a thought

[justwannabe]

today I was sitting by a little pond watching the baby ducks and the bigger ducks as well. A thought came to mind, not sure why but I guess it does not really matter. anyways, you know how sometimes we may say or do something that makes someone cry. afterwards we feel really bad about it. We are kind of left in a state of shock sometimes that we had the power/ability to affect someone that much. But then our ability to make someone laugh or smile we take for granted, Not exactly sure how to explain the thoughts
Neil

[Hubert]

We are raised being conditioned to be "good".
But often this goodness is just following unconsciously accepted social or moral laws.
Real morality and goodness is only possible when one knows what is really good for one and one's fellow man, from a higher point of view.
Only enlightened people know the truth, because they see it ... and even them know it only to the extent of their sight.
That's why Jesus said: Don't call me good, nobody is good except God.

The more we grow to learn ourselves, and I am not speaking here of some metaphysical concept or thought of Self, or higher consciousness, but about everything what makes us human being, from our hair, down to our last toenail, from our smallest, seemingly unimportant thoughts and feelings, desires to the greatest ones, the more we will realize that we are imperfect, lacking, and sometimes downright evil in our selfishness.

We function in a way that in order to be able to accept ourselves, we supress our dark side. We do not have the strenght to bear them to be present in our consciusness, to accept them as part of our being. When a troubling thought comes, we supress it. Thoughts of violence, hate, harm, lust, power come and are present, but we shy from them, as we feel we are not strong enough to face them. These thoughts are not us, just as the good thoughts are not us, either. But we must develop the strenght to face them ... otherwise they compell us to do selfish things from the cover of our subconscious, in form of impulses of desire and aversion. In a way, enlightment is opening our eyes to the hidden framework of existence, and evil is a significant and purposeful part of it. Evil acts upons us, manipulates us until we realize it's origin and purpose. Only after that we are able to make a free choice. Only than we will be able to forgive ourselves and others.

[Pandara]

Namaste Neil,

This polarity is the true nature of this planet and as Hubert puts it, we have to learn to cope with both. Even Boddhisatvas who choose to reincarnate back to help humanity are aware of this polarity and the fact that they cannot escape it completely as it is one of the natural Laws which governs this planet.

[yogeshvaraom]

Sometimes I feel bad about making people laugh too! The next day after I've been particularly entertaining I sometimes feel very exposed and vulnerable, like I've done something wrong. I think a lot of it is conditioning.
The expression, "it's all good", though overused, applies here. We are all going to experience all these ups and downs but hopefully we identify more and more with the observer who is watching all this and finds it each movement equally disturbing and amusing.

[Fin]

Originally Posted by justwannabe

... then our ability to make someone laugh or smile we take for granted, Not exactly sure how to explain the thoughts
Neil

hi Neil,
Here is my humble take on this ...

I believe our true nature is to be happy & make others happy, that is the default. When we are distressed or inflict pain on others that is the ego taking us away from our true essence. However we all have a dark side to us & as Hubert says very few want to acknowledge it.

In Hinduism the many aspects & desires that makes up us are guarded by the various deities e.g. Saraswatidevi, Laxmidevi, Bhdhrakali matha, Taradevi etc All these deities have a form representation & at a higher Kosha can be experienced Formless, i.e. without face no human facsimile.

[aside how important is it for Christians to experience Christ as an idol or a face? Is Christ experience by devout Christians Formless?]

I think Hinduism is one of the religion where the evil side of us is acknowledge & represented by goddess Kali, via worship of Kali the devotees get to know their own darker side …

My question is – is the darker & evil side of human nature acknowledged in Christianity. I think it is but not in the same way Goddess Kali is worshipped. I would appreciate comments from Hubert & Panadar.

Love,
Fin

[Pandara]

Originally Posted by Fin

My question is – is the darker & evil side of human nature acknowledged in Christianity. I think it is but not in the same way Goddess Kali is worshipped.

Namaste Fin,

I think evil it is very well presented and acknowlegded in the guises as the Devil or Satan etc. In fact I think in Christianity there is such a strong focus on the dark side of our being that their obsession through the ages has caused horrible acts to be performed by individuals and even by the Church. However, I think that as with God, Christainity apply the separation theology to evil as well. Just as many Christains cannot or will not see the Kingdom of Heaven within, so they refuse to see their evil aspect within as well. Just as they have separated God and put him in an unreachable heaven, so they have put Evil in an unreachable (or sometimes due to guilt more easily accessible) hell.

I would like to share a little story with you. One of my friends once told me that his grandmother was apparently a very good woman, she never said anything negative or bad about anything or anybody, when asked to say something it was apparently always just good. So one day the reverend father decided to trap the old lady in saying something bad. He went to do a house visit and during the tea he steered the conversation of saying bad things against others. At one point the father said in desparation, but surely there must be something bad she can say about the Devil. After thinking a while she just said, at least he keeps us busy father.

[Prascina]

In hinduism kali is tamasic .. which is one of the three gunas of nature ..

[Fin]

Originally Posted by Prascina

In hinduism kali is tamasic .. which is one of the three gunas of nature ..

... are we putting some judgement on Gods?
Are some Gods more sattvic than other?

[Prascina]

Gods? So are there many gods? No... consciousness is just one..the cosmic ..right?

About judgement of god...
at the very basic levels of involution, in duality,there is good and bad, that is why the practice of the yamas and niyamas.
As the level of pratyahara deepens into totality,there is good and there is bad..so what?
Still further the path deepens into the levels of sabija samadhi and to the reach the nirbija levels, beyond totality.. the brahmam.
So the judgements can vary or evolute at different levels .

About the practice of 'gunas' and its 'akaras' as god in hinduism is interesting... romantic... devotional.. simple ,which is to be understood by experience from practice rather than by words. So some 'akaras' or 'sankalpas' are more sattvic.. until .. of course till you reach the levels of totality.

[Fin]

… lots of words here, and all very interesting,

BUT would be worth knowing what you meant by your statement
… In hinduism kali is tamasic

[Hubert]

Originally Posted by Prascina

Gods? So are there many gods? No... consciousness is just one..the cosmic ..right?

About judgement of god...
at the very basic levels of involution, in duality,there is good and bad, that is why the practice of the yamas and niyamas.
As the level of pratyahara deepens into totality,there is good and there is bad..so what?
Still further the path deepens into the levels of sabija samadhi and to the reach the nirbija levels, beyond totality.. the brahmam.
So the judgements can vary or evolute at different levels .

About the practice of 'gunas' and its 'akaras' as god in hinduism is interesting... romantic... devotional.. simple ,which is to be understood by experience from practice rather than by words. So some 'akaras' or 'sankalpas' are more sattvic.. until .. of course till you reach the levels of totality.

Very good discussion.
Yes, there are many gods, just as there are many human souls. Everything above human level is godlike (even if it is evil in it's relation to us, it is not evil in relation to it's own purpose in the world - good and bad are relative, just as you say)
When an angel or demon appears to us, we are tempted to take it for God. There are many ranks of suprasensible beings ... and none of them is God ... they are all in the process of becoming God, but on different planes, environments, circumstances.
And this is just a view ... and there are many different views, and all of them, true ! Just as the picture of a tree, taken from different views is different, sometimes to the extent of being unrecognisable, so, various mental representations of suprasensible realities are different, and still, they show the same reality.

[PatR]

Originally Posted by Fin

... are we putting some judgement on Gods?
Are some Gods more sattvic than other?

Hello Fin

Don't you think you have answered your own question in your previous post -In Hinduism the many aspects & desires that makes up us are guarded by the various deities e.g. Saraswatidevi, Laxmidevi, Bhdhrakali matha, Taradevi etc All these deities have a form representation & at a higher Kosha can be experienced Formless, i.e. without face no human facsimile.

[Fin]

hi Pat,

Thank you Pat – I think that is the point I aim to make!

To say – “in Hinduism kali is tamasic” is a bold statement …

Here is a definition of gunas:
Tamasic means slow or passive. Tamasic comes from the Sanskrit term, tamas, which is one of the three qualities traditionally ascribed to conditional nature in Asian philosophy.

Tamas is the principle of inertia, contraction, and passivity. Rajas is the principle of action, motivation, expansion. Sattva is the principle of equilibrium, harmony, and clarity.

Now if I may quote from the Vasistha’s Yoga:
“The whole universe is the begging bowl of Kali the goddess whose nature is action and motion. This Kali constantly seeks to fill the bowl with all the creatures of this world and their actions and to offer them again and again to Her Lord.” Vasistha’s Yoga

I think kalima can be perceived even at the grossest Kosha as sattvic…
Now here is me making judgements, LOL...

Namaste,
Love
Fin.

[Prascina]

The three gunas coexist and never stands singly or even in two's..only 3 together. As the practice of yoga goes steady on yamas and niyamas the sattvic levels go up.
As according to the basic hindu practices the very base of 'thrimurthis' Vishnu is sattva guna pradhan... brahama is rajo guna pradhan.. and shiva is tamo guna pradhan and the 'trimurthi's are worshipped for 'srishti' 'stithi' and 'samhara' in the order of brahma,vishnu and maheswara . But it also says that when brahma or shiva practice on meditation or like bhavas the sattva levels goes up and the same happens with vishnu as he goes into carnations the rajas or tamas goes up.Kali matha in most ocassions is worshipped as the daughter of shiva and is tamo guna pradhan,but the ratio of the guna varies according to the 'bhava' of the worship and the worshipper,like you can worship kali in the 'bhava' of 'adiparashakti' or as the destructor of Adharmas in the 'Ugra" bhava.
Then again the way the meaning of the gunas interpreted in words may slightly vary from the way it is experienced in practice....all until you reach the deepest levels of prathyara or the subtlest levels of surrender

[Fin]

So I guess what you are saying is that your original statement
“in Hinduism kali is tamasic” is a generalisation.

[Hubert]

This is interesting. I never thought it this way ... but tamas can be seen as an attribute of Ahriman (the organizing, oredering, rigidizing, solidifying "devil") rajas as an attribute of Lucifer (the idealistic, escapist, passionate, extatic, irresponsible "devil") and in between them there stands the Christ, as balance, equilibrum, awarness, consciousness, peace.

Just an analogy, mind you, as it is overly simplifying ... as the rishis did not know the being called "Ahriman", yet ... they were more inspired by a luciferic wisdom. (Do not let Lucifer's image in judeo-christian tradition fool you ... lucifer means lightbringer. He is still a terrible adversary, as we know from our lives, but He has it's purpose. Luciferic beings are two levels above our human level - The name "sons of darkness" comes not from a childish fantasy, excited by campfire stories, but from the fact that these beings had reached the consciousness we have today aeons ago, where no light radiating physical Sun was present. Hence, the name, sons of darkness. They are also called Spirits of personality, as they lend the consciousness of ego, I-ness, strong personality ... as the Book of Genesis says:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." The King James version is different here from the hungarian one as the hungarian adds the -and also afterward- part to the end of the sentence, thus saying something like: "They were the heroes of old, men of renown - up to this very day."

You see, there is greater wisdom in the Bible than a rationalist, simplistic or a dry theological mind could ever guess. The Bible is a myth, not a hystorical description, yet, as all myths, contains truths what surpass the narrow view of materialist monism.

The terms sattwa, tamas, rajas, the three gunas, are easier to accept to us, today's men and women, as it is easier to implement into a thinking where we believe in objective realities, energies, infuencing factors. But the old rishis did not meant them so. For them these were no inert forces, or predisposing factors, or energy levels, they were living, all pervading realities, first hand expereince, not a theory, or a philospohy system.
The main mistake of todays materialist monism (science), or materialist-spiritualist dualism (christian tradition) is that it assumes that human consciousness was the same ages ago, it assumes that the laws of the material world what rule our senses, can be scaled back unchanged, that they have linear temporal scalability.

You say, ok, you throw out the whole science now, and expect us to believe in myths ? No. Take the scientific rigour to the area of spiritual. Use unbiased logic and reason, do not assume things, seek and you will find.