DharmaB wrote:Your description of the Matrix is based on two main drivers. 1) Desire and 2) Law of Karma
In this you have not given any place for Gyana (Wisdom), Bhakthi (Devotion for Supreme) and Sharanagathi (Surrender to Supreme).
Yes it can serve as a secondary driving force to make our life comfortable while we pursue the goal of Moksha.
The matrix is not aware of any drivers, it only works on probabilities. The drivers behind the probabilities can be anything - Karma, Desire, Gyana, Bhakthi, whatever - the matrix is "meh" on all this, it says - just tell me the probabilities, that's all I need, I don't need to know what the drivers behind the probabilities are.
But again, the Markov model (which is what the matrix really is) only serves that limited purpose of verifying that the one specific observation (virus count to human count) does not falsify the axiom. Its purpose ends right there. It would be untenable to draw any further conclusions from it.
As per my understanding of scriptures,.. this what I make...
1) For achieving worldly goals - Karma is the primary means. Prayer also works, but secondary
2) To attain (not achieve) Moksha - Wisdom, Devotion & Surrender are primary means. Karma is secondary & supporting means only if done properly.
You have mentioned desire is the primary driving force for the creation. Yes, but you have not mentioned why this desire arise in the first place. You conveniently hide the concept of Avidya (Ignorance) which was mentioned as root cause of this Samsaara (entanglement in never ending cycle of actions and consequences) in many scriptures.
Yes I'm hiding this, and I've been saying from the beginning that I'm going to hide this, because my axioms start at a point beyond this. Just like the axiom of "universal gravitation" in the Newtonian model starts beyond the point of "but what exactly is this gravity, bhaisaab?" The axiom is not concerned with that. The hiding is deliberate and open, it is not something sneaky. Once the axiom is set, we only look to match observations against theory predictions to corroborate or falsify the axiom(s).
Like I said, this is a limited development from the point of view of the deductive scientific method, it is not going to satisfy any purists.
And the remedy not just lies in emptying the karmic bank balance, and automatic progression to a final state of Moksha, because that was the state (empty karmic balance) in the beginning too. Hence Moksha is possible only when there is cessation of desire completely forever, caused by Avidya (Ignorance)...
You said Karma is primary principle. Yes it is, but only for those who indulge in actions with a desire (in bondage), until the fulfillment of their desires.
For the ones who want to get out of this vicious cycle, Karma is not the primary driving force, but it is replaced by Gyana (Wisdom) & Bhakti (Devotion) & Sharanagathi (complete surrender to God). Such people even though they indulge in actions (disinterestedly, like God), such actions or consequences do not bind them in any way. ... For such people It will be a mere formality to bear the token effects of past or present karma-phala in this very life and attain to final stage (Moksha) once enlightened with the knowledge about true nature of Self (Self-Realization).
I'm coming to that - Raktabijaka vs. Kali.
Moksha can never be achieved by fulfilling one's all desires. Or after the karma-phala is over. No one will ever have any clue in any life if his karma phala has come to an end. And more over, even if one has reached this zero state, if he feels like to satisfy his desire for some more time, all the drama starts again. Per your theory, this was the same initial starting point also right ?..,
One has to surrender to the will of God (take Sharanagathi) and follow the penances proscribed in shastras to clean oneself inside, of all the impurities that are accumulated since many life times. It is dis-tasteful or uncomfortable to hear for the egoistic people... ( free will is another nice name for ego..)
Yes, per the theory, that was also the starting point. I'm coming to this.
Again Moksha is not an automatic state which ensue after all the karma-phala is over (repeating this again). Actually as long as there are unfulfilled desires there will be birth and there will be attempts to fulfill them (some in dharmic way, others in adharmic way), and there will be consequences, due to these consequences, next birth ensues (along with unfulfilled desires), so on and on
it will lead to a never ending cycle of births and deaths until one realizes that it is a futile attempt to satisfy one's ego to fulfill its desires to its maximum possibility. Actually there is no maximum limit to it (A Desire can never be fully fulfilled by its very nature, Maya, Avidya)
Is there anything in the theory so far, which you feel is against what you wrote above? I thought I was saying the same thing, maybe I missed something. If you look at the short story, it is also along the lines of what you wrote above. Is there some disagreement somewhere, and if so, could you provide the specific point(s)?
Here in below shloka from BG, the word dushpuram means it can never be complete.
Kaamam aasriya dushpuram
pravartante suchi-vratah (BG: 16-10)
Taking the shelter of insatiable (never satisfied completely) lust and absorbed in the conceit of pride
and false prestige, the demoniac, thus illusioned, are always sworn to unclean work,
attracted by the impermanent.
Hence there are various paths mentioned in the scriptures on how to get out of this Samsaara (vicious cycle) and many sages who practically experienced this very nature of the law of karma & Maya came up with the different solutions to attain liberation in this very life (for those who want any way, no force).
Then the remaining karmic consequences are a mere formality completed in this very life to attain Moksha at the end of that very life itself. Like the traveler who realize that, he need not to take any flight further to reach his destination, the very place he is now is the destination, then he is left with only to complete some custom formalities to enter into the city of Moksha right there...
Again, which point(s) in the theory do you feel disagree with the above? Because I thought I was saying pretty much what you have above.
I was coming to the following: Raktabijaka vs. Kali, Story of Tripura, to comment on the "surrender" part, and also the "karma is not an absolute principle" (though it is a fundamental principle) part.