This thought floated into the cerebrum during this evening, while discussing Nature Worship with grandpa. Baba says nature worship was a boon in disguise - people worshipped Ganga Maiyya and desisted from polluting her. There was fear for the sun, moon, wind, sea and river gods and godesses but there was a respect and a regard too - which has not died down even today.
From nature worship our conversation escalated to 'Aham Bramhasmi'. Baba interprets it as 'I am Him-He is me-He is in everything-I am in everything'. In other words, I am linked to water, sun air, earth, to a bird, to a butterfly, to a snake, to a tree just as my limbs are linked to my torso.
Now some Ecology facts. This is what the Wikipedia has to say about it -
"Ecology(also known as Oekologie, Okology, or Oekology, from Greek: οίκος, oikos, "household"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge") is the scientific study of the distribution and abundance of living organisms and how the distribution and abundance are affected by interactions between the organisms and their environment. The environment of an organism includes both physical properties, which can be described as the sum of local abiotic factors such as insolation (sunlight), climate, and geology, and biotic factors, which are other organisms that share its habitat."
Seems the Upanishads are the most ancient treatise on Ecology, eh what? Seems nice I am doing my doctorate in Spiritual Science :)
I believe the greatest pity is not that there are too many people being religious or too many people busy in destroying earth through new scientific discoveries. Pity is - we are neither completely religious nor completely scientific. Had we been either, there would have been no Science vs Religion strife.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
The interpretation of "Aham Brasmhasmi" is quite correct in my opinion.I am still trying to understand meaning of words religious and spiritual so I will not comment on other things.
But I would like to quote OSHO here:
But Vedanta says, "God is the creation, there is no distinction between God and the creation. He has not created the universe like a poet creates a poem, the relationship is just like a dancer and the dance: they remain one. If the dancer stops, the dance disappears; and if the dance disappears, the person is no longer a dancer. The universe is not separate, it is one. The universe was not created in time and finished, it is created each moment; it is being created each moment because it is God's own being. Just as you move, you sing, you love, so God creates -- every moment he is creating. And the creation is never separate, it is his movement, his dance." That's why the Upanishads can say, "aham brahmasmi." The Upanishads can say, the seers who have come to know this secret can say, "I am God." And nobody thinks this is blasphemy -- this is a truth..
I wish more people could undersrand the Upnishads...its a very heartening thing that Hinduism evolved from the Purans to Upnishads :)
See, I have believed that if spirituality is the higher rung of the ladder that one has to take to reach one's higher self, then religion is its lowest rung. Meaning, spirituality is above being religious. Most of us revolve aimlessly around religiousness, instead of trying to reach up - hence even when we turn our backs to science and learn to passively believe in God - even then, most of us do not reach the highest possible level.
To follow religious rituals is always very easy than being spiritual (Bahut kathin hai dagar panghat ki........)
In my view, there is something which controls everything, it is your wish if you want to give him a name or address him infront of staue.
We have become slave of rituals, that is what I strongly dislike. We spent crore of rupees on different yatras, on pooja pandals and lot of other things, that money can be very well spent on lot of very very important other things. Our country can not afford these luxry right now, it is as simple as that.
During my engineering days in Patna, Couple of us used to go to Hanuman Temple every tuesday(Kabhi Kabhi station wala hanuman mandir bhi jise hum tab Headquarter Kahte they :-)), during that period I even went once to Sultanganj to Deoghar by feet. But I realised that is not helping me in any way. Ultimately I can not justify the idea.
I have now found some peace in Meditation(10 to 15 minutes thats all)
Yes...useless rituals 'hath thee enthrall', as keats would have put it!
The most important aspect of the statement is that, without me there is no world for me
Hundred times we may say, that existence is independent of human, that "A" is "A", who cares unless he is seeing the "A"
Even if I am not bramha, without me there is no Bramha for me...I am the creator if Bramha..for me...
The basic problem that human faces while trying to comprehend this universe is dissociative identity...
We see everything as if I am standing outside and watching some show..
For me Deepti is an actress, for Deepti, I am one.
Now,the opposite to this is the concept of "AHAM BRAMHASMI"..It is an improvement no doubt, but again it is fooling the mind.
You are not the object and the observer at the same time...
The proper statement is,
I am a dependent observer of observation dependent object, which is existing in the mind of observer, which is a conceived image of the real object, that which I can never see...
But, if the image is not corresponding to the reality, justice acts up on me, and I know by failure
Followed here from orkut. Sorry for intruding :)
Nice blog, writing skills, and nice posts.
But it is somewhat incorrect to say that to say that Hinduism evolved from the Purans to Upanishads. You seem to suggest (or adhere) to the belief that Vedas are polytheistic, which result in monotheistic Puranas, and finally end up with monism in Upanishads.
Oh and rituals can be meaningful, sometimes.
The mention of journey from Veds/Purans to Upnishads has little to do with number of Gods and more to do with the way we finally floundered into sense.
Of course lots of rituals have plenty of sense...wrote about it a few months back...thing is its mindless following of rituals without attempting to find out that sense.
The mention of journey from Veds/Purans to Upnishads has little to do with number of Gods and more to do with the way we finally floundered into sense.
Can you please elucidate on this point more? I have some literary evidence which contradict Pauranic to Upanishadic evolution.
Oh please do provide me with the same. I have no evidence of any sort, and would love to hear of it. My comment has been made after reading and hearing of the sort of weird stories strewn about in the Purans, and then reading the English translation of the Upnishads.
Abridged English Translation - I dont wish to boast of reading all the 108 of the Upnishads :)
Oh please do provide me with the same. I have no evidence of any sort, and would love to hear of it. My comment has been made after reading and hearing of the sort of weird stories strewn about in the Purans, and then reading the English translation of the Upnishads.
A few Brahmaj~naana episodes are present in Puraa.na and at least one Brahmaj~naana episode is present in K.r.s.nayajurveda. Hence I claimed that Upani.sads aren't a successor of Veda (they existed together).
Examples:
1) Naciketas-Yama sa.mvaada: Naciketas and Yama's dialogue on Brahmaj~naana is present in K.r.s.nayajurveda (check with Gitapress's introduction in Ka.thopani.sad).
2) Ha.msa's teaching to Sanakaadi sages:
Vaasudeva (k.r.s.na) disguised as a swan presents the knowledge of self (in very short, of course) to Uddhava in Uddhava Giitaa (a part of Bhaagavatapuraa.na).
3) Devii's teaching to Himaalaya (known as deviigiitaa):
Goddess Jagadambikaa appeared in front of Himaalaya before Paarvatii's incarnation in Himaalaya's home and She was asked for knowledge by Himaalaya. As "Sriidevii, She lectured briefly on various topics. The beginning lecture summarised most of the terms of Vedaantic or Upani.sadic teaching.
4) K.r.s.na to Uddhava: Explanation of Brahmaj~naana by a miser priest, after realization. You can read His assertions at Stutimandal
http://stutimandal.com/gif_bhgvt/uddhavagita_manomimamsa.htm
I haven't read the all the puraa.nas, but I think the examples are numerous. Do remember that Bhagavatapurana and Devipurana are pretty old to be considered a latter edit. Since the number of such examples is huge, I will doubt that these chapters were added later (after Upanishads, i.e.).
That was informative indeed...so perhaps the order in which Vedas and Upnishads were written isn't what I expected...
But tell me, would you deny the unmistakable leap in the philosophies propounded by both?
Sorry I almost forgot you :( I shouldn't forget people from NDA.
Veda has a j~naana khaNDa where they talk about Monism/Advaita Vedanta/Brahman/J~naana Yoga.
I think Upanishads and Vedas are inseparable. A lot of fools expound upon Upanishads without understanding them. Those who understand Upanishad, prefer to remain quiet.
Post a Comment