Every Begining Has An End

[daisy]

hmmm i cant give up by just crying



so is this your work posting on FHDB hymn? if yes could you please refer me to your employer

[The Gita expert HP]

Are you really sure it is not a part of the Gita?

Yes...there are several allusions to beginning and end in the Gita, but none that mean "Every beginning has an end". A lot of what we see in the Gita is very cryptic. And the bane of today's world is that we take a lot of our religious texts literally. That's where most of the religious extremism stems from. But that's besides the point.



The Gita alludes to mortal forms coming to and end. But thats not an independent statement by itself. It's the precursor to the fact that the soul is unperishable. Taken independently, it gives out a completely different meaning, one that led to this discussion.

[daisy]

To HP

who is this gita?



yours sincerely

Daisy

[Hymn]

My apologies.It's my fault.I never verified if the claims were true or not,I just believed it to be true when a friend of mine told me.

[D' Que]

...the bane of today's world is that we take a lot of our religious texts literally. That's where most of the religious extremism stems from....

:x



i disagree...and please stop yr baja u modi-bhakt...

[rock_26iin]

Let me reiterate the point I mentioned in the 'Life" thread. What if we DO have an end? In the sense, that "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" and the "consciousness" dies. We just stop existing, so to speak. No after-life or anything of that sort.



Technically, we end.



I don't know about everything but I just wondered about the discussion of the soul.

[whyldchyld]

The End Is The Beginning Is The End

[spamtaneous]

_ off...... everybody.....

[The Gita Expert HP]

Guys.....would you please stop spamming good discussion threads?



Hymn :



There's nothing to be sorry about what you did. There's something else the Lord has preached through the Gita. Never take things as they are told to you. Always reason things before accepting them. And there is nothing wrong in asking if you don't know or understand something. What you did was to reason out something that was given to you as a fact and when things didn't add up, you inquired. That's how knowledge is obtained.



Rock :



Your point is something I can answer with one of the few Gita verses I know verbatim.



Avyaktadini bhutani vyakta madhyani bharata
Avyaktani nidhanaya eva tatra ka paridevana



Which means, all created beings are unnoticeable in the beginning; noticeable in the interim state and become unnoticeable again when annihilated. Then what's the need to cry about it?



Taken in conjugation with the vedantas, this verse explains the life cycle of a soul beautifully.



The worldly existence of a soul is a part of a cycle. The cycle consists of an unmanifest state (the soul) which takes a manifest form (the worldly existence) and back to the original unmanifest state when the worldly existence ends. This cycle continues till the soul attains Brahma (The supreme knowledge aka Self-realisation and Moksha). Once the soul has attained Brahma, it becomes equal to the Supreme Being ie. God. Moksha has been cryptically referred to in a lot of religious texts as reaching the abode of one of the triumvirate (Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh). But what it really means is that the soul has recognised its true self (its oneness with God) and it is the master of its own free will and not subject to the cycle mentioned in the Gita verse quoted above.





Twigrl :



Somehow I was not able to comprehend what you mean when you use the words "theoretically" & 'practically". If you could be a little more clear on that aspect, I'd love to answer your query too.

[*]

when we talk about the begging or end why are we limiting ourself to the question of life.

If we look more closely , the atoms and molecules that make us have neither a beging or end.

So in that context , every begging does not need to have an end.

[*]

sorry about the spelling of "Beginning" in the previous post. , i have a problem with the spellings, i am dyslexic.

[Not the Wise]

words of not the wise:



why worry about beginning and end and spoil the present... present already encapsulates a small beginning and a small end....and... break it further..and further..you will realise that....there is not end to the "beginnings and the ends"...so there is not end...

[Sensei HP]

words of not the wise:

why worry about beginning and end and spoil the present... present already encapsulates a small beginning and a small end....and... break it further..and further..you will realise that....there is not end to the "beginnings and the ends"...so there is not end...

Spiritual Calculus! Exciting.



Anyways...to answer your point, man has constantly endeavoured to break mysteries. And this quest has led hm to today's age from the stone age. The ability to think logically and discern is what separates a man from the rest of the fauna. And worry he always will about something he doesn't know and wants to.



Again, its a matter of personal choice whether one wants to unravel the mystery of life or not. But trust me, when you get into the chain of breaking up the beginnings and ends into smaller than before parts, you'll trip on it.

[RK]

Does a soul/aatma has a begining. My understanding of the teachings of geeta on this subject is that aatma doesn't die and takes different bodies one after the other.

So my question is, "is there anything called birth of a soul?", if not then how does god maintain the supplies of aatmas for the ever increasing population?

[Sensei HP]

Does a soul/aatma has a begining. My understanding of the teachings of geeta on this subject is that aatma doesn't die and takes different bodies one after the other.
So my question is, "is there anything called birth of a soul?", if not then how does god maintain the supplies of aatmas for the ever increasing population?

The Gita answers this in this shloka :



Na jayate mriyate na kadachina
nayam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah
ajo nityaha shashvato yam purano
na hanyate hanyamane shareere



There is no birth or death for a soul. It has not come into being, does not come into being and will not come into being. It is unborn, eternal and primeval. It doesn't destruct with the destruction of the mortal body.



And when you talk about maintaining supplies for the ever increasing population, you forget something. Man is not the only living being around. While human population is ever increasing, many species are going extinct. And the population of many others is dwindling. Would you still call it an ever increasing population?

[betty]

From someone who is pathetic on the Gita front: a doubt on this 'soul' theory:

When we talk about 'soul', is it only for humans or all animals or all living beings?

Does this mean that the sum total of all living beings always remain the same?

[Sensei HP]

When we talk about 'soul', is it only for humans or all animals or all living beings?

Yes. Every living being has a soul. According to the Gita, a soul has to pass through 80000 odd yonis (species) before attaining the human form. Once the human form is attained though, the soul goes through a new mode of evolution. This is the evolution of the 4 varnas - Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya and Brahmana. At the peak of this evolution is Moksha.

Does this mean that the sum total of all living beings always remain the same?

Not really. Once a soul has attained Moksha, it is free from the cycles of the mortal world. Though this in no way means that the soul would not take any mortal form again. It's still free to do so if its willing to.

[RK]

Does this mean that the sum total of all living beings always remain the same?

Not really. Once a soul has attained Moksha, it is free from the cycles of the mortal world. Though this in no way means that the soul would not take any mortal form again. It's still free to do so if its willing to.

does this mean that the total number of living beings is either constant or decreasing but not increasing?

[fp]

[2 paise]

i think it would be wrong to say a soul , when we speak of birth or destruction ... since the soul we posess is a fragment of GOD/Creator/entity-that-is-to-blame-for-all-THIS... so asking if it has a beginning or birth is like asking wether god has a beginning ... which is maybe a difficult question to answer or even understand ... i dont

so theres maybe no need for the creation of extra souls as all souls are merely gunk drawn from a much larger pool as and when required

**insert cliche about drops of water from ocean here**

[/2 paise]



but its the concept of moksha that i really dont get ... what exactly is it?

is it when the bit of soul that we have merges into god ...

or is it when we realise that we are a piece of something larger that it happens (i mean realise in the koan sense)

or is it both?



or is it nothing at all ... and we all just die

[RK]

Thanks for the gyan FP and HP

[Sensei HP]

[2 paise]
i think it would be wrong to say a soul , when we speak of birth or destruction ... since the soul we posess is a fragment of GOD/Creator/entity-that-is-to-blame-for-all-THIS... so asking if it has a beginning or birth is like asking wether god has a beginning ... which is maybe a difficult question to answer or even understand ... i dont
so theres maybe no need for the creation of extra souls as all souls are merely gunk drawn from a much larger pool as and when required
**insert cliche about drops of water from ocean here**
[/2 paise]

Well said.

but its the concept of moksha that i really dont get ... what exactly is it?
is it when the bit of soul that we have merges into god ...
or is it when we realise that we are a piece of something larger that it happens (i mean realise in the koan sense)
or is it both?

or is it nothing at all ... and we all just die

Well...numerous theories are in vogue on this subject. The Dwaita philosophy of vedantic thought says that Moksha is attained by a soul when it merges with God. The Adwaita philosophy differs slightly as it follows the principle of God and soul being the same entity ie. a soul is a part of God. And Moksha as per the Adwaita philosophy is a state of the soul when it realises itself. The common point in both these philosophies is that the soul attains freedom from the worldly cycle.



And I'd like to make a small change in the part of your quote that I've marked in bold. The soul is not something we have. Rather, its all we are.

[student fp]

Well...numerous theories are in vogue on this subject. The Dwaita philosophy of vedantic thought says that Moksha is attained by a soul when it merges with God. The Adwaita philosophy differs slightly as it follows the principle of God and soul being the same entity ie. a soul is a part of God. And Moksha as per the Adwaita philosophy is a state of the soul when it realises itself. The common point in both these philosophies is that the soul attains freedom from the worldly cycle.

** starts to wildly google for Dwaita and Adwaita **

And I'd like to make a small change in the part of your quote that I've marked in bold. The soul is not something we have. Rather, its all we are.

do you mean that

1.all we are is a piece of soul? meaning that everything is basically soul ..



or



2. whatever is worth saying we are , is soul. as in whatever

gives us identity ;and makes us different from , say , a dead thing or a non-existent thing .... ( )

or



3. neither of the above and something very different



or



4. all of the above

hell , why not

[HH]

Life Goes On ... -

Life Goes On...

Life Goes On, even when…

… you give up a hit

… you’re a bench warmer

…you’re in the dugout

…you’re in the cheap seats


Life Goes On, especially when…

… you’re on the beach and it’s snowing back home.

…the estimate matches the bill

…you beat your own best time


Visit:
http://marysears.com/books/lifeshort.htm

[Sensei HP]

do you mean that
1.all we are is a piece of soul? meaning that everything is basically soul ..

or

2. whatever is worth saying we are , is soul. as in whatever
gives us identity ;and makes us different from , say , a dead thing or a non-existent thing .... ( )
or

3. neither of the above and something very different

or

4. all of the above
hell , why not

Your second option is the closest to the Adwaita theory. Will elaborate soon. And I'm really sorry for this late reply.