“Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.” (Mantra 1)
The size of the soul is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanisad 5.9:
“When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul.”
The Upaishads abound in metaphor and symbolism, they cannot be read literally. If they are read literally they will constantly contradict one another and also sound like puerile nonsense e.g. Then the “fire spoke to the wind and said…” Most of the stories are purely symbolic to explain certain philosophical ideas, like the story of Nachiketa in the Katha Upanishad, where his dad sacrifices him and then he is sent to the Lord of Death Yama. This is obviously not literal. This is why the Brahma Sutras were composed, to reconcile the seeming contradictions in the Upanishads and distinguish the literal from the metaphorical. The Brahma Sutras, with the commentaries of Adishakara present a very rational presentation on what the true meaning of the verses in the Upanishads are.
Regarding the soul having size, this contradicts what other Upanishads say that the soul is formless and without dimension. The contradiction is reconciled when we interpret this passage to be referring either to the subtle body, or to be a metaphor for how the soul is infinitesimal. If the soul literally was 1/10000th of a strand of hair, it would be larger than an atom and we would be able to detect it and manipulate it. So if we take this Upanishad to be literal, then its obviouos unscientific nonsense, if we take it metaphorically then it is basically just a metaphor to explain that the soul is infinitesimal.
The same rule can be applied to the mantra that mentions the purusha has thousands of heads and thousands of feet. If taken literally, this is obvious nonsense, such a being could not exist, except in human imaginations. If taken metaphorically it obviously means that the purusha is present in innumerable bodies, and it hears, sees and tastes from everybody. As other Upanishads confirm, “That brahman sees from every eye, hears from every ears”
The Upanishads cannot be read literally, they are full of symbolism, metaphor and allegory. This is why there exists so many different interpretations and commentaries on them. We can get a general gist of the concepts they contain, the concepts of Brahman, Atman, Karma and reincarnation, Yoga, jnana. They are basically the foundation texts from which later emerge all other Indian philosophical traditions. They are not as rigorous or rational as the Shastras that emerge from them, but through metaphor and symbolism they still prove to be the most profound philosophical texts ever written. They still continue to inspire and stimulate the minds of many, but it would be foolish to treat them like bibles.
The soul always remains pure because it never mixes with anything. But its consciousness may be covered by maya, which is the state that we experience right now.
You are saying the soul always remains pure, then in the very next breath you add the rejoinder which contradicts your first sentence by pretty much says "Not totally pure"
Again, I am not going by what your religious scriptures says, I do not deal in belief. I deal with arguments. The soul remains pure because it cannot be tainted by matter. Matter and consciousness are irreducible. The Samkhyakarika presents in total 10 very valid and solid logical arguments to show why matter and consciousness are irreducible. Hence the famous purusha and prakriti dualism.
The soul can never be tainted. Indeed is that not Krishna himself says in the Gita? The soul is indestructible, it cannot be moistened by water, it cannot be burnt by fire, it cannot be withered by wind, it is never born so it never dies. (Actually the character of Krishna says many things in the Gita, which contradict one another, basically attempting to reconcile many contradictory viewpoints existing in the philosophical field in India)
Bhagavad-gita is a holy scripture that can give you enlightenment. It is part of the Mahabharata written by Srila Vyasadeva. If it was such a useless concoction why did saints like Sankaracarya, Madhvacarya or Ramanujarcarya care to comment on it? Modern scholars who try to understand Vedic scriptures from their point of view do not have sufficient insight into the subject matter to give any valuable contribution.
Lets not talk about holy and unholy. The Gita maybe holy to you, but to a Muslim the chances are it is unholy. To an academic/scholar it is just a book, which is interesting for its conceptual and philosophical material, its sociological material and its historical material.
It is clearly nonsense the Gita can give you enlightenment, if that is true then the Nazis must have been enlightened, because many of the Nazis actually had copies of the Gita they read. Many of the Hindu terrorists that slaughtered the Muslims enmasse in the 2002 Gujurat riots and murdered and raped nuns, killed Christian missionaries also read the Gita, in fact one one of the main Hindutva /VHP websites directly quotes slokas from the Gita which are used to justify their campaign of violence. So we can lay to rest the idea that the Gita can give enlightenment.
No single scripture can give you enlightenment. You give yourself enlightenment by practicing Yoga, which can include reading scriptures and contemplating their teachings. Some do not even need scriptures, some awaken their own intuition through Yogic practice and directly experience what the scriptures may say. This direct intuitional wisdom is much superior to empirical, intellectual or scriptural knowledge, says Patanjali.
I am not at all condemning the Gita, but I am seeing it a lot more objectively and dispassionately than you are. I am aware that it is later work, that was added to the Mahabharata. Not much is known about the original authors, but it certainly was not mythological figure known as Ved Vyasa. It is a philosophical composition that is set in the background of the mythology of India. It contains some original philosophical ideas, but a lot of it just a collection of older concepts from the Upanishads.
The Gita is indeed a remarkable philosophical text and an amazing literary work, and I am agreement with many scholars such as Emerson et al that were enchanted by it, and I can see why Shankara et al wrote commentaries on it.
Spiritual science is always contradictory and cannot be understood independantly. You need a self-realized teacher.
Nah, you need a brain. You need to use your own powers of reasoning, not rely on what some authority tells you. Spiritual teachers are definitely very beneficial and welcome, but they are not absolutely necessary. Many have reached enlightenment or high levels of spiritual development without them. Sri Ramana Maharishi did not even have a teacher. Patanjali also makes it clear that no teacher is needed, for everybody contains Ishvara, who is the most ancient of all teachers and the teachers of all. He also makes it clear that all knowledge will come to the practitioners of Yoga by itself.
I just wanted to say, and I do not mean this to be personal in any way, but I just noticed something interesting regarding me and my relationship with Hinduism. I noticed that my reason for leaving Hinduism is mostly because of fanaticism from Vaishnavist adherents, who make up the majority of Hindus in the world. The distaste I share for Vaishnavism is almost equal to my distaste for Abrahamic religions. Although I realize Hinduism is much more than just Vaishnavism, in its popular form today Hindusim no longer represents the enlightened Vedic culture of the sages(Buddhism is probably a better approximation) Hinduism today is full of dogma, superstition and fanaticism and can rival the best of the Abrahamic religions for it. This is why I have disowned the title of being Hindu, despite my obvious subscription to Hindu philosophies.
He says that the the siddhis will come to anybody who practices Yoga, or even through other means like mantras and herbs, drugs etc. He does not take into consideration whether those people have good or evil intentions. Simply put: Anybody that masters Yoga will attain the powers. ‘God’s will’ is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
in the matter of entertaining us or maybe even trying to convince us of something you believe is beneficial.