods came afterwards, with the Creation of this Universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen ?

Whence this Creation has arisen, perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not.
The One who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows, or perhaps he does not know.

Samsara, very much, is. It is matter/energy/strings and whatever science tells us tomorrow. It does not help to negate everything. Though the Deer Park was likely what it is said to be, the deer analogy could have been used in the stories during the time when Buddha was an ascetic, though I am not aware of it. How deeply is the symbolism of the deer embedded in hindu symbolism? Not very, there are a hundred and one other symbolisms.

Poornamadah poornamidam, Poornaat poornamudachyate;
Poornasya poornamaadaya, Poornamevaavashishyate.

That is all; this (the manifest universe of matter) is all, This all has come from that all.
When this all merges in that all, all that remains is that all.

(This may not be the best translation of the verse).

[Azygos]

Actually I was referring to the age in which this kind of symbolic portrayal first appeared. For the West, universal literacy has been a goal for some time now. In the middle European ages only the very well educated could read and write and that one could read and write meant being well educated so about a single digit percentage of the population could read and write and that went along with their positions of power and privilege. For the great unwashed pictures and statues would have to do. The cave paintings at Lasceux would be pre written word. A picture is worth a thousand words.



->> This concept of symbolic portrayal of the truth has been there even when the rig-veda was being written. As we progress towards the age of the upanishads; this symbolism slowly gives way to philosophical truths without any cover of symbolism. Then with the rise of buddhism; symbolism reaches its nadir. Again; with the slow decline of Buddhism around 1-2nd century A.D; when the puranic mythologies were being woven; symbolism once again comes into play.
->> I dont believe India ever has had cent per cent literacy. Anyway; by the puranic times; quality education was restricted to the higher castes.
Moreover; literacy has nothing do with symbolic mysticism. For instance; if one examines the symbol of Kali; she has always had different connotations for different people. The tantrik has a different view of Kali compared to a Vedantic; yet both worship her and probably both are true . One has to ascend spiritually; to decipher the real meaning of the symbol. At different levels of evolution; one discovers different meanings within that deity.
TO sum it up; the knower of the truth; discovers more within the symbol; than the ignorant. Vivekananda at first ridiculed Ramakrishna's worship of Kali;
(he had always been a scientific agnostic in his teenage years); yet the moment the light of truth dawned on him; he could see the truth even in the darkness of Kali. Then; he wrote that poem "Kali the mother" http://poetry-chaikhana.com/V/VivekanandaS/KaliMor.htm"

->> But near the end of his life; Vivekananda also made a very significant statement to his foremost disciple "these gods are not merely symbols........they are the forms in which the bhaktas have realized the divine"

[Yeshi]

Lama: what made you loose your buddhist equanimity and snap at me?

you read me wrong.

Last time i lost my equanimity to aversion was 1 year ago and not here.

The translation problems have been pointed to, and the text is still too "mystical" to be of real use. If a teaching is to be transmitted, it has to be done in a language that recipient(s) can understand.

[aupmanyav]

Good. I make another attempt at translation:

Brahman is all, universe also is all, the universe has come from Brahman,
When the creation merges in Brahman, only Brahman remains.

My objections: Has the universe separated Brahman (come from Brahman). Secondly how can universe merge into Brahman, when it had never separated. I like the saying 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahmam' (All creation is Brahman) the best.

[kalchiran]

Lingam is the word which means identification mark...
Nothing sexual about it...

Robert De Niro's lingam is mole beneath his left eye..
Vishnu's lingam is sudarshan chakra and lotus...
Winston Churchill's lingam is his cigar....

the identification mark to distinguish between man and woman is sexual organs... Hence later the word lingam became synonynous with Phallus....'
The true sanskrit name for phallus OR penis is 'SHISHNA' not Lingam...
Just for the matter of information....

[kalchiran]

I wonder as to when some of the startling verses of RigVeda were written, before or after, especially the Hiranyagarbha Sutra (commonly known as the hindu creation hymn):

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this Creation?
The Gods came afterwards, with the Creation of this Universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen ?

Whence this Creation has arisen, perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not.
The One who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows, or perhaps he does not know.

It is not Hiranyagarbha Sutra...
It is Naasadiya Sukta.... Very beautiful.... Asks very much precise questions about creation which are relevent even today....The questions asked in this sukta are relevent astronomicaly and spiritually, both....

[aupmanyav]

Thanks for the correction and grateful.