Who dies?

[Aupmanyav]

"Mrutyoh sa mrutyum gacchati ya eha nana iva pashyati" (Katha Upanishad)
(From death to death goes one who here sees many)

"yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati, tad ittara ittaram pashyati;
yatra tu asya sarvam atma iva avabhoot, tat kena kam pashyet."
(Till duality exists, till then, one sees the other;
when all become self, then who sees whom.)

"Mayakhyayah kamadhenoh vatsau, jeeva Ishwara ubhau'
yatheccham pibatam dvaitam, tattvam tu advaita iva hi."
(The all-providing cow named 'maya' is said to have two calves, Self and God, both;
they both may drink as much milk as they want, but the reality is non-duality only.)

The divine cow Kamadhenu is supposed to provide any and all things on demand.
If you demand Self, it produces a self; if you demand God, it produces a God.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Who dies?
The body - kshetra dies, kshetradnya is AtmA hence always IS, WAS

when all become self, then who sees whom.

The Self sees ItSelf [be it in another form or role] . This is the Leela of the Self. ParamAtmA is seeing Himself.

 

[Viswa]

The divine cow Kamadhenu is supposed to provide any and all things on demand.
If you demand Self, it produces a self; if you demand God, it produces a God.

Good to see you again sir.
What happens when one doesn't demand?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What happens when one doesn't demand?

Then it does not produce anything (neither self, nor God).

 

[Viswa]

Then it does not produce anything (neither self, nor God).

Okay..well said sir.

Sir, what is that *It*?? The divine Cow or Maya??
It does not produce anything and present always, or It disappears and no It at all??

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is present all the time. Whenever a wish arises, it fulfills it. So, to not to get something from it, one has to control one's wishes, IMHO.

 

[Viswa]

It is present all the time. Whenever a wish arises, it fulfills it. So, to not to get something from it, one has to control one's wishes, IMHO.

Oh....So, you are saying that duality present all the time? When Brahman wishes something, Maya is present all time to fulfill it, Maya is present even when Brahman don't wish? Brahman and Maya - Eternal duality?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman does not wish anything. When we consider ourselves separate from Brahman (i.e., we are under the influence of Maya, we wish). And the ever present 'Kamadhenu / Maya' instantly produces that. Maya is the effect of existence of Brahman. Since Brahman is there, Maya also is there. When there is sun, there are shadows. There is no duality.

 

[Viswa]

Maya is the effect of existence of Brahman. Since Brahman is there, Maya also is there. When there is sun, there are shadows. There is no duality.

Great to hear Brahman does not wish anything.

Now a question arise to me, Can Brahman 'be' without effects?? Can Sun be without shadows?? Shadow is dependent on Sun - no doubt. But, shadow will be there always whn Sun is, or Sun can solely present without shadows??

For a Shadow to appear, there must be a Second to Sun upon which Sun rays fall and create shadows. If there is no second to Sun, how can Shadow appear??

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are right. Sun alone cannot create a shadow. There has to be an object to cast the shadow. That is our ignorance, the object that creates the shadow.
Brahman will be without any additional effects (Brahman does have its inherent properties like being eternal, formless, unattached, etc.) if ignorance is not there.
It is like that in the whole universe, except where any kind of life exists (virus, bacteria, vegetation, animals humans, etc). Virus too will be fighting its own battles to survive. Life entails maya, IMHO.

 

[Viswa]

You are right. Sun alone cannot create a shadow. There has to be an object to cast the shadow. That is our ignorance, the object that creates the shadow.
Brahman will be without any additional effects (Brahman does have its inherent properties like being eternal, formless, unattached, etc.) if ignorance is not there.

Hmm... That's what I see too. When Ignorance disappears, then Shadow disappears. What was/is/will be, is that One SUN, Brahman. Food-Prana-Mind-Intellect-Bliss, is all that Brahman (and Atman is Brahman), so says the Upanishads. Self and Not self, is to differentiate Atman from Food-Prana-etc. (differentiate 'subject-experiencer-self' from 'object-experienced-Not-self'), but All is Brahman. Self (Atman in 4 quarters - Shivam, Ishwara-Prajna, Hiranyagarbha-Taijasa, Virat-Vaishvanara) and Not-Self (Prakriti - Body,Mind,etc.,) is all Brahman.

When Ignorance fades, Snake disappears. But what is that Snake?? Ignorance of identifying 'I' (Self/Atman) to Not-Self (Body, Mind,etc.) - though all is Brahman??

It is like that in the whole universe, except where any kind of life exists (virus, bacteria, vegetation, animals humans, etc). Virus too will be fighting its own battles to survive. Life entails maya, IMHO.

I couldn't understand what you are saying here. Wherever there is life, ignorance prevails??

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wherever life prevails, battles prevail. Vegetation is attacked by fungi, vegetation tries to suppress fungi, Deers try to avoid being eaten by leopards, humans try to prevail over their enemies. Life brings in dualities, IMHO.

 

[Viswa]

Wherever life prevails, battles prevail. Vegetation is attacked by fungi, vegetation tries to suppress fungi, Deers try to avoid being eaten by leopards, humans try to prevail over their enemies. Life brings in dualities, IMHO.

Great.

Is there something of wishing a Life?? We are born out of that wish to live?? Enlightenment is said as end of rebirth in Puranas and scriptures. If Enlightenment is end of re-birth, then 'life' is out of Ignorance (a 'wish to live')?

Life Entails Maya...Also Maya Entails Life??, both are bound together?? When one is not, other is also not??

 

[Aupmanyav]

Life Entails Maya...Also Maya Entails Life?? Both are bound together?? When one is not, other is also not??

Is there something of wishing a Life?? We are born out of that wish to live?? Enlightenment is said as end of rebirth in Puranas and scriptures. If Enlightenment is end of re-birth, then 'life' is out of Ignorance (a 'wish to live')?

I think that is correct.

I think your question here is "What is the purpose of life?" None. We did not ask to be born. We were born because sex was pleasurable to our parents. Most of us will cause others to be born for the same reason. Children are attractive, most like to have some for themselves. Life is a mix of sorrows and pleasures. Let us enjoy the pleasures and let others do the same during the time that we are alive. I do not believe in birth or rebirth. It is all a game of molecules, of 'physical energy', lasts till the machine is in working order, otherwise it is junk. 'Enlightenment', 'nirvana', 'moksha', 'jnana', is understanding this quiz of life. It removes doubts in our mind and lets us be at peace. Otherwise, the enlightened and the ignorant, the victors and the vanquished, the rich and the poor, the believers and the non-believers, all have the same end. We have only one life to live.

Now this philosophy of life for me. Others are welcome to have different views. Rebirth, reincarnation, deliverance, resurrection, heaven, hell, etc. That is OK for me.

 

[Viswa]

I think that is correct.

I think your question here is "What is the purpose of life?" None. We did not ask to be born. We were born because sex was pleasurable to our parents. Most of us will cause others to be born for the same reason. Children are attractive, most like to have some for themselves. Life is a mix of sorrows and pleasures. Let us enjoy the pleasures and let others do the same during the time that we are alive. I do not believe in birth or rebirth. It is all a game of molecules, of 'physical energy', lasts till the machine is in working order, otherwise it is junk. 'Enlightenment', 'nirvana', 'moksha', 'jnana', is understanding this quiz of life. It removes doubts in our mind and lets us be at peace. Otherwise, the enlightened and the ignorant, the victors and the vanquished, the rich and the poor, the believers and the non-believers, all have the same end. We have only one life to live.

Now this philosophy of life for me. Others are welcome to have different views. Rebirth, reincarnation, deliverance, resurrection, heaven, hell, etc. That is OK for me.

Okay.... True... I feel that the question of Karma might not suit your philosophy, and identifying actions happening as 'karmic effects' are just a way to peace our mind.

Is there any pleasure (as well as sorrow) in living? Based on your philosophy - I feel that there is Only play of molecules and no such thing as pleasure and suffering, no such thing as life and death. Is there even peace??? Peace is also an identification made, out of one of the play of molecules. All are play of molecules, and identifying things as 'life,death,pleasure,pain,peace,conflict' is all ignorance (just naming the play of molecules in 'parts' for sticking to 'one part' - like pleasure/peace/etc.,). Am I wrong?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Okay.... True... I feel that the question of Karma might not suit your philosophy, and identifying actions happening as 'karmic effects' are just a way to peace our mind.

Is there any pleasure (as well as sorrow) in living? Based on your philosophy - I feel that there is Only play of molecules and no such thing as pleasure and suffering, no such thing as life and death. Is there even peace??? Peace is also an identification made, out of one of the play of molecules. All are play of molecules, and identifying things as 'life,death,pleasure,pain,peace,conflict' is all ignorance (just naming the play of molecules in 'parts' for sticking to 'one part' - like pleasure/peace/etc.,). Am I wrong?

Karma exists till we live. Doing good may have good results and engaging in evil may have bad effects, but not necessarily. It is a matter of chance. That is why good people may face difficulties and evil people may not.
Here, you are stating it correctly. Pleasures and sorrows, peace and conflict, life and death, exist but they belong to the illusory world (Vyavaharika). They do not exist in absolute truth (Paramarthika) where here are only waves in force fields.

So we are we not then talking of the battle between the good and the evil?
The good Being that of God, the Evil being that of the material desires?

I am not talking here of good and evil, but of concept of 'selfhood', which is ignorance according to 'Advaita'.
Ego, 'self', is an illusion. It lasts till a person is alive, and not beyond that.
When a person knows that, 'self' disappears and we come to know of 'what exists', Brahman.
Neither any God is involved here, nor good and evil.

 

[Viswa]

Karma exists till we live. Doing good may have good results and engaging in evil may have bad effects, but not necessarily. It is a matter of chance. That is why good people may face difficulties and evil people may not.
Here, you are stating it correctly. Pleasures and sorrows, peace and conflict, life and death, exist but they belong to the illusory world (Vyavaharika). They do not exist in absolute truth (Paramarthika) where here are only waves in force fields.

Great sir.

Though some scriptures says that "this chance" itself based on Karmic (this life and before - where previous life is the deciding factor of 'chance', the good people facing difficulties because of previous life evil actions and bad people face good deeds because of previous life good actions), I'm fine with you.

No doubt about Vyavaharika and Paramarthika, but interest in speaking Vyavaharika more, is a bit more illusionized I feel. It's upto you to live a life by giving more importance to what and what not.

When a person knows that, 'self' disappears and we come to know of 'what exists', Brahman.

True that 'self disappears. But don't know whether one comes to 'know' 'what exists'. Though 'Snake disappears', I feel that 'what is Rope' might not be known (whether existence or not), as knowledge itself is a 'Vyavaharika' - "Thorn used to remove another thorn (like a Good snake's poison used to remove another snake's poison - but both are poison at last)".

Advaita 'entitize', Buddhism 'de-entitize'. But I feel, Atman/Brahman cannot be Entitized or De-Entitized. Again, it's only my own view which I don't care whether it's true or not, as that view itself a 'Vyavaharika'. If 'self' disappears, that's enough I feel, and the ultimate view doesn't matter and any differences in that ultimate are welcome.

Thank you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but interest in speaking Vyavaharika more, is a bit more illusionized I feel. It's upto you to live a life by giving more importance to what and what not.
True that 'self disappears. But don't know whether one comes to 'know' 'what exists'.
Advaita 'entitize', Buddhism 'de-entitize'. But I feel, Atman/Brahman cannot be Entitized or De-Entitized.

When did I say anything else. As a Hindu I have to fulfill my dharma till the time I am alive. Understanding Paramkarthika and Vyavaharika does not man that I should be an ascetic.
Even if one know3s Paramarthika, Vyavaharika is still important. One lives in Vyavaharika.
You know 'what exists' through science - 'physical energy'.
That choice is entirely yous.

 

[Viswa]

When did I say anything else. As a Hindu I have to fulfill my dharma till the time I am alive. Understanding Paramkarthika and Vyavaharika does not mean that I should be an ascetic.

Doesn't require to be an Ascetic. If one gives importance to Vyavaharikta as a duty/Dharma, good/great. But, if one gives importance to Vyavaharika for pleasure/etc., then??

Here, duty too, I see a dutiless duty (not as I'm responsible, but I am not irresponsible either).

If I have parents to take care of (or a child to take care of education,etc.,), becoming ascetic is foolish. Until they are, there is nothing to run away from them and necessary to take care of them (until parents live or until parents sees the duties are done and resigns and until the child is able to live on his/her own legs).

But, if the age is above 60+ and all dharmic duties are done (If one knows what their dharmic duties are), I don't know why fear of ascetic life?? Because it might be no pleasure and so?? Is there any duty left to be completed?? To take care of Grandchildrens says the Dharma?? I don't know what dharma says as I'm not knowledgeable, maybe you may explain what are the duties left for such aged person??

 

[Aupmanyav]

Pleasures are part of life, if they do not go against 'dharma'.
'Dharma' as society understands it. Cannot manufacture my own special 'dharma'.
Though I am 80, I have to care for my wife. She was feeling a little low today. I can't leave her in her old age after being together for >55 years.
Taking care of grandchildren if required by children is a 'dharma'.
We should be practical in Vyavaharika.