PDA

View Full Version : Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma: Real or symbolic?



TatTvamAsi
21 January 2008, 11:05 PM
After reading a bit about the 3 VP's of Hinduism, I always wondered whether the seers in the days of yore actually 'saw' these entities or whether they were representations of certain 'forces' or principles. What really excites me is the repetition of the name of Vaikuntha, Kailasa, and Svarga loka yet although they seem to be real places, my rationalistic mind tells me otherwise.

What are your thoughts on this? Are Vaikuntha, Kailasha, and Svarga Loka real places where one can 'ascend' to or are they subtler realms that one can 'tap' into during dhyana (meditation) or tapasya (austerity)? Also, does 'Vishnu' actually exist as a 'physical' being laying down on Adi-Sesha? Does Brahma really exist? And Shiva as well? Or are these deities representative 'forces' from the subtler realms that we read/dream about?

Please discuss.

Rajalakshmi
22 January 2008, 02:44 AM
Certainly all these lokas and these personalities of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma are as real as the world you live. They may not be places or location travelled in a space ship, but traversed through the mind and intellect.

There is possibly lot of symbolism associated with descriptions such as Vishnu reclining on shesha nAga - certainly the all pervading Vishnu cannot be reduced to that! Or perhaps there exists such a form of Vishnu too - how can we say anything? There are people who have experienced it that way and recorded their experience. Lord has no limitations - he possibly exists in every form human mind can concieve and cannot concieve.

They are not persons in the human sense, but the Atman conditioned by mAyA - so their nature is pure consciousness and dont have any ignorance.

~RL

Sri Vaishnava
22 January 2008, 07:44 AM
They are real. And they exist. They are indeed places that could be likened as planets reachable through space voyage. An advaitin would probably think of them as mythological or symbolic. But they exist.

The argument goes like this - Advaita's assumption that Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman, ie, the true nature of Brahman being somehow covered-over or obscured by avidya is ridiculous. Given that Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness, obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this (impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it - equally absurd.

The Advaita calls the Brahman as "Nirvisesham" meaning devoid of all characteristics/attributes. On the contrary, the Veda identifies the reality of Brahman as "Satyam Jgnyaanam Anantam" meaning the Brahman is having its identifying "Swaroopa Niroopaka Dharmas" characteristics, namely unchanging, sentient and infinite natures.

As the Advaita argues that "Only the Brahman is reality and all other things other than that Brahman which appears to be "reality" are actually illusions; all of them just appears to be the same Brahman which alone has existence" is the meaning of "Eka Vignyaanena...". If this counter-argument of Advaita is to be admitted, then as per Advaita, both Brahman and Universe are of same nature, the Advaita itself has to accept either "Brahman is reality and also universe is reality" OR "universe is unreal and Brahman is also unreal". Therefore, such a counter-argument of Advaita proves troublesome for Advaita itself.

Vishnu reclines on Adi Sesha in the causal ocean, and is surrounded by innumerable universes, each with its own Brahma and Shiva.

sarabhanga
22 January 2008, 07:05 PM
Namaste SV,

The trimUrti has a relative existence in the dvaita consciousness of vaishvAnara and taijasa.

brahma is the creator of nothing, but existence is not possible without brahma.

brahmA, however, is the creator of everything that partakes of existence.

mAyA is inherent in brahmA, while brahma remains untouched by mAyA.

brahma is aja, while brahmA is jA.

brahma is nirvisheSam, while brahmA is visheSa.

The uttama satyam is advaitam, prajñAnam is advaitam, advaitam is anantam, and advaitam is shivam. And the brahman is saccidAnandAnantam.

brahmA and brAhmI are of the same nature, while brahma does not share that conditioned existence, which is dvaitam.

ajAtivAda has no quarrel with jAtivAda, but there is a childish tendency in jAtivAda that is entirely ignorant of ajAtivAda and yet persists in declaring the superiority of dvaitam over advaitam (the inferiority of which must at every opportunity also be expressed).

Opposition is the only weapon of dvaitam, while advaitam relies only on unity and eternal truth.

nArAyaNa reclines on nara, as naranArAyaNau, in the causal ocean, but this is the mAyA of causation, which is the essential nature of viSNu. And when the ocean is stilled of ALL duality and ALL motion, then the kuNDalam of visheSa anantam is uncoiled and even nArAyaNa viSNu sinks beneath the still surface of existence in dissolution, which is the mahAsamAdhi of nirvisheSa anantam in perfect advaitam.

atanu
23 January 2008, 12:59 AM
They are real. And they exist. They are indeed places that could be likened as planets reachable through space voyage. An advaitin would probably think of them as mythological or symbolic. But they exist.

Namaste,

I am sure that you have authentic experience of such a space travel in your customized spacecraft and a (or more) visit/s to such a planet/s, else you would not be so emphatic. Thanks for sharing.



Vishnu reclines on Adi Sesha in the causal ocean, and is surrounded by innumerable universes, each with its own Brahma and Shiva.


Perhaps, just as you sleep and visit known or unknown cities. Or sometimes you pass into darkness. Again thanks.

Om

Sri Vaishnava
23 January 2008, 05:46 AM
Namaste,

I am sure that you have authentic experience of such a space travel in your customized spacecraft and a (or more) visit/s to such a planet/s, else you would not be so emphatic. Thanks for sharing.

Do you have any proof that they DON'T exist? Aha.

You are talking like those people who have been blaspheming Lord Rama lately.

I understand Advaita declares everything an illusion. But that is wrong. The Vedas say everything is real. Proven by Vishishtadvaita. Adi Sesha is real, Vishnu is real, Brahma and Shiva are real.


Perhaps, just as you sleep and visit known or unknown cities. Or sometimes you pass into darkness. Again thanks.


Om

Or maybe, just like you so misinterpret everything. No wonder advaitins are called disguised Buddhists (atheists). At the end of it all, you don't even accept that the Mahadeva Shiva is real, whom you so love.

Bob G
23 January 2008, 05:47 AM
Taking into account that the physical body is the least real or most perishable of our bodies compared to the soul body or light body...then yes, beings with mature soul bodies do exist and have relative or certain degrees of dominion in the various realms that are possible for them; thus in that sense the Devas and Mahadevas are very real Beings that can be seen and known by us if we can tune into the frequency of their souls and the realms that they dwell in. (also they have more freedoms to move and act in various realms in comparison to us if we are mostly identified with and or stuck in the physical world)

Om

Sri Vaishnava
23 January 2008, 06:03 AM
As far as Vishishtadvaita is concerned, everything is real. And we take all Puranas and Ithihasas literally.

The verses of Veda like "yathO vA ImAni bhUtAni jAyantE…" are kAraNa vAkyas stating Brahman as the only cause of the universe. The verses of Veda like "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" are sodaka vAkyAs explaining the infinite divine/auspicious qualities of Brahman - the nature of Brahman is well explained by these verses. That is, "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" states that the Brahman is having satyatva-jgnyAnatva-& anantatvams - meaning the Brahma-swarOpam is having qualities namely eternal-unchanging-existence, sentient & being infinite. The nature of quality (attribute) is that it differentiates the entity (substance) which is attributed/qualified by them from other entities. For example, when we say "red flower", the "red (redness)" is the quality/attribute and "flower" is that which is qualified/attributed. This "red" differentiates that flower possessing red colour from other flowers like "blue flower", "yellow flower" etc.,. In the same manner, the verse "satyamjgnyAnam anantam" explains the Brahman as having certain qualities and thus differentiates Brahman from all chit and achit entities.

atanu
23 January 2008, 07:19 AM
Namaste Sri


Do you have any proof that they DON'T exist? Aha.
You are talking like those people who have been blaspheming Lord Rama lately.


Aha. That is not a correct way to accept a congratulation. I congratulated you on your authentic experience based on your emphatic declaration. Why not accept it, my dear friend?.

Lokas, where you can go with your rocket, are surely as real as you are. And I do not have any doubt that you exist. So, I offered a genuine congratulation.



I understand Advaita declares everything an illusion.

I say, be a bit more educated and do not hate others in a mis-informed way. Advaita certainly does not declare that everything is illusion. Advaita says that Brahman is Real and Universe is Divine Purusha.

(Will you not be blushingly bashful of your posts in a few years? I doubt.)

Om

Sri Vaishnava
23 January 2008, 07:30 AM
Namaste Sri
Aha. That is not a correct way to accept a congratulation. I congratulated you on your authentic experience based on your emphatic declaration. Why not accept it, my dear friend?.

Lokas, where you can go with your rocket, are surely as real as you are. And I do not have any doubt that you exist. So, I offered a genuine congratulation.

No doubt, Sarcasm ill-befits you. The Bhagavata Purana certainly mentions that one can travel to Brahma Loka. So does the Mahabharata.

My experience? I believe it all exists, because every religion in the world, from mithraism to christianity is influenced by the vedic culture. Plus, Ramanujacharya pretty much established it.


I say, be a bit more educated and do not hate others in a mis-informed way. Advaita certainly does not declare that everything is illusion. Advaita says that Brahman is Real and Universe is Divine Purusha.

OK, I accept that overslight about the illusion thing. Then please try to argue all that I have quoted above in bold, and in my first post. Try to defeat Vishishtadvaita.

Miseducated? Excuse me, can you even attempt to interpret a portion of the Vedas properly?


(Will you not be blushingly bashful of your posts in a few years? I doubt.)

Om

Coming from the person who still can't explain why Vishnu's abode is mentioned as supreme and why a creation account for Rudra, but not Vishnu, exists in Vedas, I take it with a pinch of salt. Also, if you are Brahman realised, and according to Advaita itself, why can't you rule everyone else and start creating a new universe, eh?

atanu
23 January 2008, 07:30 AM
The verses of Veda like "yathO vA ImAni bhUtAni jAyantE…" are kAraNa vAkyas stating Brahman as the only cause of the universe.


Namaste Vaisnava,
Very good Sri. We accept that Brahman is the only cause of the Universe.



The verses of Veda like "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" are sodaka vAkyAs explaining the infinite divine/auspicious qualities of Brahman - the nature of Brahman is well explained by these verses. That is, "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" states that the Brahman is having satyatva-jgnyAnatva-& anantatvams - meaning the Brahma-swarOpam is having qualities namely eternal-unchanging-existence, sentient & being infinite. The nature of quality (attribute) is that it differentiates the entity (substance) which is attributed/qualified by them from other entities. For example, when we say "red flower", the "red (redness)" is the quality/attribute and "flower" is that which is qualified/attributed. This "red" differentiates that flower possessing red colour from other flowers like "blue flower", "yellow flower" etc.,. In the same manner, the verse "satyamjgnyAnam anantam" explains the Brahman as having certain qualities and thus differentiates Brahman from all chit and achit entities.

Very good. This is also acceptable since who will ever say that Brahman is "Mithyam", "Ajnani", and "Not-anantyam". Will anyone say: Brahman is "Mithyam" and "Not-anantyam". Surely Brahman is satyam anantam and Jnanam. And surely Brahman is the only cause of the Universe. There is no other cause.

What I do not understand is that when Brahman is the only cause and He is Satyam and Anatam, where from Sri Vaisnava who seems to be full of Mithyam and who is surely not Anantam created?

Is Shri Vaisnava from another Loka? May be Shri Vaisnava, who is so knowledgable and who is so confident of his knowledge will enter into a civil debate, without using words like Moron, Cheaters etc..

Om

Sri Vaishnava
23 January 2008, 07:34 AM
Atanuji is really going at it, eh? Brahman is the root cause of the Universe. The Universe is ever existing, but changes. And as for myself and you, we are not created. We are atomic portions of Brahman. So, we have all qualities of Brahman at AN ATOMIC LEVEL. NOT INFINITELY.

And why not? By proper tapas and jnana, one can reach Brahma Loka or Janar Loka. They are planets.

At this level of debate, we need to understand that the Upanishad statements
are broadly classifiable into two types namely:
1. kAraNa Vaakya
2. Chodaka Vaakya
The kAraNa Vaakyas are those declarative statements of the Vedanta which state
that the Brahman is the cause of the universe
The Chodaka Vaakyas are those declarative statements of the Vedanta which
state the nature of Brahman who is characterised by qualities/attributes thus
identifying the Brahman as Purushotthaman.
"Sat Eva Somya Edamagre Aasit", "Eko ha vai NaaraayaNa Aasit" are examples for
kAraNa Vaakyaas.
"Satyam Jgnyaanam Anantam", "Aanandam Brahma" are examples for Chodaka
Vaakayaas.
If we accept the argument of Advaita that all the Chodaka Vaakyaas intends
only to negate the qualities/attributes, then a doubt arises which is as
follows. According to Advaita, all the Chodaka Vaakaas intends to tell
"Brahman is not so" - therefore all the Chodaka Vaakyaas simply mean "Brahman"
(as opposite to being possessing the qualities) then, only one such Vaakya is
sufficient and all other Chodaka Vaakyaas are meaningless. Why there are so
many Chodaka Vaakayaas? Why should the Veda repeat the same thing? The
Advaita, to overcome this argues that "Even though all Chodaka Vaakyaas convey
the same meaning, each one of them is meaningful as each one quotes different
characteristics and then negates that the Brahman is not of that nature".
Further according to Advaita, an entity cannot have different attributes.
Bhagavat Ramanuja in his Vedaartha Sangraha refutes the above manner in which
Advaita interprets the Chodaka Vaakyaas as follows in a detailed manner,
shaking the basic concepts postulated in Advaita itself.
"Naithadevam; Ekavignyaanena sarva vignyaana prathignyaanam, sarvasya
mithhyaatve sarvasya Jgnyaathavyasyaabhaavaath na sethsyati,
satya-mithyaathvayoho ekathaa prasakthirvaa, api tu, eka vignyaanena sarva
vignyaana pratignyaa sarvasya thadaathmakathvenaiva satyathve sidhyathi"
The Sat Vidhya of Chaandokya Upanishad has an avowal which is "by knowing the
reality of one entity (cause which is the upAdAna kAraNam), everything
(effects-kAryam) becomes to be known". This is what "Eka Vignyaanena Sarva
Vignyaanam" conveys. The Upanishad has declared that "Sat" is that cause and
the universe composed of manifold chit and achit entities are the effects. The
Upanishad intends to only convey that by knowing the Brahman (Sat) everything
is known.
"Utha tamaadesam apraakshya: yenaasrutam srutham bhavathi amatham matham
avignyaatham vignyaatham" - "Do you know that "Adesa", by knowing which all
things which were not heard becomes heard (known), all that which were not
contemplated becomes contemplated and all unknown becomes known?"
Bhagavat Ramanuja argues that "if Eka Vignyaanena Sarva Vignyaanam is taken to
mean that only Brahman is reality and nothing other than Brahman is reality,
then that meaning can only be prejudice of Advaita and cannot be the purport
of the Upanishad. The Advaita's own interpretation is possible if and only if
it was "Eka Vignyaanena Sarva-ABHAVAAVA Vignyaanam" - meaning, "knowing the
reality of one entity leads to the knowledge of unreality (falsehood) of
everything". But it is only "Eka Vignyaanena Sarva Vignyaanam"! The word
"Sarva" means "Everything". Is it possible in anyway to interpret this word
"Sarva" as "Sarva-abhaava" meaning "Everything is unreal"? If it is possible
for Advaita, then it is only illogical and against the Upanishad.
As the Advaita argues that "Only the Brahman is reality and all other things
other than that Brahman which appears to be "reality" are actually illusions;
all of them just appears to be the same Brahman which alone has existence" is
the meaning of "Eka Vignyaanena...", Bhagavat Ramanuja criticises that
argument and refutes it as follows: "If this counter-argument of Advaita is to
be admitted, then as per Advaita, both Brahman and Universe are of same
nature, the Advaita itself has to accept either "Brahman is reality and also
universe is reality" OR "universe is unreal and Brahman is also unreal".
Therefore, such a counter-argument of Advaita proves troublesome for Advaita
itself. Advaita argues in another way now: Just in the case where a particular student
is pointed out as "the intelligent", all the other students in that class
automatically becomes to be known as "without intelligence". Similarly where
the Vedanta declares the Brahman as "the existent", all other entities becomes
to be known automatically as "non-existent". If this is another
counter-argument of Advaita in interpreting and establishing their own idea
regarding "Eka Vignyaanena...", then Bhagavat Ramanuja refutes and rejects
this argument again as illogical and against the Veda. This argument of
Advaita directly contradicts the "Sarva Vignyaanam" meaning "knowledge about
everything". To admit the argument of Advaita, we have to do an intrusion by
adding a word "Mithya" (meaning illusion/falsehood) which is not at all
present in the Veda. Only if such a "intrusion" is done, the Advaita's
viewpoint that "Everything else other than the Brahman is illusion" can be
admitted. This cannot be done at all and it is totally inadmissible to add the
word "Mithya" which is not in anyway related to the Upanishad Vaakyaas.


The Upanishad has stated two knowledge - one knowledge is about the reality of
Brahman and the other is about the reality of universe and also clearly stated
that both the knowledge are same in the aspect of Brahman being the upAdAna
kAraNam of the Universe (all chit and achit entities). That is the Brahman who
has the subtle (Sukshama) Chit and Achit entities as his Body (before
creation) has expanded (stUla) Chit and Achit entites as his Body (created
universe). But as per Advaita, if we admit their argument, then according to
them one of the knowledge is about "reality" and the other is about the
"unreality". The "Eka Vignyaanena..." therefore gets clearly contradicted as
"reality" and "unreality" cannot be equated.
The Upanishad on the other hand has proved Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy
by "Yatha Somya" and without leaving room to any doubt has established Visistasya
Advaitam and Visistayoho Advaitam. The explanation follows: The Upanishad has to
be very carefully studied. It says that before the creation of this universe, only
"Sat" was existing. It says that nothing else was there. The "Sat" wished to
become many that is "Sat" wished to create the universe (innumerable chit and
achit entities) from itself. Then it wished again to create "Tejas" etc., and
enter into them as "Antaryaami-Antaraatma" (soul) and give name, form etc., to
them. The "Sat" did as it wished. From this it is very clear that the Brahman
is the one entity and the universe has that Brahman as its "Aatma" (soul) -
because the Brahman is inside the universe, supporting, controlling and owning
the universe for its purpose.
The universe is the inseparable attribute (aprutak-sidha viseshanam), mode (prakAram),
body (sareeram/roopam) of Brahman. Therefore the knowledge of Brahman automatically
leads to the knowledge of the universe (all chit and achit entities) which has the same
Brahman as its "Aatma" (soul). The "Eka Vignyaanena Sarva Vignyaanam" thus
clearly establishes only the Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy. The
Upanishad has shattered the concept of "Nirvisesham" to pieces.
Bhagavat Ramanuja extraordinarily presents the meaning of the "Aadesa" sabda
(word) used in the Sat Vidya of Chaandokya Upanishad. The purport of
Uddaalaka's question is thus explained after which follows the explanation of
the entire Sat Vidya verses which concludes with "Tat Tvam Asi" explanation.
The reader has to read the original words of Bhagavat Ramanuja in this portion
of Vedaartha Sangraha - only then, he/she can understand the unparalleled and
unsurpassed divinity and immeasurable wisdom of our Bhagavat Ramanuja who is
greater than my life to me. In fact, even this is just a sample for his
greatness, which is infinite. Every single letter in the works of our greatest
Aacharya stands as proof for this.
"Ayamarhta: Swethakethum Pratyaaha - "SthabdhOsi; utha tham AADESAM
apraakshya: ithi; - Paripoornam iva lakshyase | taanaachaaryaan prathi
tamapyaadesam prushtavaanasi ? ithi | Aadisyathe AnEna Ithi Aadesa: | Aadesa:
Prasaasanam; "Ethasya Vaa Aksharasya prasaasane Gaargi Sooryachandramasow
vidhrutow tishtatha: ithyaadibhiraykaarthyaath | thathaa cha Maanavam vacha:
"Prasaasitaaram sarveshaam" ithiyaadi | Athraapi ekameva ithi
jagathupaadaanataam prthipaadya Adviteeya padena
adhishtaatrantharanivaaranaath asyaiva adhishtatrutvamapi prathipaadyane |
Atha: "Tam prasaasitaaram jagadupaadaanabhUthamapi prushtavaanasi? Yena
sruthena mathena vignyaanena asrutam amatham avignyaatham srutham matham
vignyaatham bhavathi" ithyuktham isyaath | "nikila jagadudaya vibhava layaadi
kaaraNa BhUtham Sarvagnyatva - Satyakaamathva - Satyasankalpathvaadyaparimitha
udaara GuNa Saagaram kim Brahma tvayaa srutham?" ithi Haardo Bhaava: | "
The Upanishad verses get explained as follows: - Udaalaka addressed his son on
seeing him and questioned him - "O! Swethaketho! You look as if you have
learnt everything! Have you learnt that "Aadesa" from your preceptors?"
What is the meaning of the term "Aadesa"? Its meaning is given as per the
lexicons and linguistic/grammatical rules of Sanskrit as "Aadisyathe AnEna
Ithi Aadesa:". The Sanskrit term "Aadesa" originates from prefix "Aa" joining
with the root of verb "Disch". (Please note that the pronunciations and their
letter-representations in English are little varied; knowledge in Sanskrit
language easily helps in comprehending these concepts). This root of verb has
the meaning "to control" (Niyamanam). As the Brahman controls the entire
universe, the Brahman is denoted by the word "Aadesa:" - This is a very
important point to note here. Only if the meaning of "Aadesa" term is
ascertained here, the purport of the Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad's verses
"Ethasya Vaa Aksharasya prasaasane Gaargi Sooryachandramasow vidhrutow
tishtatha:" and the words of Manu (in Manu Smruthi) who explained the verses
as "Prasaasitaaram sarveshaam" can be comprehended accurately. "Ethasya Vaa
Aksharasya prasaasane Gaargi Sooryachandramasow vidhrutow tishtatha:" states
that "The heavenly bodies like sun, moon etc., are supported by the command of
Brahman" (Brahman is the controller of everything). The "Prasaasitaaram
sarveshaam" of Manu Smruthi explains the same purport of the Upanishad as
"Everything/Everyone is controlled by Brahman". The meaning of the term
"Prasaasane" (in Bruhadaaranyaka Upanishad verse) and that of the term
"Prasaasitha" (in Manu Smruthi verse) is the same for the term "Aadesa" in
Chaandokya Upanishad's Sat Vidya. In the terms "Prasaasane" and "Prasaasitha",
the prefix is "Pra" but the root with which it joins is the same as it is in
"Aadesa". The meaning here is therefore same. Therefore "Aadesa:" denotes
"Brahman" who controls the entire universe (all chit and achit entities).
Further to ascertain this meaning of the term "Aadesa:", the Upanishad is
carefully studied. The Upanishad has clearly stated that "Ekameva Adveeteeyam"
This "Eva" in the terms "Ekameva" stresses that the Brahman is the only
material cause of the universe. Further the term "Adveeteeyam" states clearly
that no one other than Purushotthama: (Brahman) controls the entire universe.
Therefore the Upanishad declares that "controlling the entire universe" is the
unique characteristic of Brahman by using the term "Aadesa:" to denote Brahman
- Shreeman NarayaNa: who is Pundareekaaksha:. I used the term Pundareekaaksha:
(Brahman has divine lotus-like beautiful eyes which are celebrated not only by
this Upanishad but also by all smurthis, itihaasaas, puranas and aagamaas)
specifically just to make it very clear that the Vedanta's philosophy is
Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnavam and only Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnavam. (Refer
"Antas TathDharmOpadesath" Brahma Sutra here for an interesting and
establishing aspect). The verses of the Upanishad "Yenaasrutam Srutam Bhavathi..." etc., and the
example of clay quoted by the Upanishad beyond doubt establishes that the
Brahman is the material cause (upAdAna kAraNam) of the universe. Here an
important aspect has to be noted. Just the mere existence of clay (cause) is
not enough for imparting the knowledge of things made of clay like pot
(effect). Therefore the term "Yena" here has to be understood as "By knowing
which". This enlightens us by imparting knowledge about the fact that Brahman
is absolutely with infinite auspicious/divine characteristics/attributes that
are peerless. "Uthatam Aadesam Apraakshaya:" is summarised as follows:
Udaalaka asked his son Swethakethu "Have you known the Brahman who is having
absolutely infinite auspicious/divine attributes like omniscience
(sarvagnyatvam), omnipotence (sarvasakthitvam) and omnipresence
(sarvavyaapakatvam) and is the only material cause of the universe.

The Upanishad has declared that the Brahman is the upAdAna kAraNam (material
cause) (and the nimiththa kAraNam (efficient/instrumental cause)) of the
universe. Because of getting knowledge regarding Brahman, how is that
everything becomes to be known? This question is answered with explanation. In
the world, we find that the cause (kAraNam) and the effect (kAryam) are
different from one another. For example, potter is the efficient cause and
clay is the material cause in making a pot. The pot is the effect. Here, the
cause and the effect are different from one another. But the Sruthi states
that in the creation of the universe, the cause and the effect are one and the
same. A question arises here in this context - "If cause and effect are one
then, are not the natures of the universe like impurities, being ephemeral etc
becomes applicable to Brahman? Bhagavath Ramanuja answers this question as
follows: Before creation, all the chit and achit entities were the body of
Brahman in their subtle form (sUkshma-avastha). This means that all the chit
and achit entities were not like as of date with form, name, species
identification etc. Brahman thus having the subtle chit and achit entities is
the cause. The Brahman wished and created the universe by giving expanded
(sthUla-avastha) form (form, name, identification etc) to all chit and achit
entities and entered into them as "Antaryaami-Antaraatma" and is having all
the chit and achit entities as its body. The same Brahman having the expanded
universe as his body is the effect. Therefore the cause and effect are the
Brahman. As the universe is the body/mode/attribute
(Sareeram/Prakaaram/Apratuk-Siddha-Viseshanam) of the Brahman, the Brahman who
is the soul is untouched by the impurities and natures of the universe.
Therefore the knowledge about Brahman, leads to the knowledge of everything
automatically.

atanu
23 January 2008, 08:34 AM
Atanuji is really going at it, eh? ---

---- Bhagavath Ramanuja answers this question as
follows: Before creation, all the chit and achit entities were the body of Brahman in their subtle form (sUkshma-avastha). ----- Therefore the cause and effect are the Brahman.

Namaste,

You are not competent to do even a good cut and paste job.

I asked you a simple question: Why when Brahman is Anatam, Jnanam, and Satyam and when Brahman is the only cause and the effect also, then how there are non-anantam, non-jnani, asatyam beings. You are certainly not Anantam. You do not know what you were before you took birth in this body. How can you be Anantam. As your acharya says that when pratayksha and shruti contradict, pratayksha is stronger. So, I cannot at all believe that you are Anantam? Bulls.

You say Brahman is Jnanam. And in the same breath you say "Before creation, all the chit and achit entities were the body of Brahman in their subtle form".

Are Achit entities Jnanis?

Please do not paste huge amount of material from internet.

Om

bhargavsai
23 January 2008, 12:13 PM
It is given by great saints that Everything is just Brahman, and gross matter really does not exist.

Only pure consciousness exists.

Kailasa, Vaikunta, Swarga may exists as this world is existing. But in ultimate reality there is no Kailasa, Vaikunta or Swarga according to scriptures or upanishads. Everything is Pure Consciousness, That One Brahman, In Brahman there is no knower, no knowledge, only Pure Bliss-SatChitAnanda.

Ganeshprasad
23 January 2008, 01:49 PM
Pranam Bhargavasai




Kailasa, Vaikunta, Swarga may exists as this world is existing. But in ultimate reality there is no Kailasa, Vaikunta or Swarga according to scriptures or upanishads. Everything is Pure Consciousness, That One Brahman, In Brahman there is no knower, no knowledge, only Pure Bliss-SatChitAnanda.

with respect i like to disagree, here what Lord Krishna says,

na tad bhasayate suryo
na sasanko na pavakah
yad gatva na nivartante
tad dhama paramam mama

The sun does not illumine there, nor the moon, nor the fire. That is My supreme abode. Having reached there they do not come back. (15.06)

You say only bliss that is Ananda, what about Sat and chit? sat =truth chit= knowledge. Brahman is SatChitAnanda yes.

what good is ananda if there is no knower of it? i would go as far as saying what good, is all these if you can't share it.

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
23 January 2008, 03:40 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

I read all the tonnage of words as of late on this string and I am pulled to the wisdom of the Katha Upanishads ( Chapt 2.8 and 2.9) :

The Self, when taught by the man of inferior intellect (avrena narena) is not easy to be known as it is to be thought of in various ways. But when taught by a preceptor who is one with Brahman, there is no doubt concerning IT; the SELF is subtler then the subtle and is not to be obtained by arguing (atarkyam).

...it is easy to understand it, O dearest, when taught by a teacher who beholds no difference.

Such is the wisdom of Yama talking to Nachiketas.


pranams

Sri Vaishnava
24 January 2008, 04:10 AM
Namaste,

You are not competent to do even a good cut and paste job.

I asked you a simple question: Why when Brahman is Anatam, Jnanam, and Satyam and when Brahman is the only cause and the effect also, then how there are non-anantam, non-jnani, asatyam beings. You are certainly not Anantam. You do not know what you were before you took birth in this body. How can you be Anantam. As your acharya says that when pratayksha and shruti contradict, pratayksha is stronger. So, I cannot at all believe that you are Anantam? Bulls.

You say Brahman is Jnanam. And in the same breath you say "Before creation, all the chit and achit entities were the body of Brahman in their subtle form".

Are Achit entities Jnanis?

Please do not paste huge amount of material from internet.

Om

The key word is 'Achit existed in SUBTLE FORM', ie, in a form different than it is now. And that Brahman has the attribute of Jnanam, rather than saying Brahman is Jnanam. Hence, Achit and Jnanam need not be lumped together.

Atanu dear, you are the one who thinks is a jnani that he can answer independently. Being a servant of Bhagavad Ramanujacharya, I only echo what he says. That is the grace of a Sri Vaishnava, he never goes past his acharyas.

You ask why Achit has no jnanam? The same question can be asked in reverse. Why is Brahman unaffected by the Ajnanam of Achit?

I request you read THIS again to answer your question as to why achit has no jnanam, or rather, it is answered in the reverse format. I may do a bad copy and paste job, but you do a worse job at reading things. Sri Yatiraja left no holes in his philosophy :

"If cause and effect are one then, are not the natures of the universe like impurities, being ephemeral etc becomes applicable to Brahman? Bhagavath Ramanuja answers this question as follows: Before creation, all the chit and achit entities were the body of Brahman in their subtle form (sUkshma-avastha). This means that all the chit and achit entities were not like as of date with form, name, species identification etc. Brahman thus having the subtle chit and achit entities is the cause. The Brahman wished and created the universe by giving expanded (sthUla-avastha) form (form, name, identification etc) to all chit and achit entities and entered into them as "Antaryaami-Antaraatma" and is having all the chit and achit entities as its body. The same Brahman having the expanded universe as his body is the effect. "

"The sUkshma and sthUla modes of all the chit and achit entities are only for the body (Roopam) of the Brahman. The reality-substance-nature (Swroopam) of Brahman therefore is called "Avikaari Swaroopam, Swaamsena Avasthitam" meaning "unchanging with infinite divine-auspicious qualities and untouched by all impurities and is in its own absolute pure nature".

Understand?

You misinterpret just about everything that can possibly be misinterpreted.

Brahman has the attributes of Anantam, Satyam and Jnanam. This is different from the advaitin interpretation that Brahman IS Jnanam. Both Chit and Achit in their subtle forms are part of Brahman's Roopam and not Swaroopam of Brahman. But when it gets expanded, names and differentiation occurs. So, Brahman is unaffected by ajnanam, and Chit is differentiated from Achit. Again, do you Understand?

Satyam-Ignyaanam-Anantam" states the nature (swaroopa) of Brahman as unchanging, sentient infinite is the nature of Brahman. The "Satyam" term makes it clear that the Brahman is different form Achit. The "Ignyaanam" term makes it clear that the Brahman is different from Baddha Jeevaatmans. The "Ananta" term makes it clear that the Brahman is different from the Muktha and Nitya Jeevaatmans.

Ironically, Ramanujacharya states that "Nirgunatva" itself becomes an attribute of Brahman on account of the uniqueness of no other entity being Nirguna!!

I do a copy and paste job again. Sorry, but Acharya Bhakti is indeed a boon.

"Asesha Chitachit Vastu Seshine" means that the Brahman has all the chit and achit entities as his property. The term "Vastu" brings out the truth that these chit and achit entities are real and not falsehood/illusion. This makes it clear that the Brahman is different from all chit and achit entities and therefore the Brahman is "Purushotthaman" as "Seshe" denotes clearly that Brahman is the lord/owner of all chit and achit entities.

There is a subtle difference between Ishvara and Brahman. Ishvara is the substantive part of Brahman, while jivas and jagat are its modes (also secondary attributes), and kalyana gunas(auspicious attributes) are the primary attributes. The secondary attributes become manifested in the effect state when the world is differentiated by name and form. The kalyana gunas are eternally manifest.

Brahman is the description of Ishvara when comprehended in fullness i.e. a simultaneous vision of Ishvara with all his modes and attributes.

Comprehend? Since this post may bring further misinterpretations from you, I will refrain from addressing Atman/Anantam stuff till you resolve this. Advaita only takes the Vedas at face value. Vishishtadvaita goes deeper.

satay
24 January 2008, 08:52 AM
Admin Note

Thread closed for review.