thanks for a good class. we had a nice discussion introducing some of hinduism's basic categories.
1- the atman/brahman apparent duality, which is really one. ONE leads to this idea of monism and even pantheism (here is a previous phi 2070 post focusing on spinoza's monism).
2- yajna, or sacrifice, as local exchange for the sake of sovereignty. that is to say, one can see yajna as turning upside-down received notions of economic exchange. how? yajna for its own sake. of course, we'll expllore this deeper when we read from the gita
3- maya brings forth what i call hall-of-mirrors effect. some think that maya expresses our ignorance (avidya) but that is too simplistic. maya is constitutive of the side or reality that we call appearance, & appearance and reality are co-terminal, they need & support each other.
take this paradoxical morsel from the gospel of sri ramakrishna:
Disciple: Why has God created wicked people?"very clear. so, maya loves to play games.
Master: "That is His play. In His maya there exists avidyā as well as vidyā.
4- ineffability is another term discussed in class. in the upanishdas there is this idea of neti, neti
which tries to explain brahman as undifferentiated, how can you explain the inexplicable?
i propose this alternative.
5- moksha, the oneness with the ONE. what is the soteriology of hinduism? let me put it in a different way, salvation is brahman's digestion, i.e., eventually --as ONE-- you get reinserted in samsara.
karma: this is a difficult concept and i ask you to be patient with it. i prefer for now to talk about how we reincarnate constantly ourselves as different individuals that evolve from earlier experiences. more of this as we get deeper into hinduism.
____________
say what you want in at least 150 words. please, wear hinduism's clothes. even if briefly, make an informed comment based on the concepts we've discussed. of course, you could remain skeptical and say it, as long as you show you are primed to hinduism's angle. you can post more than one comment, and sometimes that makes for great discussions. i'm the moderator and may interject but this is YOUR forum!
i close the comment option wednesday at 11pm. if you have not made your comment by then, you loose the opportunity to comment for that particular week. remember that comments-to-posts is a for- point assignment and part of your final grade.
21 comments:
If you live your life acknowledging the way of Maya you can never be fooled. Your belief lies in the idea that life itself is an illusion and you must proceed with heavy caution, never truly convinced by the first impression, nor whole heartedly believing on a whim. But you could also allow yourself, knowingly, to be taken into a world of smoke and mirrors where outcomes are unpredictable and Maya rules and you are a pawn...
interesting point you make, sonicah, could you elaborate with an example?
I Think that the way of living for the people of the Hindu culture are very smart in a unique way. Allowing the gate way for all of the other things that we all have either been introduced or have come across in our lives to be allowed into their lives and always allowing room for changes. The way that they go about doing things in life is very constructive because it has been proven t6ime and time again that the way of living that they follow is something that is truly working for them and allowing them to live more longer and productive lives in terms of extensive lives. Also it gives you more of a opposite outlook on life and more options on ways that can overall extend your life and strengthen you and the religious beliefs that you may have.
The beliefs of the Hindu culture are somewhat of a refreshing outlook on the meaning and workings of life. I see their acknowledgement of a oneness to be a nice change from the west views of everything being a seperate entity. The karmic belief system is also very interesting in comparison to our own western beliefs, it seems as if they acknowledge life as being a process of contant grow and enlightenment until reaching your personal salvation. I am very interested to read and hear more about this culture in order to get a better understanding and maybe my own sense of enlightenment on the way.
Hinduism and all other eastern philosophies are quite new to me. I’m participating to expand my knowledge on the diverse cultural belief system that grows around me (outside of the western hemisphere). To my understanding, Brahman is the ubiquitous force that sustains the world. A conceptual, ineffable being that is beyond our understanding, therefore imperceptible. Unlike most western deities Brahman cannot be contacted through prayer—he’s incommunicable. Yet, can be reached through meditation and in the realization of one’s essential self—Atman (seems a little contradicting). From what I’m grasping (not sure how accurate) our Atman is somehow in one with Brahman, the further we journey into ourself, the closer we are to Atman; the closer we are to Atman, the closer we are with Brahman.
If brahman is everything why was atman separated from it causing a duality? I feel like it was created as a separation of it, even though it’s part of it, to identify ourselves, our souls. It is in our nature to look for identity and, to me, it seems that back then Hinduism identified brahman as everything and then they asked themselves: “so what are we?”. In a sense, they named atman our identity in the infinitude that is brahman. Now, I see yajna as a needed sacrifice for survival, to better ourselves for the future. Maya is very complex, the way I see her is as the mediator of things, for example: “maya expresses our ignorance”, I asked myself “why?” and the only answer I can think of is because we are ignorant, and by us realizing our ignorance we can change. Innefability is just too grand to try to explain, I think is brahman making fun of us because we can not enter that realm of inexplicable. And may be the time that we can explain the inexplicable we may become part of the moshka and step out of the samsara, instead of being reborn. And well karma has become clear to my eyes that is just life, karma is just every second of every day, every action that I take and any accident that I encounter.
Taking a page from what Leandro said of yajna being a needed sacrifice for survival, to better ourselves - wouldn't one say that then yajna is very closely related to a release from our Karma? Yajna does not define itself through my most unfortunate but almost immediate cookie-cutter defition of sacrifice. That being "blood sacrifice to help the crops grow." It's ludicrous to see it that way though and I'm well aware of that ignorant mentality if I were to truly believe that definition 100%. Sacrifice is simply an act of giving up something of personal value for the sake of obtaining something of higher importance. Wouldn’t the act of yajna then be the same as building that “reserve” we spoke of in class to better our karmic stance?
kids, your questions are so good! don't mind me.
Let me start of saying that this is honestly so confusing to me, but i somewhat understand. Being that im agnostic, and i do believe in a higher power, just nothing in specific, so this is making me curious as to how eastern people saw their religion. Although, I am aware that Hinduism isnt only a religion, but also a tradition and social structure.
to my understanding, maya is all an illusion, but has the ability to free us from it. So in a sense, the entire religion could be a hoax, being that according to maya, everything is an illusion, but then again what religion isn't an illusion?
I think that their view on oneness is magnificent. You're releasing yourself and you're gaining self realization and knowledge. and then being reborn into samsara as one is just fascinating to learn.
The view they have on karma is by far my favorite, since i personally believe in it. I think its true that everything you do is your karma. You dont know why you're getting it, what previous event caused it, but it is your karma regardless.
The difficulty I am experiencing with these topics stems from my western/christian upbringing; perhaps a another result of maya's deceit. In the words of Slavoj Zizek "I wear the lenses of ideology that prevent me from seeing that what I eat is garbage." The ideological tenents of monotheism coupled with maxims that proclaim the part is separate from the whole fog the beauty of the Maya. It is Maya who guides me to a deeper understanding of Brahman but at the same time leads me through the hall of mirror where my Atman obscures enlightenment.
It is difficult also as a relativist to reconcile samsara and karma. Karma acts as a resovior of deeds which affect the future deeds that will be committed. If it is karma that leads a murderer to comit the act then how can he be condemned? Karma, along with Maya, guides us to certain actions that further affect our karma. If someone’s karma is so far gone then it seems that a cycle of misery and violence is inevitable. Not even can yajna help the situation. Someone like Hitler whose horrible karma led him to accumulate even more horrible karma seems to be locked in to his cosmic position. Whatever form in which he is reborn is doomed to perpetuate his current karma. It acts as self fulfilling prophecy: Hitler had bad karma, therefore he acted badly and accumulated more bad karma. Should he be reincarnated his karma is so far in the black that Moksha is unachievable, not because he cannot comit enough yajna to redeem himself, but because the chances of him doing any yajna is pitifully small.
But anton, you're making it sound like karma is a predisposition. It can't possibly be that cyclical or else no one could even fantasize of being released from the power of karma. Karma is strong, but the belief in yajna could be stronger. Hitler was an undeniably strong-willed man, and through this will and his yajna being the sacrifice of his own brutality, would it not be possible for him to gradually find "redemption"?
I find underlying path of the Hindu culture an enlightening one in regards to the formality of unity and oneness. While this practice of philosophy is simple in nature, it seems difficult to follow. What I find complexing is that does Hinduism consider the world real or unreal? Is it illusory in such forms as Maya? While the world is seems unreal because it hides the truth from us which leads to our ignorance, and because the world is constantly evolving. What is real at this moment is not in the next. As I ponder on the subject of illusion, I consider the world’s illusion to be one which misleads you into wrong thinkings and actions. So then living in mother earth which has Maya characteristics, is seems rather difficult to maintain an elightened Karma. However, if Karma consist of every moment in our lives, every mere aspect is part of our destined Karma, is there a way to change our Karma, or is that change too simply part of one’s Karma journey?
And if the world is an illusion through Maya, is our karma not also a worldly illusion?
I have a fascination with Hinduism but karma specifically, because I am alarmed by anything that threatens my perception of free will. One observation I have made is that everything in Hinduism so well constructed and has a purposeful meaning that we arrive at something opposite but equal to nihilism. As in everything is so strictly constructed that deviation from the norm seems impossible and therefore futile. Destruction has it purpose so why should I try to interrupt it? If karma created my human condition why should I try to improve? I like the fact that later on we see these modification where you can 'escape' karma. This paints the human condition as a beautiful portrait of constant war waged between karma and freewill.
Hinduism also seems to have a sense of adaptability. Like when Prof. Trif says that people that do bad are 'less evolved'. Even though the concept of karma was first conceived thousands of years ago, it still fits directly into modern science. Karma dictates the way your brain is formed. If you have an underdeveloped frontal lobe, you are for the most part condemned to a life of bad decisions and poor judgment. Also the idea of pantheism and the universe always existing is directly relatable to the Big Bang Theory. Unless Christianity that wildly suggests that the words is only five thousand years old which is completely contrary to scientific findings.
Oops! Sorry for the late reply, I forgot...
Well an example could be a romantic relationship, one could decide to date another for an extended period of time before rushing into a commitment or they could "give it a shot" and just agree to making an emotional investment in anyone. The former approach is steady, consisting of realistic opinions, well formed emotion and is more likely to last while the latter is fueled by "unorganized emotion" where their romance is based on initial impressions, its exciting and fun, dramatic and full of the unexpected. Although it may bring with it the wildness of venturing into the unknown it doesn't last long and could be painful.
After putting on my turban and reading everyone’s notes before reading mine … I’m in the same state I was in when we were all looking at the professor as if we were lost… Confused and trying to digest our professors words this Tuesday.. That being said I think it is our MAYA to be so confused and understand that for it to cease we must accept it. That is it Truth . That all we are being taught is Truth.. That it is our KARMA to be born where we were born and then have our lives lead to where they are at to understand that this is our moment to understand that we need YAJNA to sacrifice all our thoughts and preconceptions so that we accept MOKSHA. Not only must we sacrifice our thoughts but our way of being. OUR EGO. And that maybe this is the first step to reach our salvation or MOKSHA… I don’t think that MAYA the deceiver can deceive you if you are in a state of MOKSHA because reach your ATMAN which is your Truth … And there are no lies in your Truth….
I feel like I have a strong pull towards much of what Hinduism has to offer. I grew up in a Catholic background but when I was exposed to more Eastern concepts I found much of my thinking over time leaned more into eastern philosophy. To my understanding Atman is the individual soul which everything has within them and the Brahman is this sort of cosmic soul; the entirety of the universe. But then again what exactly is the “soul”? What is this essence? When it comes to Karma I have grown to feel that everything is consequential, from the very thoughts you think to the actions you make. Everything is chains of events and choices made that affect one another and the environment around us. As for those who commit atrocities- I think that everyone has the potential to be redeemed and escape the cycle of samsara but it may be gradual as Tatiana mentioned. I love the concept of samsara since I like to imagine and think of the cycles in everything; it’s present all around us, in nature, in us and our daily activities, relationships etc. In psychology, there is concept called neuroplasticity which the brain’s adaptability that allows you to rewire your thinking and how you behave. Why do you think it is possible to break and change bad habits? Again it’s not an easy feat as we have discussed however it is possible. And then there is a certain beauty to destruction because it allows for new life, new growth whether that destruction is a natural disaster, a living being that dies and decomposes or destruction of the different stages we are/become in our lives in order to pave way for evolution of the self.
But Anton, to continue on your example. Wouldn't Hitler's good karma (from his previous life) make him who he is? If we look through his perspective, didnt he live a good life? I mean he was anti-semitic guy that become the Fuhrer and lead a mass extermination of the exact people he disliked. If his life was plagued by bad karma wouldn't have been born, in lets say Israel surrounded by Jews and having no control over them? This is were Im not understanding Karma. People can be born into positions of power with potential to create good and evil. Yet when they choose evil, others suffer the consequences and not themselves. What kind of karma is in action here?
Or maybe his punishment was to enacting evil?
Or maybe Karma doesn't encompass the qualities (good vs bad) I'm assigning to it, and it just is.
Gabriela Gallardo said...
I agree with Karma being a way that we reincarnate. Where constantly evolving ourselves when we experience karma and though at the moment it may seem like your going through some bad karma you needed to experience that kind of karma in order to be able to reach and understand a part of you, your life ect. Bad things don't just happen and good things don't just happen it all has a purpose and though one may take you on a longer path your moving in the same direction. With saying that I feel like maya creates the idea in our heads of bad/negative karma. With cases though like when someone commits a crime like rape is it an illusion in our head that it is something bad or is it simply leading them to the karma they deserve and should not necessarily be looked at as bad but just that they will get the karma they deserve eventually because good and bad is an illusion in our head?
To begin with, I personally find the Atman/ Brahman to be a wonderful, and in my opinion accurate view of the universe. A distinction can and should be made between drops of water in the ocean and the ocean itself, but ultimately they are ONE and the same. Each droplet is the ocean, and in this same way each of us are the universe (and therefore God according to the monistic/pantheistic views of the Hindus).
Now Maya, among other things, seems to be the illusion of the temporary as being permanent, the trivial being of utmost importance, and of appearances being more than just appearances. In modern Western society, where appearances, temporary, and unimportant things seem to take precedence over their counterparts, it would appear that Maya has become out God. This leads to the question: To what extent should we as individuals play along with Maya to function in this society? I suppose we all have to answer that for ourselves.
The concept of Karma has been difficult for me to fully grasp, but from what I understand, it is the result of our actions and consists of our current circumstances. There is no “good” or “bad” Karma, just as Hinduism seems to have no “good” or bad” on a cosmic level, only the forces of creation and destruction. However, through Yanja made today, one could reincarnate tomorrow into a version of themselves with a reserve of favorable Karma.
Moshka seems to be the Hindu version of salvation, an escape from Samsara.
Finally, there is the term ineffability or the idea of neti, neti, which explain Brahman by accepting that we cannot comprehend or explain it with any amount of words. I agree that as individuals, the greater universe is simply too much to fully grasp.
I find Hinduism to be a beautiful religion, and I personally believe that it does a better job at explaining the universe than any of the Western religions. I honestly wonder how in the hell did the Hindus come up with these ideas so long ago?
The idea that life itself is an illusion allows for human beings to honor uncertainty. To know that we dont know is to regard the illusion as possibly present. We must live never fully convinced by the first impression, instead, detached and dispassionate. However, this doesn't mean we must be totally passive and let maya take control, the term maya exists so that we may be considerate of the constant illusions painted by others for our perception
Post a Comment