जीवनविद्या दर्शन-परमेश्वर: Responses (Keeping intact the flow in the thread)

[mk]

Original thread: http://www.jeevanvidya.org/forum/index.php?topic=182.msg2586;topicseen#msg2586

Namonamah,
I am starting a new thread for commenting on the above thread so as to keep the flow of the original intact.

"परमेश्वर आहे का?" हा प्रश्न मानवजातीपुढे युगानुयुगे यक्षप्रश्न म्हणून उभा आहे.

Unfortunately.

It is questions like this that are the root cause of all our problems.

हा प्रश्न नुसता मानवजातीला पडला असता तर फारसा त्रासाचा नसता. हा प्रश्न बऱ्याच माणसांना वैयक्तिकरीत्या पडतो ही त्रासदायक बाब होय. त्यावर कडी म्हणजे यावर वैयक्तिक विचार करून "आतून" वैयक्तिक उत्तर मिळवण्यापेक्षा "बाहेरून" "आश्वासक" सामुदायिक उत्तर मिळवण्याकडे त्यांचा कल असतो.

I also had this question tormenting me in my younger days. After enough thought I came to the conclusion that this question is useless. It is the same as the question "Does Brkvoraktra exist?", and the answer to both questions is "Doesn't bother me". If Parameshwar exists, let her. As long as she does not come in my way.

If you can't "take it or leave it", no problem:
Start with the axiom "She exists", and you get a world which is consistent with it.
Start with the axiom "She does not exist", and you get a world which is consistent with it.

Are the two worlds the same? Don't ask. It is the same as the original question. Don't dwell upon it.
Banish the question and the torment will vanish.

And if you must bother yourself with "Parameshwar", please do not try to define the word. Any definition will have to be made up of words which would themselves need a definition made up of words which would themselves need a definition made up of words which would themselves need a definition made up of words which would themselves need a definition made up of words which would themselves need a definition made up of words which would themselves need a definition and so on..... Or at some stage you will need to stop and acknowledge so many words (e.g. नियंत्रित, व्यवस्था, चैतन्य...) as understood and accepted. Is it not much easier and logical to acknowledge "parameshwar" as an understood and accepted (understood and accepted that it is not understood but accepted!)word?

Thanks for reading so much trash. Best wishes
Milind khadilkar

[Vaibhav Nimbalkar]

Dear Milindjee,
I appreciate your decision to make a new post for this topic!

As far as my understanding goes and as i was dwelling upon your post, i'd say...

"परमेश्वर आहे का?" is the most canvassed question on this planet for sure!
But I don't think that this question itself has caused anything bad to the humankind! Rather, it has been triggering so many researches, discoveries, expeditions, et al. (Although most of them went fruitless!) The search of SELF/GOD is quite understandable!

Gaining an external-cum-collective answer may pave the way for some general superstitions! So it might not be benign in the longer run!

It is NOT at all correct to think that GOD (Chaitanyashakti-CS or Life Force) can be left to option/ignored!!! NO way! It is the thing you live in, you breathe in, you sleep in, you do everything in it! Hence, no escape at all! But GOD(CS) does not interfere in any of our matters in any way!
Only 'Laws of nature' of CS are the ones that truly matter to us because they are the real governing laws of our life!

Further, consider an example-
If i keep on saying "i don't believe in 'Amitabh Bachchan'" then it would be simply insane of me! Because, Amitabh Bachchan is not a mere concept/ideology/thought/etc. to believe in, but it IS REAL! (irrespective of my belief!)
Similarly, GOD is NOW & HERE! We believe in it or not! That does not matter at all!
(Even if i don't believe in air/hunger/thoughts/etc. i.e. things which i can't see, they all exist irrespective of my belief! and i can also 'experience' them!)

Also, CS being formless (avyakta-adrushya) is very difficult to explain in 'vyakta' words! But, to begin with, each of us need some logical definition of GOD!
Saints had said- Words play dual role! They may demystify GOD or they can even go on talking the talk!!!
But still, we can not just lead ourselves in this territory without the help of words...
Moreover, Satguru Shri Wamanrao Pai has given the least ambiguous, most scientific definition of GOD! We all can surely follow the same before we actually experience GOD (by his grace!) So no need to torment ourselves or banish the sole question! Just put the definition of GOD proclaimed by JV into logical analysis & practical observation (as i did) before establishing some initial faith to embark upon!
This should also take care of 'having understood to some extent' as well as 'accepting' it! Further, Shri Satguru himself guides the 'able' ones through Divya bodh & Divya Sadhana to actually experience GOD/SELF!
Till then, we can surely keep on experiencing the 'sagun saakaar' or 'vyakta' GOD, as in the definition!

I sincerely wish all Happy journey ahead under the guidance of Shri Satguru!

May all reach the glory asap!
Amen!

[mk]

Namonamah,
Vaibhavjee Namaste,
Please find my responses (**) inline.
Thanks and Best wishes,

Milind Khadilkar

Dear Milindjee,
I appreciate your decision to make a new post for this topic!
(*Thanks*)
As far as my understanding goes and as i was dwelling upon your post, i'd say...

"परमेश्वर आहे का?" is the most canvassed question on this planet for sure!
But I don't think that this question itself has caused anything bad to the humankind! Rather, it has been triggering so many researches, discoveries, expeditions, et al. (Although most of them went fruitless!) The search of SELF/GOD is quite understandable!

Gaining an external-cum-collective answer may pave the way for some general superstitions! So it might not be benign in the longer run!
(* I am seeing some danger of it in JV! *)
(* I assume that everywhere, by God, you mean "Parameshwar" *)
It is NOT at all correct to think that GOD (Chaitanyashakti-CS or Life Force) can be left to option/ignored!!! NO way! It is the thing you live in, you breathe in, you sleep in, you do everything in it! Hence, no escape at all! But GOD(CS) does not interfere in any of our matters in any way!
Only 'Laws of nature' of CS are the ones that truly matter to us because they are the real governing laws of our life!
(* I feel trying to find out the laws of nature is asking the "same" question *)
Further, consider an example-
If i keep on saying "i don't believe in 'Amitabh Bachchan'" then it would be simply insane of me! Because, Amitabh Bachchan is not a mere concept/ideology/thought/etc. to believe in, but it IS REAL! (irrespective of my belief!)
Similarly, GOD is NOW & HERE! We believe in it or not! That does not matter at all!
(Even if i don't believe in air/hunger/thoughts/etc. i.e. things which i can't see, they all exist irrespective of my belief! and i can also 'experience' them!)
(* The same reasoning could easily apply to ghosts, divine blessings, curses or jaadu-tona! Just because JV does not believe in them does not mean that they don't exist!*)
(* Interesting parallel in physics: the Ether and the Michelson Morley experiment *) (* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_Morley_experiment *)

Also, CS being formless (avyakta-adrushya) is very difficult to explain in 'vyakta' words! But, to begin with, each of us need some logical definition of GOD!
Saints had said- Words play dual role! They may demystify GOD or they can even go on talking the talk!!!
But still, we can not just lead ourselves in this territory without the help of words...
Moreover, Satguru Shri Wamanrao Pai has given the least ambiguous, most scientific definition of GOD! (* I feel it defines Parameshwar in terms of equally undefined concepts *) We all can surely follow the same before we actually experience GOD (by his grace!) So no need to torment ourselves or banish the sole question! Just put the definition of GOD proclaimed by JV into logical analysis & practical observation (as i did) before establishing some initial faith to embark upon!
This should also take care of 'having understood to some extent' as well as 'accepting' it! Further, Shri Satguru himself guides the 'able' ones through Divya bodh & Divya Sadhana to actually experience GOD/SELF!
Till then, we can surely keep on experiencing the 'sagun saakaar' or 'vyakta' GOD, as in the definition!

I sincerely wish all Happy journey ahead under the guidance of Shri Satguru!

May all reach the glory asap!
(*That's the right spirit!*)

Amen!

[Vaibhav Nimbalkar]

Dear Milind-jee,
Namaste!

Really a nice & convenient way of answering!
Let me try my own one...

(* I am seeing some danger of it in JV! *) & (* I feel it defines Parameshwar in terms of equally undefined concepts *)
"निसर्गनियमांसहित, स्वयंचलित, स्वयंनियंत्रित, नैसर्गिक, पध्दतशीर व्यवस्था म्हणजे परमेश्वर."
I don't see any discrepancy here so as to pave the way for any kind of superstitions! All the words in this definition are self-explanatory & precise.

(* I assume that everywhere, by God, you mean "Parameshwar" *)
Yep! "Parameshwar" i.e. Chaitanyashakti (Life force)

(* I feel trying to find out the laws of nature is asking the "same" question *)
Trying to find out 'laws of nature' will certainly help us 'know' GOD (CS) better! It's like 'knowing laws of cricket' helps us know cricket better!
Hence, the quest is not worthless for sure!

(* The same reasoning could easily apply to ghosts, divine blessings, curses or jaadu-tona! Just because JV does not believe in them does not mean that they don't exist!*)
All the things i mentioned in the example can be 'experienced' by anyone! But, not ghosts or jaadu-tona, as cited by you! (Also, anything unscientific is not acceptable to JV! The idea of omnipresence of ether is dumped by science btw! )

(*That's the right spirit!*)
ThanQ! It's the characteristic of a JV disciple!
May God bless you!
May God bless all!!

[mk]

Namonamah,
Vaibhavjee Namaste,

Sorry for the delay in replying. I was trying to see if the words निसर्गनियमांसहित, स्वयंचलित, स्वयंनियंत्रित, नैसर्गिक, पध्दतशीर and व्यवस्था are self explanatory enough and precise enough to be accepted without lower level definitions. At least for me they are not. If they are to you and to other Naamadhaaraks, I salute your intellectual apparatus.
However, I can't understand why if the above abstract concepts are in your repertoire you should need a definition for something as concrete and as well-packaged as Parameshwar.

Besides, you are not satisfied with one definition... you also define P as (* Yep! "Parameshwar" i.e. Chaitanyashakti (Life force) *).  If the above one-word definition is good enough, why go in for a five-word one?

A few years ago, I had the previlege of attending a deep discourse on a concept called multithreading conducted by two learned computer rishis. At a point they started using a term called "process" and then the confusion started. Every point one of them made was immediately countered by the other and the next hour was almost a continuous Neti-Neti (not this, not this). The participants were both bewildered and amused. The discourse ended before reaching the point where the word "multithreading" could even be uttered! It later transpired that they were assuming many terms as self evident and precise, and rightly so, but to both of them they held different meanings.  One of them was from the aadhyaatmic samskaaraas of what is called the Unix System of compusophy and the other was from the more modern, materialistic and dynamic Microsoft Aashram. I remembered this because, both the rishis were confronting each other with the same question as I have asked above.

(I can hear you say: that is why, if you want to go ahead, you should stop splitting hairs. I will only say that though the participants did not get to hear one word on multithreading, they (except me!) got pure gold in terms of intricacies of computer operating system processes: all of them are grateful for that discourse even to this day! As for me, I enjoyed the verbal duel and the art of murderous courtesy that was unfolding in front of me, and the divine knowledge that anekaani satyaani, vipraahaa ekadhaa vadanti. (Many truths; experts use the same words to describe them)). (Samskrit experts, please correct the grammar: what is the plural of truth?)
Computer experts: I might have used technical terms wrongly above. chook bhool dyaavee ghyaavee.

Back to the topic: If the two rishis had not agreed to fight it out (or if the junior one had backed out, out of respect), the participants would have understood multithreading well, but without much understanding of the underlying complexities. It is this danger of a one-rishi system that I was referring to. You are fortunate enough to have one rishi (Pai Mahaaraaj) in front of you and it should be easy for you to awaken the second rishi within you. Look up the positive attitude Shamjee has towards ego: http://www.jeevanvidya.org/forum/index.php/topic,62.msg1064/topicseen.html#msg1064

About JV and science/scientific/unscientific: In the interest of world peace I refrain from putting down my thoughts here.

About ether: Science has rejected ether only to the extent it has rejected Parameshwar. Even at this point a lot of work is going on to prove that ether, as was postulated, does not exist.

Thanks and regards
Milind Khadilkar

[Vaibhav Nimbalkar]

Namaste,
i'm extremely sorry for delay in replying! (i'm afraid i might be able to visit the forum only once/twice a week due to further stages of my exam approaching! )

Dear MK-jee,
i went through your post & found so many 'reading between the lines'-type sentences that i'd prefer speaking in general now. (Any digression is apologized!)

i personally think that more than one definition (esp. of 'GOD') does not cause any harm rather it helps in disambiguation (provided they all come from 'ADHIKARI SATGURU' ).
(parallel e.g.- definitions of 'science')
Also, namdharak find JV's definitions concrete & understandable simply because they are/have been listening to/reading/etc. JV litt. So, the examples, elaborations, etc. make the picture clearer. (in this case, Satguru's 6 cassettes- 'Parameshwarache Roop Aani Swaroop')
  Now, although 'Neti Neti' is correct, depending solely upon this base may lead to agnosticism. On the other hand, it has a positive meaning too, that mere words are not enough!
Satguru says-
परमार्थात 'शब्द बहु उपकाराची राशी' हे तर खरेच परंतु 'नाश केला शब्दज्ञाने' हे त्याहूनही खरे.
&
परमार्थात जे शब्द वापरले जातात ते शब्द वापरुन वापरुन इतके गुळगुळीत झालेले आहेत की त्यांचा अर्थच लोकांना समजेनासा झाला आहे.
Hence the need for more elaborate as well as precise definition of GOD. (Again, English language can not incorporate all viz. Parameshwar, Ishwar, Dev)
Regarding 'splitting hairs', JVM welcomes that!
Satguru says-
अन्धश्रद्धेपेक्षा चिकित्सक बुद्धी सहस्रपटीने बरी!
Further, there can be 1000s of ways of learning JV. Any learner like you is always welcome! So, please don't refrain yourself from putting down your thoughts.
Thankfully, JV is one the rarest platforms/philosophies wherein this freedom is appreciated! 'm so obliged!!!
Thank you Satguru, Thank you JV!!

[omkar]

Hello MK & Vaibhav & all

Please let me know How do you define the chamatkar done by various saint in Maharashtra & world

like
 
Santshreshth dyaneswarani Chalvleli Bhint
Redyachaya mukhatun ved vadavane
Pret uthvane etc etc

  I wish a very happy Sankrant to all
 Thanks JV Thanks all members Thanks you

              Omkar
May God bless all with "Akhand Sadgurukrupa & effortless Namsmaran"

[mk]

Namonamah,
Omkarjee, Namaste. ((This exchange is also called namaskaar-chamatkaar in Marathi, probably from namak-chamak in Rudraadhyaay))

I have not seen those chamatkaars and I don't know the reliability of various sources that describe them. So, in general, the answer is "No Comment"

Specifically, the redaa episode could be a case of ventriloquism.

An interesting interpretation of "bhint chaalavne" is as follows:

Jnanadev was a kid and Chaangdev could not believe that the kid would know Sanskrit enough to interpret the scriptures. So he performed a simple test and asked Jnanadev: "bhint chhalav" and Jnanadev replied:
"Bhintah... Bhintou ....bhintaah....
  Bhintam Bhintou Bhintaah
.....
....
"

(or whatever is correct in Sanskrit)

and Chaangdev was surprised that Jnanadev could do the task.

Soon the story spread around but somewhere the original fact got distorted....  Obviously I am joking. Or maybe I am not.

The pret uthavne could have been a case of wrong death certificate! Such cases happen even now-a-days!

-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In general, a chamatkaar is anything that I do not know the reason for. There can be no explanation of chamatkaars. If eventually I find out the reason, it ceases to be  a chamatkaar. There will always be many things I will always be ignorant of. So personally, I believe in chamatkaars.

There is nothing scientific or unscientific about chamatkaars. What matters is whether our attitude towards them is scientific or not!
Just imagine, what all things in our day to day life would be chamatkaars for Jnanadev Mahaaraaj if he alights on this earth today. (By JV philosophy he is here in rebirth. Wonder what he must be doing for a living. For all you know, he might have taken anugrah from Pai Mahaaraaj himself.)

Best wishes
Milind Khadilkar

[dr.nutanpol]

Namaskar Omkar jee,

Shri Satguru has explained his views about miracles in his book called "Andhar Andhshraddhecha" pages-66-67

Those who do miracles belong to various types like those use hand-tricks, use certain drugs, make use of invisible creatures, power to do  miracles is developed as a result of injury to brain or due to their destiny created by them etc.

He says that Saint do not do miracles but miracles happen their lives because their mind is in divine state and is merged with cosmic consciousness. Hence whatever desire gets created in their minds is fulfilled instantaneously. They do not do miracles purposely as for having such thought one has use the self-ego and saints do not have any separate ego. Shri Satguru has explained all this in his book as follows,

   आणखीन एक महत्त्वाचा मुद्दा येथे सांगावासा वाटतो संत-सदगुरू यांच्याशी चमत्कारांचा संबंध प्राय: जोडला जातो, तो ईथपर्यंत की, "चमत्कार करतात ते संत" या कल्पनेवर आज समाज स्थिर झालेला आहे. वास्तविक वस्तुस्थिती मात्र याच्या अगदी उलट आहे. चमत्कारांचा संतांशी काहीही संबंध नसतो. संत चमत्कार करीत नाहीत व जे चमत्कार करतात ते संत असतात असे नाही. अहंकाराचा आश्रय घेतल्याशिवाय प्राय: चमत्कार करता येत नाहीत व अहंकाराचा नाश झाल्याशिवाय संतपद प्राप्त होत नाही.

अहंकार गेला। तुका म्हणे देव झाला॥

अहंकाराचा अंधार जेथे आहे, तेथे देवाचा प्रकाश संभवत नाही, म्हणून चमत्कार करणार्यांच्या पाठीमागे ते संत-सदगुरू म्हणून मागे लागणे हे अडाणीपणाचे लक्षण होय. चमत्कार व चमत्कार करणारे लोक वेगवेगळ्या प्रकारचे असतात. स्थूल मानाने ते खालील प्रमाणे होत.

१)   हात चलाखी करून चमत्कार दाखविणारे
२)   नजरबंदी करून चमत्कार करणारे
३)   अदृश्य योनींना वश करून घेऊन त्यांच्या मार्फत चमत्कार घडवून आणणारे
४)   अकस्मात अपघात होऊन किंवा मेंदूला मार लागून किंवा पूर्व प्रारब्धानुसार चमत्कार करण्याची देणगी प्राप्त झालेले
५)   विशिष्ट वनस्पतीच्या सहाय्याने चमत्कार करणारे

ज्या ज्या ठिकाणी चमत्कार हे चमत्कार म्हणून केलेले असतात त्या सर्व ठिकाणी ते चमत्कार वरील ५ प्रकारच्या सदरात मोडतात.

    संत चमत्कार करीत नाहीत याचा अर्थ त्यांच्या जीवनात चमत्कार घडत नाहीत असे नाही. संतांच्या जीवनात जे चमत्कार घडतात ते चमत्कार त्यांनी जाणूनबुजून केलेले नसतात तर काही विशिष्ट परिस्थितीत ते त्यांच्याकडून घडले गेलेले असतात. संतांचे मन हे दिव्य ईश्वरी शक्तीशी एकरूप झालेले असते. त्या अवस्थेत त्यांच्याकडून जो संकल्प निर्माण होतो तो सहज सिध्द होतो. म्हणूनच तुकाराम महाराज सांगतात,

मनाचे संकल्प पाववील सिध्दी।
जरी राहील बुध्दी त्याचे ठायी॥   

आणि म्हणूनच हे संकल्प सिध्दीचे चमत्कार संतांच्या जीवनात सहज घडतात त्यांना ते करावे लागत नाहीत. "अंधार अंधश्रध्देचा" पृष्ठ क्र.६६-६७

May everybody be blessed with relentless VP!