D.H. Cross

Hinduwoman, can you tell us a little more about the distinction between "atman" and "brahman" (and how they are One). Does your hindu school of thought teach this? I am curious.

Jobar

Demon-sword, let me expand a bit on hw's answer to you concerning evil- if all souls, all consciousnesses, are aspects of a singular God, then no one but God suffers. Consensual reality is called, among many other terms, 'the dance of birth and death', lila which is translated as 'divine play', and karma.

As I understand the terms, atman is the individual soul- think of a single facet of a gem with infinitely many facets; Brahman is the whole gem. Look closely enough, and the whole is reflected within the single facet; look at the whole, and still the individual facet can be seen.

It has been many years since I have properly studied Hindu philosophy- I may have some of this slightly wrong. At present I am re-reading "The Self-Aware Universe" by Amit Goswami, Ph.D. in physics (subtitled "How Consciousness Creates the Material World.") I will be able to recall precise terminology after this review.

hinduwoman

Jobar, you got the basics right.
Atman means the individual soul, while the Universal Soul (Paramatman) or Brahman is the Supreme Reality. Since everything is a manifestation of Brahman, all atmans are contained within it. However there is also a subset called Dwaityabad (dualism) which insists that Brahman and creation is distinct from each other, though to be truly complete both need each other. This is usually confined to the Vaishnava sect, those who worship Vishnu as the supreme God. But it is non-dualism that became more popular.

Since Brahman is everything we cannot say that evil is a problem in the sense that Brahman does not suffer. It is both the lion and the lamb. Darwin said once that --- I don't exactly remember it --- that a wasp laying its eggs in a caterpillar is proof of mindless evolution, not a kind God. But Brahman is the wasp, the egg and the caterpillar. So evil in the broader context becomes meaningless, though it is meaningful to the entities involved. But when a discriminating soul understands that "I am Brahman", he becomes above all pain and happiness. It is only when the individual atman fails to understand it, that it is reborn again and again. Exactly as in the Diamond Cutter Sutra, the atman must give up his sense of ego and become one with Paramatman.
Samkhya Darsan does not believe in Brahman, but it does believe in eternal souls, distinct from matter. Their position is essentially the same; true wisdom is understanding that soul and matter have nothing to do with each other. Once you know that, there is no rebirth.

Except the purely materialist school, all Indian philosphies were harmonised by Gita like this --- "those who think of this soul as the slayer and the slain, does not know that the soul slays not nor is slain" --- because all souls are aspects of the Universal Soul.


Lila and karma are not the same.
Karma is literally action. In theological term it is, "as you sow, so shall you reap", pertaining to this life, life after death, and next life on earth. Karma applies only to mortal creatures. It is embedded in the very structure of the universe, but Brahman is not touched by it.

Lila on the other hand is Divine sport, applicable only to Brahman. It is Brahman's lila to manifest itself through the created universe. That is why there is in Hinduism no sense of History as a divine plan, or Providence as Christian theologians use the term. It is all just lila --- including why we are here.

Good point about this --- no one goes about denying evolution or saying there are some things we are not meant to know.

Ruy Lopez

from Hinduwoman:

But Brahman is the wasp, the egg and the caterpillar. So evil in the broader context becomes meaningless, though it is meaningful to the entities involved. But
------------

Now I see the point of evil being meaningless from the viewpoint of "God" or Brahman. The New Age writer, I was talking about, was formulating his ideas from parts of Hindu philosophy. He explained it as "evil" or good are merely consequences of actions and events which are neutral in fact, from Brahman's viewpoint, but deleterious or beneficial to the affected atman.

With this explanation, it does not make sense for an enlightened soul to get angry at an "evildoer". Right?

hinduwoman

See demon-sword, you are already a self-realizing Hindu!

Yes, someone truly enlightened would not get angry at anyone.
However he is urged to continue to do his duuty, but without desiring the fruits of it.
Nishkam karma --- work for the sake of work and not for any desire to get results.

Jobar

I have seen this explicitly mentioned by Zen masters- one can be completely enlightened, and yet appear a total monster to all around them. Enlightenment is not a source of moral guidance- I was struck while reading the book "Hannibal" that Hannibal Lecter could have been a Zen master.

In the Gita, Arjuna was told to slay ferociously.

hinduwoman

Yes, but the moral point is not as simple.

In the epic, Duryodhan the villian had usurped the Pandava's kingdom. But considering the havoc battle would cause he was asked to give five villages to the brothers. He said he would go to war over this and not rest until the Pandava family was utterly destoryed. The Pandavas were forced to declare war on two grounds --- self-protection, and if an usurper is allowed to go unpunished then there can be no stability anywhere since other people would follow his example.
Arjun was a warrior whose duty once he had agreed
to fight was to fight. If he did not then he would be failing in his duty.
Also Krishna takes this chance to preach that abstaining from work is not devotion; a human must work.

Hannibal on the other hand has no dharmic basis for his action --- he cannot claim he is doing it for selfdefense or to protect society.

hinduwoman

Perhaps an example would make it clearer ---

Should the American airmen who dropped the atom bomb refused to do their duty? It was a far worse situation because civilians would have died.
How would they have been regarded if they refused?

Ruy Lopez

Self-realizing Hindu! I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.

Have another point about God's being an antithesis but will come back later.