Queries from VA thread [Archive] - Hindu Dharma Forums

atanu

15 June 2006, 02:39 AM

Namaskar Ramkish Ji

********
FAQs on Rig Vedic dissertation made earlier

Shri Atanu Banerjee has some queries, as one amongst it, is his personal reservations, I cannot contradict it - for feelings is one such thing that cannot be nullified with any proof. This is so for the sole factor that feelings as such requires no proof to exist. It is like Swayamprakasa, self illuminating object. It requires no other light to show that an object of such sort exists. Contrary proof for such feelings has to be similar swayamprakasa objects alone.
*************

Personal reservation is not based on a feeling alone. Sumajjyana indicates "Birth". And 9th Chapter of RV has a verse that Soma jayate prithvi, heaven, surya, agni, Indra and Vishnu.

*********
Q1. For one who is ONE begininglessly and endlessly, why pervasion is required at all and pervasion into what? Unto oneself? Isn't it a bit of overkill?

Visishtadvaita recognises three different objects existing beginingless and endless, all together forms the body and soul for purusha. Like I have hand which is separate from me yet not so separate from me, Cit and Acit exists as part and parcel of Lord, yet not same as lord. This is complex at this very begining to explain in detail. As the thread grows, slowly it will be answered in details

**************

You say three different objects existing beginningless and endless. Who is the knower of these three objects?

***************
Q2. Brahman is ONE (as far as I know). So, isn't association with a second contradictory -- if not at a experience level?

The words used by Rigveda indicating consort is very clear. Literal translation of word will indicate it is nothing by Daya दया . Lord out of love divided his Maatrubhavana in many parts; having divided in many parts each part remained as full (as said in Isha Santi sloka), and the divided parts are called as consorts for the Lord. Together Lord and his consorts form Holypair, this is again a certain level above the begining, hence request the poster to wait and read the thread as it grows.
************

OK. But this is not the primary existence. The second arises out of desire of the ONE to have another and that another cannot come from elsewhere but from Brahman only.

Association with another is always associated with use of Maya power. As Mandukya Upanishad describes Self as Advaitam, the primary nature of Self can be ONE without a second.

***************
Regarding the commens posted beneath the queries, Vaishnav answers worshipping oneself is the highest level of Ego is corrolary of None but me is superior. If that self is so superior it should had opted not be a Ramkish or Atanu at the first place. Hence the self as meant by Shri Atanu should be none other than the beginingless and endless one - the God. I have no objections to worshipping the Lord but to other than the Lord
******************

Loving the Self is of course very different from loving the ego self (an ignorant idea altogether). Not knowing the Self will always force the devotee to dwell in the realm of love of ego self only, since as Br. Up. teaches: All love is on account of love of self only. Not knowing the true Self, which is declared Advaitam, will delude one to love the false notion of self.

So, one must know what is true Self.

Then the basic premise of VA is: In case of perception conflicting with scripture, the scripture is not stronger.

This is inexplicable. Since, in that case scripture has to be over ruled by perceptions which vary from one to another etc. There are innumerable perceptions. So there has to innumerable truths. An animal has stronger perception of certain elements such as sound and light. So, their perception must be taken into account.

Note: I am not going to continue. This is just to indicate certain aspects which rankle (there are many more) and needed to be recorded.

Regards

Om Namah Shivayya

TruthSeeker

15 June 2006, 03:13 AM

********
FAQs on Rig Vedic dissertation made earlier

Shri Atanu Banerjee has some queries, as one amongst it, is his personal reservations, I cannot contradict it - for feelings is one such thing that cannot be nullified with any proof. This is so for the sole factor that feelings as such requires no proof to exist. It is like Swayamprakasa, self illuminating object. It requires no other light to show that an object of such sort exists. Contrary proof for such feelings has to be similar swayamprakasa objects alone.
*************

Personal reservation is not based on a feeling alone. Sumajjyana indicates "Birth". And 9th Chapter of RV has a verse that Soma jayate prithvi, heaven, surya, agni, Indra and Vishnu.

Namaste Atanu - And you really beleive this Vishnu is nArAyaNa? On what basis? This is the foremost amongst 12 Adityas who is called Vishnu. There is also a Gandharva named Vishnu. There is somewhere in Adi Shankara's commentary where he explictly says that the "inferior" Vishnu in any part of vedas refers only to the Gandharva or the Aditya, because considering Vishnu as "born" anywhere would be rejection of the core of the scripture.

atanu

15 June 2006, 04:30 AM

Namaste Atanu - And you really beleive this Vishnu is nArAyaNa? On what basis? This is the foremost amongst 12 Adityas who is called Vishnu. There is also a Gandharva named Vishnu. There is somewhere in Adi Shankara's commentary where he explictly says that the "inferior" Vishnu in any part of vedas refers only to the Gandharva or the Aditya, because considering Vishnu as "born" anywhere would be rejection of the core of the scripture.

This is likely to be inflammatory, so -------

Superior and inferior Vishnu?

The talk is about Vedic origin. That Vishnu is Narayana has not been verified from Veda by me. May be I require to be enlightened? The Purusha Sukta has been expanded in Uttara Anuvukas and it is known as Hirayanagarbha or Viswakarma Sukta, where Bhu and Hri being consorts are mentioned (and not in Purusha Sukta itself). And this is cited as proof that Vishnu is Narayana. And birth of Hirayanagarbha is effected by Rudra (Mahanarayana Up. and Svet. Upanishad). Rig Veda in fact says: The truth is ONE, sages give it different names. So, a system that first attempts to establish a Supreme name contradicts Veda itself. On the other hand, shruti indicates that the truth is Param Parsatad, whom everyone will know.

Sumajjyana indicates "Birth". And 9th Chapter of RV has a verse that Soma jayate prithvi, heaven, surya, agni, Indra and Vishnu.

I have just cited them. I do not know that there are several Vishnus. I know only ONE VISHNU WHO PERVADES ALL AND IS ONE LORD. And Sumajjyana does not mean convenrtional birth at all. It means Self born or born of Self. Even then it would leave out the Self as eternal.

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 06:04 AM

This is likely to be inflammatory, so -------

Superior and inferior Vishnu?

The talk is about Vedic origin. That Vishnu is Narayana has not been verified from Veda by me. May be I require to be enlightened? The Purusha Sukta has been expanded in Uttara Anuvukas and it is known as Hirayanagarbha or Viswakarma Sukta, where Bhu and Hri being consorts are mentioned (and not in Purusha Sukta itself). And this is cited as proof that Vishnu is Narayana. And birth of Hirayanagarbha is effected by Rudra (Mahanarayana Up. and Svet. Upanishad). Rig Veda in fact says: The truth is ONE, sages give it different names. So, a system that first attempts to establish a Supreme name contradicts Veda itself. On the other hand, shruti indicates that the truth is Param Parsatad, whom everyone will know.

You cannot accept the words of your own tradition? Shankaracarya has identified Narayana with Vishnu so many times in both BSB and GB. Whose authority do you need?

On the other hand Shankaracharya has unequivocally upheld the supremacy of Vishnu in his GitaBhasya and even Vishistadvaitins like Sudarshana Suri have quoted from this. I request you to show one evidence from his BSB or GB or the ten upanishad commentaries for any other diety. In 7.17, he says that Krishna is the only God worthy of worship and no one else can be found. Read his Gita Bhasya fully and come here to discuss this issue please. In his BSB, GB and the ten canonical upanishads, I have never come across a single quote from Shankara which points to anything other than Vishnu. You are free to show such evidence. Note that Shankara has used superlatives in many places where he refers to Vishnu - like shown above. In his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhasya, he has interpreted Keshava as the originator of both ka and Isha, ie Brahma and Shiva, which is a typical Vaishnavite position.

You are totally wrong about Shankara referring to all Gods as one and the same. In 9.23 he specifically condemns the worship of Anya-devatas. If all devatas were held equal or the same, what is the need to condemn such worship?

You will not be wasting your time against Vaishnavas had you ever read the original main works of Shankara - possibly all your doubts are answered therein.;)

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 06:18 AM

You say three different objects existing beginningless and endless. Who is the knower of these three objects?

Lord knows all. Atma Knows

OK. But this is not the primary existence. The second arises out of desire of the ONE to have another and that another cannot come from elsewhere but from Brahman only.

Not sure what you are mentioning as primary and secondary. Everything is form Brahman only. Visishtadvaita is Visishta+advaita, hence a monistic concept. Everything arises from Lord alone, but the differences exists like Hand belongs to you yet distinctively different from you. All are part and parcel of lord

Association with another is always associated with use of Maya power. As Mandukya Upanishad describes Self as Advaitam, the primary nature of Self can be ONE without a second.
There will be no end if one concept is imposed on the another. Maya of Advaita cannot serve to explain Visishtadivaitic stand point

Loving the Self is of course very different from loving the ego self (an ignorant idea altogether). Not knowing the Self will always force the devotee to dwell in the realm of love of ego self only, since as Br. Up. teaches: All love is on account of love of self only. Not knowing the true Self, which is declared Advaitam, will delude one to love the false notion of self.
This has to be discussed in Advaita subforum. How loving the self is different from loving Ego self. When ego erased as per advaita or transforms as vairagya or in similar lines, Advaiti has to prove that loving self is devoid of Ego.

Shri Madhavacharya questioned this to his advaiti guru, saying that, I bow to you but know the fact that I am brahman you do not bow to me, why?, his guru answered, I am an enlightened soul but you are not, on this Madhavacharya quoted Vedayasya na veda saha, and said is not it I am enlightened is part of Ego? - Madhavacharya history records, his guru failed to answer, but I think you have an answer

Then the basic premise of VA is: In case of perception conflicting with scripture, the scripture is not stronger.
The premise is correct, but Perception has to be proven beyond doubt. Based on this perception few texts - non vaishnavite agamic texts are refused the status of Scriptures in Visishtadvaita

However, yet a perception is not yet proved conflicting the scripture. Every such perception is answered by another perception by our perceptors. When one is unable to perceive one has to seek refuge in Scripture.

On many occasions, perceptions is nothing but preconceived notions. If one differentiates this, then it will be easy to answer. Like in your case, you speak as if you had perceived Maya in real, however, it is nothing but a pre conceived notion taken from Advaita. I do not purport to refute this Maya claim, however, this cannot be superimposed on Visishtadvaita

An animal has stronger perception of certain elements such as sound and light. So, their perception must be taken into account.
If one can decode and give it to me, yes, we will consider it for sure

Note: I am not going to continue. This is just to indicate certain aspects which rankle (there are many more) and needed to be recorded.
You are an intelligent man, Atanu. I am not interested in debates with Advaitin at this point of time, but mutual discussions yes, I prefer. If I am not sure of few points of Advaita, I choose to learn from you, or Shri Truthseeker or Shri Sarabhanga.

Keep recording rankles separately, so that other Vaishnavs can also participate

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 06:22 AM

I also noted few threads where in ideas on Advaita been submitted with some modifications done on the original works.

I remember Shri Truthseeker suggesting only Neti, Neti part refers to Nirguna and in one sense all others vedic pramanas refers only to Saguna, where in Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada's opinion is different on this

Advaita is one of the easiest to learn and tough to practise philosophy, hence such changes are practical, but such stances has to be explained in toto, so that others will also benefit from the ideas

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 06:31 AM

That Vishnu is Narayana has not been verified from Veda by me. May be I require to be enlightened?
For this reason I had given the entire citations from Rigveda.

Most of my citations are scattered over many chapters and many books and forms parts of purusha suktha in some other place

Sumajjyana indicates "Birth". And 9th Chapter of RV has a verse that Soma jayate prithvi, heaven, surya, agni, Indra and Vishnu.

We have to understand Samaanadikarana before we interpret any such words. In Visishtadvaita, Vishnu (a) Narayana is Lord, but invoking Samanaadikarana, the vishnu indicated here does not refer to Shriman Narayana, as birth is not ascribed to him

This Samanaadikarana is accepted by Shri Adi Sankarabhagavatpada, hence I cannot contradict this to accept other opinion.

I suppose I had explained this samanaadikarana somewhere in this forum

To put it words of Shri Veda Vyasa - Veda saastrat param naasti, na daivam kesavaat param; I am telling this as you indicated your opinion

Jai shree krishna

atanu

15 June 2006, 07:40 AM

You cannot accept the words of your own tradition? Shankaracarya has identified Narayana with Vishnu so many times in both BSB and GB. Whose authority do you need?

That is advaita, which does not apriori set out from the premise of a sarvottama but from the premise of advaitam Turiya. In fact you are Narayana only when divested of your ego -- the false I sense and false sense of doership.

Examples such as of a full body being Brahman and an arm being Jiva or a flower being Brahman and its redness being Jiva are very inappropriate. An attribute is never a BEING who can claim "I exist". Can an attribute like redness or a part like an arm say "I exist"? It is the conscious being who says I.

This truth will never be assimilated until one earnestly enquires "Who am I?"

Bye.

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 08:02 AM

That is advaita, which does not apriori set out from the premise of a sarvottama but from the premise of advaitam Turiya. In fact you are Narayana only when divested of your ego -- the false I sense and false sense of doership.

Examples such as of a full body being Brahman and an arm being Jiva or a flower being Brahman and its redness being Jiva are very inappropriate. An attribute is never a BEING who can claim "I exist". Can an attribute like redness or a part like an arm say "I exist"? It is the conscious being who says I.

This truth will never be assimilated until one earnestly enquires "Who am I?"

Bye.

Dont say that in words, prove it. Please show a single quote from Sri Shankara in defence of what you said. Also tell us why Shankara used only the name of Vishnu, when he was at liberty to use any name in his major works. If Shankara can be "sectarian" like this, why cant other Vaishnavas be?

Regarding attributes, you do not understand the concept . The attributes define the object alone. Take an example - take a mango.

Now enumerate the properties of the mango:
A sample:

1. It is a fruit.
2. It is green,
3. It is sweet
4. It has a skin and a seed inside.

and so on. The collection of all attributes of an object and the object itself are identical. Attributes are thus, not different from the object and inseperable from it.

On the other hand, a single attribute cannot be equated to the mango. For eg, It is a fruit cannot describe the mango fully.

The same is the case with Brahman. Brahman's attributes are infinite, including the infinte number of jivas, the jagat, and his infinite powers, knowledge, bliss etc. But you cannot take one attribute out of this and equate it with Brahman - that is the pitfall of advaita.
Jiva is a Brahman is true to the extent it is an attribute of the Brahman, but Brahman=jiva equation is false, like calling a fruit as a mango.

With incorrect understanding of attributes, Advaita says that Exsitance=Knowledge=Bliss= Brahman each by itself. WHen others questioned this, it was forced to remove all the attributes from Brahman and make him nirguna. And called Brahman as Not Non Exstance, Not ignorance, Not unhappy etc, without realizing that all these are still attributes of the Brahman.

atanu

15 June 2006, 09:31 AM

Dont say that in words, prove it. Please show a single quote from Sri Shankara in defence of what you said. Also tell us why Shankara used only the name of Vishnu, when he was at liberty to use any name in his major works. If Shankara can be "sectarian" like this, why cant other Vaishnavas be?

Oh is it so? Most Vaishnavas try to prove in so many unpalatable way that Mahesvara -- the Param Parastad is a mere jiva. Shankara has no such agenda. Is any proof required? Many hymns to Shiva are the proofs. And funnily, you take what suits and condemn what does not. If Shankara was such a proof for you then why you are derisive for his teachings? For your purpose you try to make Shankara the authority for this point alone rubbishing his main teaching that Vishnu is Shiva and Shiva is Vishnu -- The Self.

Regarding attributes, you do not understand the concept . The attributes define the object alone. Take an example - take a mango.

Now enumerate the properties of the mango:
A sample:

1. It is a fruit.
2. It is green,
3. It is sweet
4. It has a skin and a seed inside.

and so on. The collection of all attributes of an object and the object itself are identical. Attributes are thus, not different from the object and inseperable from it.

On the other hand, a single attribute cannot be equated to the mango. For eg, It is a fruit cannot describe the mango fully.

Your understanding is non existent and not merely poor. All these attributes change every moment but a mango remains a mango. In Advaita, the Self is the only unchanging being.

I was 2 ft., 3 ft. etc etc. But I remain unchanged ever.

Attributes are constantly changing and they would not help to define or understand the eternal ONE BEING.

The eternal ONE being says I from within your body that you wrongly consider to be yours. Check out.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu

15 June 2006, 09:51 AM

Jiva is a Brahman is true to the extent it is an attribute of the Brahman, but Brahman=jiva equation is false, like calling a fruit as a mango.

Certain things are impenetrable, Some intellects are such.

Which Advaitin has used an equation Brahman =Jiva? You are spreading mis-information.

Jiva is a modification of Pragnya only and nothing else. Yes, you may call these as attributes, which are not beings at all. Thus "I am a Jiva" itself is false, since it is Self only who says I.

satay

15 June 2006, 10:32 AM

With incorrect understanding of attributes, Advaita says that Exsitance=Knowledge=Bliss= Brahman each by itself.

I am not an advaitan but even I know that this equation is wrong!

where are you getting your information about advaita!
:naughty:

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 10:36 AM

Oh is it so? Most Vaishnavas try to prove in so many unpalatable way that Mahesvara -- the Param Parastad is a mere jiva. Shankara has no such agenda. Is any proof required? Many hymns to Shiva are the proofs. And funnily, you take what suits and condemn what does not. If Shankara was such a proof for you then why you are derisive for his teachings? For your purpose you try to make Shankara the authority for this point alone rubbishing his main teaching that Vishnu is Shiva and Shiva is Vishnu -- The Self.

Hymns are no proofs. Show it from philosophical texts. even Madhva Vaishnavas have composed many hymns on Shiva so that does not prove anything. Even Vedanta Desika composed a hymn praising Shiva and in some compositions he praises Garuda like "one whose brilliance is equal to Vishnu". But these are not proofs and the teachings must be traced to the prastAna grantAs only.

You do not understand the point. Shankara is respected for his scholarship and his devotion towards Vishnu and all his views in the regards can be accepted by Srivaishnavas. Madhva Vaishnavas will not agree with me here.

But in his mission for absorbing Buddhism into vedanta and thus eat up Buddhism, he used Buddhist technology into vedanta and thus his version of vedanta is only a form of Buddhism. All philoosphers after Shankara have accepted this fact as jaganmitya and the classification of realities into three are not vedantic concepts but that of Buddhism. If you read advaita and Buddhism together, the parallel witl be obvious. Of course, you cannot find this because you know neither Advaita nor Buddhism, except some version of neo advaita. You expect others to accept all these? Naw!

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 10:41 AM

Certain things are impenetrable, Some intellects are such.

Which Advaitin has used an equation Brahman =Jiva? You are spreading mis-information.

Are you saying that Jiva is not Brahman? Then what is it , explain please? This is a good move towards finding the truth.;)

Jiva is a modification of Pragnya only and nothing else. Yes, you may call these as attributes, which are not beings at all. Thus "I am a Jiva" itself is false, since it is Self only who says I.

So Jiva is a moficiation of Prajna Prajna itself is ultimately unreal, and hence so is jiva. Then who is under ignorance? Oh, I forgot - ignorance is also unreal. I got it - the illusory jiva is under the spell of an illuosry ignorance. Gotcha!!

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 10:43 AM

I am not an advaitan but even I know that this equation is wrong!

where are you getting your information about advaita!
:naughty:

Advaita wants to say that, but cant say that openly because people like you will catch it easily . So it resorts to negatives by clipping the Brahman off all his attributes.:naughty:

satay

15 June 2006, 10:50 AM

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 10:57 AM

I know Atanu will explain it nicely but I have read that jiva is soul under illusion or in maya. pure conciousness is brahman/shiva which is all pervading but when in bodage it is called jiva

But I better stop right here...I can't sustain any points as I do not know the advaita philosophy.

This is the rough summary of Advaita:

brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva napara

Brahman is Reality, the universe is an illusion, The Jiva is Brahman alone, none else.

satay

15 June 2006, 11:02 AM

This is the rough summary of Advaita:

brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva napara

Brahman is Reality, the universe is an illusion, The Jiva is Brahman alone, none else.

In my limited understanding 'jagat' is mithya doesn't mean that it does not exist physically!

The jagat is there but is always changing and thus is not real reality...

I mean this keyboard that I am typing on is real and exists physically but is not 'real' reality.

the only unchanging 'thing' is pure conciousness and so that is the real 'reality' or truth.

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 11:11 AM

This is the rough summary of Advaita:

brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva napara

Brahman is Reality, the universe is an illusion, The Jiva is Brahman alone, none else.

As the statement occurs in this thread, I had mentioned vaishnavite view on Brahmam satya jagat mitya in some other thread
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=3295&postcount=95

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 11:15 AM

In my limited understanding 'jagat' is mithya doesn't mean that it does not exist physically!

The jagat is there but is always changing and thus is not real reality...

I mean this keyboard that I am typing on is real and exists physically but is not 'real' reality.

the only unchanging 'thing' is pure conciousness and so that is the real 'reality' or truth.

This unchanging thing alone is real is again a fallacy.

To put it

1. We identify brahman as unchanging, hence real.
2. The event "Change" does not change, "Change" always exits, hence change should also be real.
3. As change is real, anything that changes most probably should be real.

Irrespective of the third premise, first two premise invalidate the claim of Advaitin that only one thing exists

This is not to contradict Advaiti philosophy but towards the idea that Unchanging alone is real idea.

When the scripture is studied deeply, we come to know, maya is brahman, it changes and it exits always. If maya is not real, then as per the statement maya is brahman invalidates the claim brahman is real.

Truth is somewhere inbetween, I am :headscratch:

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 12:56 PM

This unchanging thing alone is real is again a fallacy.

To put it

1. We identify brahman as unchanging, hence real.

OK

2. The event "Change" does not change, "Change" always exits, hence change should also be real.

What is the basis of this statement? Suppose I called event change as unreal? If change is real, you need not even move the (3), because we have either Brahman=change, or two reals, Brahman and change.

3. As change is real, anything that changes most probably should be real.

atanu

15 June 2006, 01:22 PM

.

So Jiva is a moficiation of Prajna Prajna itself is ultimately unreal, and hence so is jiva.

Pragnya Brahman. You must be knowing that? So, you are making Brahman unreal. Fine.

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 01:25 PM

What is the basis of this statement? Suppose I called event change as unreal? If change is real, you need not even move the (3), because we have either Brahman=change, or two reals, Brahman and change.

CHANGE, as such is said to be a thing that changes not. What ever changes, CHANGE exists.

All objects do change. Logic is basis of this statement

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 01:38 PM

Pragnya Brahman. You must be knowing that? So, you are making Brahman unreal. Fine.

No No, these are not my problems!

So you want to hold Prajna as real (eternal)? Great! Good progress from your side. So that will automatically make Maya real.;)

So we already have three real entities - NB, Maya, SB(Prajna). What next? Now that Prajna has become real, it is automatic - Taijasa, Vishva etc are made real here.

OK, to be serious - we have only reality NB. Maya is not ultimately real. On what grounds did you make Prajna real?

atanu

15 June 2006, 01:40 PM

Namaskar

Quote:
An animal has stronger perception of certain elements such as sound and light. So, their perception must be taken into account.
If one can decode and give it to me, yes, we will consider it for sure

Yes. I can discuss with you. See, the dictum that shruti be first checked against perception, would either mean that an animal's perception also must be used to arrive at the universal truth or the truth is ever unknown since all perceptions can never be checked.

Or, does it mean that every individual has His own Universe and shruti to be checked against individual's perception to get the truth for the individual?

I know the latter as the case and I have opted to put faith on the perception of sages who gave us the shruti and then practice. There are enlightened perceptions (as opposed to ignorant perceptions) that say Turiya is Advaitam and That a second is fear (not exact language) etc. To ignore these is to ignore perception since I only percieve these shruti as truth.

But well, as an aside: Isn't Brahman impersonal/personal? This is a query to you ramkish ji to build common bridges.

Regards

atanu

15 June 2006, 02:04 PM

No No, these are not my problems!

So you want to hold Prajna as real (eternal)? Great! Good progress from your side. So that will automatically make Maya real.;)

So we already have three real entities - NB, Maya, SB(Prajna). What next? Now that Prajna has become real, it is automatic - Taijasa, Vishva etc are made real here.

OK, to be serious - we have only reality NB. Maya is not ultimately real. On what grounds did you make Prajna real?

Sudarshan, you may please read about akala and kala satya, here explained time and again by Sarabhanga Ji and in scripture. There is an aspect of Param and there is a Param Parastad.

Frankly speaking, I find you too sarcastic and do not have any wish to discuss with you.

As a parting shot I will repeat that Self is Brahma Yoni. First know the Self. -- I AM. The truth is not in Advaita or VA or Dvaita as theories. The truth is in your experience --- and ONE WITHOUT A SECOND EXPERIENCE has been reported by revered sages. And it is to be experienced in order to know the Self (Mandukya and Gita).

Taijjassa is result of Pragnya playing with its own Maya. And Taijjassa is nothing but Pragnya in essence. Then the Vaisvanaro is nothing but Taijjaso (thoughts and dreams) and Pragnya in essence.

So, Agni is all devatas. Vishnu is all devatas. The reality of Agnivaisvanaro is not in discrete objects but in Pragnya of the Self. The Self appears to become ALL remaining same always. "I became the moon, I became the Sun" of Vamadeva is expression of such a truth. "One who has realized the Self becomes the Self of All" is another expression. And there are many.

Bye.

Om Nmah Shivayya

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 02:04 PM

Yes. I can discuss with you. See, the dictum that shruti be first checked against perception, would either mean that an animal's perception also must be used to arrive at the universal truth or the truth is ever unknown since all perceptions can never be checked.

I am not a qualified zoologist to check animal perceptions.

However, I too know few so called animals by the name Hanuman, Garuda and Sesha. I hope perceptions of these so called animals are correct. Indeed, I am yet to see the contrary

Or, does it mean that every individual has His own Universe and shruti to be checked against individual's perception to get the truth for the individual?

Those who want to believe in shruti, yes, has to check their perceptions confirming the shruti statements, else, the belief reposed will be a blinding belief. I do not susbcribe to the view that such perceptions has to be first hand perceptions but could be learned from experience of an experienced person. That is why we have Gurus. Gurus make our work short and does not makes us to undergo the same lengthy way great perceptors went, for we may not be that much qualified. However, such gurus must elucidate their earlier perception so that the student visualises it virtually and need not to go through time lapse, energy spent etc, and come to conclusion quickly. LOGIC is more important in such perceptions

What if a statement made and goes unchecked? What if the contrary is seen everywhere?

Christianity is an apt case. They assign all misfortune of Good people on God, saying Lord is testing. But how far Lord can keep on testing, such statements makes one loose their belief. The common idea God cannot be cruel, God is the bestower of boons goes against such beliefs. How could one trust the script and go by it, when God perceived by the person happens to be cruel

On the contrary, Shruti has some statement that are beyond our perceptions. Like heaven, hell, God etc these cannot be validated by perception. Such things has to be believed based on scriptures.

The point of Visishtadvaita is Scripture is valid unless the contrary is shown by perception. Unable to perceive is not a perception but absence of it, which can no way contradict shruti

As there is no detailed discussion on Pramana - sources of Knowledge made in Visishtadvait thread, request you to wait for few more days and make your opinions accordingly. I am collecting few material, typing is biggest time consuming task, hence request you to give some more time

I know the latter as the case and I have opted to put faith on the perception of sages who gave us the shruti and then practice. There are enlightened perceptions (as opposed to ignorant perceptions) that say Turiya is Advaitam and That a second is fear (not exact language) etc. To ignore these is to ignore perception since I only percieve these shruti as truth.

Here in the second pramana has to be considered. Is this logical? Did the so called sages really had such perceptions? If their perception is in contrary with Scriptures, what exactly is that perception and how it was perceived under what condition - all such things has to be considered. Having considered all, if you conclude Advaita is superior and lone truth, I have no problems. But such conclusion must stand logical queries, else, your perception after such logical queries might change.

One must make rooms for such changes and still has to stay with stubbornness to the extent possible in their own faith

My basic query to you on this, how the other perceptions are perceived as ignorant perceptions? "I perceived so" cannot be accepted unless there is a logic and system behind it.

But well, as an aside: Isn't Brahman impersonal/personal? This is a query to you ramkish ji to build common bridges.

God willing, let me be capable of briding.

Request you to define what you mean by impersonal and personal at first so that I can bridge. Also request you to state your affinity

atanu

15 June 2006, 02:09 PM

CHANGE, as such is said to be a thing that changes not. What ever changes, CHANGE exists.

All objects do change. Logic is basis of this statement

Ramkish ji change is not the subject here. The object which is changing is. Change means an object has new birth everty moment and as subject the particiular object is not eternal.

satay

15 June 2006, 02:19 PM

Ramkish ji change is not the subject here. The object which is changing is. Change means an object has new birth everty moment and as subject the particiular object is not eternal.

If I understood Ramkish properly what he is saying is that the process that we call 'change' is always there so it must be real as well.
so either there are two realities ie. 'change' and brahman or they are both the same!

I see his point but don't have enough info to refute him at this point...

could be that 'change' is the only reality! but then how is this 'change' set in motion to begin with? It must be as a result of some other 'action' that implies a 'doer'. and who is this 'doer' then that put the change process in motion...

I think this doer is GOD and when he takes a human shape he is called saguna otherwise he exists as air exists all around us!

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 02:25 PM

CHANGE, as such is said to be a thing that changes not. What ever changes, CHANGE exists.

All objects do change. Logic is basis of this statement

Let us consider a function y = f(t), a function of time. f(t) denotes the state of an object with respect to time.

Then, the object is said to be changing at time t-t0 if y' = f'(t) is non zero.( at t=t0)
The change itself is said to be changing at time t-t0 is y''=f''(t) is non zero.

There is absolutely no reason why the change itself cant change at time t=t0, as it just requires the second derivative at t=t0 to be non zero.

atanu

15 June 2006, 02:35 PM

What if a statement made and goes unchecked? What if the contrary is seen everywhere?

Faith is also an essential ingredient. Else vedas would be useless. But experience is the seal. Most of us should have no doubt in Mahavakyas and logic.

Sky is seen as blue by every one every where but sky is not blue. We see no bacterias but they are there. We know only the particle nature of matter, which have dual wave/particle nature. So, which perception is to be relied upon? And as staed before, an animal has stronger faculties.

I, as percieved, changes in three states. In waking I am solid. In dream I am subtle. In sleep I am bodiless and blissful but dark. (though shruti says deep sleep is light and only light. We see this white light (my experience and not second hand) during meditation. Mandukya further says that beneath these there is the fourth which is advaitam and must be known.

So, it is sufficient for me not to consider it untrue and be sarcastic but to validate it through experience.

Here in the second pramana has to be considered. Is this logical? Did the so called sages really had such perceptions?
God willing, let me be capable of briding.

This will give unlimited freedom to imagination and sarcasm. I Have no reason to doubt abheda shrutis, which are part of Vedas and Vedanta. And, many of my personal experiences of conscious sleep state attained during meditation/dhyana validate them. I clearly exist in those blissful moments and they are to be considered part of true perception unlike those of monkey mind.

Regards.

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 02:40 PM

Let us consider a function y = f(t), a function of time. f(t) denotes the state of an object with respect to time.

Then, the object is said to be changing at time t-t0 if y' = f'(t) is non zero.( at t=t0)
The change itself is said to be changing at time t-t0 is y''=f''(t) is non zero.

There is absolutely no reason why the change itself cant change at time t=t0, as it just requires the second derivative at t=t0 to be non zero.

You have to define what is Y and what Y' and Y"

Setting this aside, if one has to consider process of change changes, this will result in sunyavada

Say, "Brahman does not change" is a statement. We assume process of change on this statement in Nil, hence this statement is valid. If the process of change changes, this might lead to Brahman changes, thus invalidating advaiti vedantin view, thus leading to sunyavada

On the contrary, if we assume process of change does not changes as to this statement then this statement does not change, becomes a reality, hence brahman, this is also not an acceptable view.

For such internal contradiction, Advaita concept of "changing objects cannot be real" is false or truth is lying somewhere in between which we are still unable to comprehend.

As I am not a advaitin, I have leave this to experts

I am not sure what shri sudharshan is trying to point out, Request shri sudharshan to be bit more clear. Something like conventional science exercise with Aim, Scope and experiment subheads could help.

Jai shree krishna

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 02:42 PM

Sudarshan, you may please read about akala and kala satya, here explained time and again by Sarabhanga Ji and in scripture. There is an aspect of Param and there is a Param Parastad.

Frankly speaking, I find you too sarcastic and do not have any wish to discuss with you.

As a parting shot I will repeat that Self is Brahma Yoni. First know the Self. -- I AM. The truth is not in Advaita or VA or Dvaita as theories. The truth is in your experience --- and ONE WITHOUT A SECOND EXPERIENCE has been reported by revered sages. And it is to be experienced in order to know the Self (Mandukya and Gita).

Taijjassa is result of Pragnya playing with its own Maya. And Taijjassa is nothing but Pragnya in essence. Then the Vaisvanaro is nothing but Taijjaso (thoughts and dreams) and Pragnya in essence.

So, Agni is all devatas. Vishnu is all devatas. The reality of Agnivaisvanaro is not in discrete objects but in Pragnya of the Self. The Self appears to become ALL remaining same always. "I became the moon, I became the Sun" of Vamadeva is expression of such a truth. "One who has realized the Self becomes the Self of All" is another expression. And there are many.

Bye.

Om Nmah Shivayya

You feel sarcasm everytime? The Param and Param parastad constitute a dualty, and ultimate it is only one isn't it? So whatever I have mentioned holds true - the only reality is Param Parastad, the rest, including Param and Maya have to be sadasad-vilakshaNa.

Then the Vaisvanaro is nothing but Taijjaso (thoughts and dreams) and Pragnya in essence.

This has been explicitly rejected by Brahmasutras even according to Shankara:

na svapnAdivat.h vaidharmyAchcha - II.2.29

On account of the difference in nature the experience of the waking state is not like dreams. While commentaing on this verse, Shankara is forced to say that the waking state is never sublated, so much for the mityAvAda.

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 02:44 PM

You have to define what is Y and what Y' and Y"

You can take Y to be any function of t, y' is the first derivative, y'' is the second derivative.

atanu

15 June 2006, 02:45 PM

If I understood Ramkish properly what he is saying is that the process that we call 'change' is always there so it must be real as well.

Change, if considered a subject itself, is apparently eternal. But change is noted of some object, which are the non-eternal subject here. However, an eternal seer is required to know the change, which Ramkishji says is eternal. So seer is the unchanging eternal subject.

atanu

15 June 2006, 02:58 PM

This has been explicitly rejected by Brahmasutras even according to Shankara:

na svapnAdivat.h vaidharmyAchcha - II.2.29

On account of the difference in nature the experience of the waking state is not like dreams. While commentaing on this verse, Shankara is forced to say that the waking state is never sublated, so much for the mityAvAda.

Waking and dream objects do not exist out of these states. That is the commonality. A dream hunger has to be assuaged in dream only. But Atma enjoys subtle dream objects but gross waking objects. And Taijjasso is an intermediate state between shushupti and waking.

Non-permanencty of seen objects is common to both states though differing in time durations.

This Brahma Sutra says nothing of what you conclude. On the other hand, you are lost in arguments and do not see the simple and important dictum of Mandukya that Turiya -- Self (which never goes absent) must be known as apart from these three perceptual states.

atanu

15 June 2006, 03:09 PM

You feel sarcasm everytime? The Param and Param parastad constitute a dualty, and ultimate it is only one isn't it? So whatever I have mentioned holds true - the only reality is Param Parastad, the rest, including Param and Maya have to be sadasad-vilakshaNa.

Nice. Brahma Sutras also say that Pradhan is not intelligent.

But you have missed the point again. For you Param is true. For me Param Parastad is true. For another, the body is I. For me spirit is I.

What is true? The truth is formless I (as per my experience), which has all these thoughts and consequently an appropriate Universe.

For ONE who is spirit, what He will think and where He will go? (Gopala Tapaniya). All these questions and doubts will cease when you find the form and nature of I.

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 03:25 PM

Faith is also an essential ingredient. Else vedas would be useless. But experience is the seal. Most of us should have no doubt in Mahavakyas and logic.

Now I raise the fundamental question, who marked these Mahavakyas and what is process of demarking it.

Suppose I say "I am going to make commentary to Brahma sutras in order to comply it with MY faith" will you believe my words of demarking.

What is logic behind, Maya being God, and such god supersealing god transforming into Soul?

I had already noted my reservation on Brahmam Satyam Jagat Mitya vadam - What is the logic you are supplying to it?

In law, we say certain terms are build upon successive definitions, so does philosophy. We keep defining many terms and build a castle using such terms. If one term is illogical or lesser than truth, it affects the castle. In such situation, it is better to doubt every single stone and check it instead of having a faith. Once checked in full, then one can repose faith, but before it, I assume one has to check

Sky is seen as blue by every one every where but sky is not blue. We see no bacterias but they are there. We know only the particle nature of matter, which have dual wave/particle nature. So, which perception is to be relied upon? And as staed before, an animal has stronger faculties.

This shows not to rely upon faith but doubt every single object and perceive things in a better way.

Person who says sky is blue will not buy your idea that sky is colourless, indeed not to tell about the idea that "there is no such object called sky but only ether (Vacant space)". He perceives Sky is blue and that is truth for him. Now your analogy of contradicting Sky is blue with scriptures will actually lead to there is no object called sky which is sunyavada, which again is not acceptable to Advaita.

One great man asked what is smaller than an ant's mouth? Another answered the food that passes through it. This shows the idea of bacteria. Ant head is very small, in such case, one cannot even see its mouth, and never ever its food, still ant lives. This shows smallest of the smallest particle exits that may not be visible to eyes. This Anumana substituting direct perception based on direct perceptions are equally valid

As to which perception is to be relied upon, the perception which is more logical has to be relied upon.

Let me tell you now:

One asked the another in a Yajnasala "Which upholds Ghee", the another answered "It is the vessel". First one laughed and told, "On the contrary, it is the ghee that upholds the vessel", when asked for proof, he said, "Ghee is important for Yajnasala and not the vessel. If ghee is not absent, vessel as no place in yajnasala, hence it is the ghee that upholds the vessel"

Here the logic of this perception makes it valid.

However the same logic may or may not work in provisional store where Ghee is stored in a vessel. One may argue it the ghee that is being sold and not the vessel, hence ghee upholds the vessel and another may argue vessel contains the ghee and makes it saleable hence it upholds the ghee. In such situations both are correct.

Now we have to come to a conclusion that at certain instance two opposite views can be correct which is what depicted in Visishtadvaita. Bridge between, Bheda and abheda sruti. In palces where bheda sruti alone is valid, Veda depicts bheda sruti; and depicts abheda in its place. In some places, kataka srutis are given where existence of both views are possible. There is no point is leaving some and taking some.

Apply logic and perceive what is real, then scripture will make more sense

I, as percieved, changes in three states. In waking I am solid. In dream I am subtle. In sleep I am bodiless and blissful but dark. (though shruti says deep sleep is light and only light. We see this white light (my experience and not second hand) during meditation. Mandukya further says that beneath these there is the fourth which is advaitam and must be known.
This will take us to Mandukya discussions, which I consider I am not ready at this time. Request you to keep this aside for time being.

So, it is sufficient for me not to consider it untrue and be sarcastic but to validate it through experience.

If you consider this fourth stage is beyond perception then there is no need to perceive it as sruti says sruti is highest authority of things that cannot be perceived or beyond the scope of perception.

Normally, debates revolve around the idea of whether an object can be perceived or should be known by scriptures alone. As far as I know, scripture exclusively dispells God from the perception and says everything else is part of perception. God is the only object that is beyond perception.

How so? Now, I know, I can perceive but I do not know what are the things that I cannot perceive as things are infinite in number and my knowledge is finite in quantum. So I revert back to sruti to check what is excluded from perception, which is highly valid on things that are beyond perception. The only exclusion I find is in Brahma sutras 1.1.3. - Saastrayonityat - this read with 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 indicates Lord has to be known by scriptures alone. Apart from this there is no exceptions located. If you find one, you can give it to me.

Having excluded god from the scope of perception and having unable to exclude any other object from perception, the fourth stage should be a subject of Perception. As it not perceived by other sources apart from scriptures, it shows your understanding of that subject is wrong, in the sense what you perceived out of it wrong

This will give unlimited freedom to imagination and sarcasm.

Let it be so, I see no problems with that. After all, Eternity is what we desire and we should be doubly sure before getting our foot on something

I Have no reason to doubt abheda shrutis, which are part of Vedas and Vedanta. And, many of my personal experiences of conscious sleep state attained during meditation/dhyana validate them. I clearly exist in those blissful moments and they are to be considered part of true perception unlike those of monkey mind.

Neither I have a doubt on it. But I have ask you why do you doubt bheda srutis.

Recall the story of two birds on the tree where one eats karma phala and other does not. Where does it indicate both birds are same and both birds are same as tree and fruit. Why do you doubt this bheda sruti and give it symbolic image

I believe Neti Neti, but when it comes to Satyam jnanam anatam brahma, why I am not supposed to mean satyam is lord, jnanam is lord and why I have to choose, Lord is not asatya and lord is not ajnana. Why such quality acreditions be invalidated by such steps to validate abheda sruti alone.

Need some more logic

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 03:41 PM

You can take Y to be any function of t, y' is the first derivative, y'' is the second derivative.

Function of time is OK but what it indicates - if nothing is submitted i have make out F(t)=F(t).

Sudarshan

15 June 2006, 04:17 PM

Function of time is OK but what it indicates - if nothing is submitted i have make out F(t)=F(t).

But this is just an example: Take F(t) = t(cubed) + t(squared) + 1

and try out F'(t) and F''(t) at t=1

ramkish42

15 June 2006, 04:23 PM

But this is just an example: Take F(t) = t(cubed) + t(squared) + 1

and try out F'(t) and F''(t) at t=1

:headscratch:
You are confusing more than me. I think I should :sleeping:

Ok, rephrase your query and tell me what to do, will try out again

Sudarshan

16 June 2006, 02:35 AM

:headscratch:
You are confusing more than me. I think I should :sleeping:

Ok, rephrase your query and tell me what to do, will try out again

Well, the objective is show that change itself can change. The definitions I have given earlier.

Let us assume that the change being considered here is that of an object. Let us assume that the change being considered is its displacement in space, expressed as a function of time. Assume that this object is starting to move from the origin along the x-axis and whose displacement along the x-axis as a functon of time is:

f(t) = t(cubed) + t(squared) + 1

f'(t) = 3 t(squared) + 2t, this is the rate change at time t=t0, and if this is non zero the object is said to be changing.

f''(t) = 6t + 2, this is the rate of change of change, and if it is non zero, the change itself is not at a constant rate, that is the change itself is changing.

Now, compute the values at t=1( or any t)

f'(1) = 5 and f''(1) = 8, which should prove that the rate change itself need not be constant.

atanu

16 June 2006, 03:57 AM

Namaskar,

Recall the story of two birds on the tree where one eats karma phala and other does not. Where does it indicate both birds are same and both birds are same as tree and fruit. Why do you doubt this bheda sruti and give it symbolic image

Need some more logic

This itself is a proof that all differences reside at the level of Vak. We are talking of indivisibility of Atma and do the examples of TWO birds (in Svet. and Mundka Upanishads) state the birds as Atma?

On the contrary, a param Briksha is mentioned as the seer and by comparing with Mahanarayana Up. and with Svet. up. itself, I know this refers to Rudro maharshi as the Seer. Beside Him are two birds: One LORD another not Lord

Two birds are CID (Pragnya) and Chitta (monkey like) opposed to unchanging Turiya-Self -- the SEER. Changes in Pragnya are potential and actuated in Chitta but these changes do not affect Turiya, since by definition Turiya is unchanging.

And remember that Svet. Up. itself says: EKO Rudro Dvittiya na Tasthu. So, your two birds, the tree, the fruits (typical examples from those who simply do not understand that these are spirits and its apparent modification) falls.

Who is rejecting the Bheda vakyas at Pragnya, Taijjassa, and Vaisvanaro states? Even then, there the Bheda is apparent only since it is ONE LORD PRAGNYA. ONE VAG DEVI, ONE AGNI. First we must see ONE AGNI AS THE WORLD. Then we may proceed. AGNI is not different from the unchanging SEER RUDRA. That is what Vedas teach. That is why AGNI is ultimate purohit.

All that ONE sees are non-different from the Atma – Turiya; as Lord Krishna says: One Lord exists as if divided in beings. The divisions are apparent --- true from the perspective of sense perceptions and untrue in the substratum.

I can show you example after example of superimposition of apparent divisions on Atma by VA and Dvaita leaders; whereas Atma cannot be cut. And Param Brahman appears as if divided in beings.

To make it clear I will cite Gopala Tapaniya here as well:

I am a spirit. What can I think and Where can I go? How can I enjoy material objects?

This would seem ridiculous since all of us percieve and proclaim: I know, I do, I think etc. etc. This is a subtle matter which is a big leap from VA to ADVAITA.

Lord Krishna says that Nirgunam Pram Brahman must be known. Why? To burn away all doer ship. Until one identifies with this Nirgunam inactive reality, all acts adhere to you. With a distinct small self, you will never be able to say: I am a spirit. What can I think and Where can I go? How can I enjoy material objects? Though you may verbally say that doership is gone but truly the false doership will adhere as your very self to you. This is a practical necessity as well as the truth. Spirit that I am (bodiless and egoless truly) must be known.

I cite Lord Krishna's teachings since you may be inclined more favourably to it.

Regarding the defence of perception, I am unable to take it. Since, there are infinite perceptions and truth cannot be dependent on these uncertainties. And each individual will have different logic. There is no end to it, except to support Brahma Sutra dictum: Brahma Jigyasa is Auspicious.

Though I certainly know that checking perception against shruti will take one higher and higher through the prescribed routes of Vichara, where finally one will know: I am a spirit, how can I think and where can I go. Spirit has no boundary. Thoughts (in Taijjassa) have created bodies.

Regards

Sudarshan

16 June 2006, 07:28 AM

This Brahma Sutra says nothing of what you conclude. On the other hand, you are lost in arguments and do not see the simple and important dictum of Mandukya that Turiya -- Self (which never goes absent) must be known as apart from these three perceptual states.

You are perfectly right - Turiya -- Brahman(which never goes absent) must be known as apart from these three perceptual states. Turiya is moksha, the other states are baddha. Mukta jIvas have only the consciousness controlled solely by Turiya and are always perfect. In the other states, jIva exists in theree states waking, sleep and deep sleep, in which they are controlled by another form of the Lord ( not Turiya), and hence have erroneous perception. Advaita's interpretation of Prajna is a lie - how can anyone become the Lord of all in deep sleep? Obviously it refers to God alone- and mentioned so in other Upanishads! Brahmasutras also confirm this, when it says that Anandamaya Kosha is Brahman.(not jIva)

I have told you clearly why advaita's interpretation of Mandukya is faulty. It is using Buddhist philosophy into vedanta and introduces terminologies such as paramArta satya and vyavahArika satya in its interpretation. If you could show me one scriptural evidence for this classification( apart from Buddha's teachings), I could take your words more seriously. Not only that it introduces terminologies such as sadasad-vilaxaNa ( which means entities that are both real and unreal simultaneously) and since this is unproved both scripturally, perceptionally and logicaly, the interpretation itself can be considered as a mere opinion. That is all.

I obviously see the Upanishadic dictrum - The objective of human life is to know God. Any arguments? Here is an advaitin quote for you and hope you follow it lest you end up in hell.

ardhavyutpannabuddhestu sarvam brahmeti yo vadet;
mahanaraka-jaleshu sa tena viniyojitah

Summary - "If somebody is not prepared yet, do not preach that Brahman is all. Doing so will land both the preacher and the student in great hell." Not that I beleive this in the advaitic way, but certainly advaitic teaching(if at all correct) is best left to sanyAsins.

atanu

16 June 2006, 08:59 AM

Namaskar,

You are perfectly right - Turiya -- Brahman(which never goes absent) must be known as apart from these three perceptual states. Turiya is moksha, the other states are baddha. ----

Advaita's interpretation of Prajna is a lie - how can anyone become the Lord of all in deep sleep? -----

I have told you clearly why advaita's interpretation of Mandukya is faulty.

You have equation fever dear; may require some medication.

I obviously see the Upanishadic dictrum - The objective of human life is to know God. Any arguments?

Earlier from another thread:

Mandukya says: Turiya has to be known. And Gita says: To attain immortality the anadimat param brahman has to be known. This Self is Brahman. So, it becomes an order of God to know the Self.

------ Sorry, I dont see your message.----

Check up the 13th Chapter of Gita, where what is to be known to attain immortality is stated. And then compare with Mandukya's dictum that Turiya -- whose only proof of is in identity with it and in which the world disappears ---- is to be known.

In short the Self is to be known.

Here is an advaitin quote for you and hope you follow it lest you end up in hell.

--------

Yes. Yes. I am already in one. Else why would I be debating with you.

TruthSeeker

16 June 2006, 10:30 AM

na svapnAdivat.h vaidharmyAchcha - II.2.29

On account of the difference in nature the experience of the waking state is not like dreams. While commentaing on this verse, Shankara is forced to say that the waking state is never sublated, so much for the mityAvAda.

This point is left apparently dangling by Sri Shankara and usually carries a "mock" tag on it, but later commentartors such as Padmapada have clarified this. The difference in nature attributed here is that the world is Isvara Srishti and not Jiva srishti. Yogacara holds that the world itself is a mental creation(Vijnanavada), and this is not so, because it is not the mind that creates the world, but the Universal Cosmic principle that creates it. Hence it has to be necessarily different from a dream, which is purely a jiva's creation.:)

Certainly God's creation is more real and long lasting than jiva's 3 hour dreams isnt it?;)

ramkish42

16 June 2006, 01:12 PM

On the contrary, a param Briksha is mentioned as the seer and by comparing with Mahanarayana Up. and with Svet. up. itself, I know this refers to Rudro maharshi as the Seer. Beside Him are two birds: One LORD another not Lord

Not going into details much, you had identified three objects. Rudro maharshi, One Lord and another Not Lord

How all these inculcates in your mind as ONE Lord????

All that ONE sees are non-different from the Atma � Turiya; as Lord Krishna says: One Lord exists as if divided in beings. The divisions are apparent --- true from the perspective of sense perceptions and untrue in the substratum.

Give the references pls

I am a spirit. What can I think and Where can I go? How can I enjoy material objects?

However, quote is not I am the Lord but only I am a spirit.

This would seem ridiculous since all of us percieve and proclaim: I know, I do, I think etc. etc. This is a subtle matter which is a big leap from VA to ADVAITA.

This is again not acceptable to Advaita. If one does not perceives one does not knows that he knows, he carries no jnana hence doomed. You are rejecting the idea of Jnana all together.

Say, one gets Jnana from scriptures, does he gets his Jnana from scriptures without sensory objects or not? If no, I wonder how one reads and how one sees the letters or hears a discourse.

If yes, how scripture that gives knowledge through direct perception become more authoritative than the perception itself?

Scriptures are authoritative on objects that are beyond the scope of perception, I would like to remind again here.

If I perceive a different meaning for "Tatvamasi" and you perceive a different meaning, is that the responsibility of perception or scripture?

Regarding the defence of perception, I am unable to take it. Since, there are infinite perceptions and truth cannot be dependent on these uncertainties. And each individual will have different logic. There is no end to it, except to support Brahma Sutra dictum: Brahma Jigyasa is Auspicious.

Not a problem, I am not defending but clearing the doubts on my stance to you.

No one is asking to keep doing Vichara infinitely, One must come to a conclusion at some level.

Jai shree krishna

Sudarshan

16 June 2006, 01:16 PM

You have equation fever dear; may require some medication.

Thanks, I am taking medication already.;)

Check up the 13th Chapter of Gita, where what is to be known to attain immortality is stated. And then compare with Mandukya's dictum that Turiya -- whose only proof of is in identity with it and in which the world disappears ---- is to be known.

In short the Self is to be known.

The world cannot disappear dear, such a concept has been heavily condemned by Krishna. Hope I dont have to periodically repeat 16.8.

Yes. Yes. I am already in one. Else why would I be debating with you.

Obviously, how could you ever engage in such a debate without knowing anything about VA? Have you read Ramanuja's Gita Bashya, Sri Bhasya or Vedartasangraha? Indulging in debates without such learning will always be like hell. Shouldn''t you know both sides to some extent first? You knowledfe of VA is so poor that you do not know its difference from Prabupada's school. In your old thread "Misrepresenattion of sacred lietarure" on Hindunet, you were criticizing the VA's commentary on 13.13 without even knowing it was not VAs commentary, as VA does not consider Brahman as subordinate to Krishna. How to even consider you as a candidate for debate when you have no knowledge of my position and yet keep pointing at some irrelevant verses, and then also trying to gain moral grounds.

ramkish42

16 June 2006, 01:35 PM

This point is left apparently dangling by Sri Shankara and usually carries a "mock" tag on it, but later commentartors such as Padmapada have clarified this. The difference in nature attributed here is that the world is Isvara Srishti and not Jiva srishti. Yogacara holds that the world itself is a mental creation(Vijnanavada), and this is not so, because it is not the mind that creates the world, but the Universal Cosmic principle that creates it. Hence it has to be necessarily different from a dream, which is purely a jiva's creation.:)

Certainly God's creation is more real and long lasting than jiva's 3 hour dreams isnt it?;)

I had spent considerable time in USA.

However, I did my schooling in Chennai, in India. Now, I am back in India on a business agenda, I went to my earlier school and earlier college.

Nice that they exist. Time lapse with my school is almost 15 years and my college is almost 10 years. Sure they are real than three hours dream

I recalled, this is my school where I used to study for more than 7 years way back from 1985. I perceived reality and not a dream.

I would like to point out Bauddha dharma on reality. It says everything disappears and recreated, Life exists only during the time span of a water bubble. I saw my school never destroyed nor recreated but intact.

My point here is - there is no reason to reject the reality. If all this is an perpetual illusion, then any attempt to establish advaita is an illusion, then in one sense advaita is also an illusion, hence teachings of advaita is false, thus resulting in sunyavada.

First let us not give any statement that is mutually contradictory

TruthSeeker

16 June 2006, 02:37 PM

I had spent considerable time in USA.

However, I did my schooling in Chennai, in India. Now, I am back in India on a business agenda, I went to my earlier school and earlier college.

Nice that they exist. Time lapse with my school is almost 15 years and my college is almost 10 years. Sure they are real than three hours dream

I recalled, this is my school where I used to study for more than 7 years way back from 1985. I perceived reality and not a dream.

I would like to point out Bauddha dharma on reality. It says everything disappears and recreated, Life exists only during the time span of a water bubble. I saw my school never destroyed nor recreated but intact.

My point here is - there is no reason to reject the reality. If all this is an perpetual illusion, then any attempt to establish advaita is an illusion, then in one sense advaita is also an illusion, hence teachings of advaita is false, thus resulting in sunyavada.

First let us not give any statement that is mutually contradictory

Namaste Ramkish, I do accept that there is not adequate scriptural evidences to prove that world is mithya. If you have read advaita sources, the only evidence that are provided are the abedha vAkyas and nothing else. I dont beleive in fabricated advaitin verses showing such theories.

Yet, I find Sri Shankara's system more gutsy and more rational than other systems and is quite abstract in nature. Like any other system, advaita cannot answer every question and advaita has more problems than Dvaita because it does not have sAkshi pramANa, or perceptional evidence. But you must remmeber that in philosophy, experience is far more important that mere scriptrual references and logic. I find these whole debates childish especialy without adequate training in shAstras and as you may have noticed I do not participate in such debates. I beleive only in Atma Jnana, from experience.

The main reason I think creation may not be real is because it is apparently exposing God. No proper explanation is available for the anAdi karma and how God could allow such a thing to happen to the poor jiva when he is all powerful. Doesn't that show some cruelness? On the other hand, it is more reasonable to assume that this is just divine play with himself, and any suffering and enjoyments in samsAra are experienced by the Lord alone. Wouldn't you think that God has more rights this way?

Anyway, there is absolutely no need to get personal. None of us know the truth. Scriptures are self contradictory and I admit that it is dualistic for the most part. I personally beleive in Advaita because it appears to be the one proper explanation for evil. However, unlike other Advaitins I wont make tall claims like the whole scripture reverberates adviata, and I dont think it is necessary. I do not beleive in Brahmasutra's strict harmonization scheme of reconciling all scriptures. I do beleive that different philosohies are valid in their context, and there are no contradictions according to me. Bhagvad Gita, according to me is more dualistic than VA or Advaita. Brahmasutras are geared towards VA, and Upanishads towards Advaita. The problem comes when every Acharya tries to superimpose his beleifs on every piece of scripture by twisting the natural meanings. I do not favour that approach and give every scripture its true merit and classify accordingly. I consider Dviata to be dealing with sAlokya and sAmIpya muktis and some of the scriptures that refer to these preach Dvaita. VA deals with sArUpya mukti( it calls itself sAyuja though), and we have many scriptural evidences in its favour. Adavita is about sAyujya mukti, and no one can deny that it has no scriptural support in its favour.

I see all philosophies from a big picture and think all have their place in vedanta and even spiritual progress. I personally dont care which philosophy is correct and I am sure if a person can engage in appropriate sAdhana, he can know the truth for himself. But I can appreciate the efforts of Sri Ramanuja and Madhva's role in their respective times and their contribution to vedanta. Infact, you can say that 50% of all Hindus are now indirect disciples of Sri Ramanuja, and people owe a lot to him. But you should note that Advaita suggests two paths to moxa - sadyo and krama, and Shankara himself has stated that sadyo mukti is only for sanyasins. So Krama mukti is the suitable for most people - so in this respect I have to say that Ramanuja essentially highlighted only this aspect, and is not at any contradiction with Shankara.

Most problems in Hinduism is arising due to shfit of emphasis from sAdhana to arguments. Had every Hindu minded his own business and took spirituality seriously there is possibly no need to debate and waste time on such things in the modern world where we do not even get proper time. Some people are apprently still living in the past era. Unless people are debating for the purpose of knowledge, I find this useless. Either from advaitins or others, I have seen only attempts to dethrone others without even understanding the other's point of view in this forum - which indicates no inclination for learning, but just to impose one's view on others.

ramkish42

16 June 2006, 03:58 PM

I thought I am seconding your views.

Thanks anyways for explaining your stance

TruthSeeker

17 June 2006, 03:45 AM

I thought I am seconding your views.

Thanks anyways for explaining your stance

The classical stances in vedanta are usually more sectarian where the goal is to undermine each other (by any means), and the tactics adopted are logic and grammar! (probably unique to Indian Philosophies!)

The modern stance is probably more secular where the goal is to view the scripture from a perfectly neutral stand point, and harmonize various view points. Traditionalists will not like the stance, and consequently there will be opposition from many quarters!

No advaitin likes to hear that Bhagavad Gita shows only minimum proof for it. No advaitin likes to hear that Brahma sutras do not support absolute monism. The very way it starts and ends and the way it denies the certain privileges of the individual soul are ample proof of it and any earnest student of vedanta will question such an interpretation. But it is still a prestige issue and if you are an Acharya who founds a new religion, there is no room to hide - you are necessarily required to trace your beleif to the prastAna, whether it supports your beleif or not!

Similarly, Vaishnavs dont like to hear that the absolute truth propounded by Upanishads is possibly only a kind of monism. The very ideas of dualism come only from the need to harmonize the scriptures and under the assumption that the whole of vedas is one single coherent truth.

Just like there are many reliigons in the world like Christianity and Islam which have very different beleifs from us, is not logical that vedas by itself also has scope for multiple religions in it? It is quite possible that portions of the vedas are the experiences of various sages under various stages of spiritual development. If this possibility is admitted, it is very easy to see why there is both Dvaita and Advaita in the scriptures.

Nobody in the past would have the guts to express their opinions in the fear of being called a heretic. It is also possible to have a religion like ISKCON which relies on only select scripture - that is also possibly a very legitimate HIndu beleif, though people in the past would reject it outright. It took people like Swami Vivekananda to show such courage and defy orthodoxy - and you know he has his own set of committed followers and a set of those who oppose him and call him a fake.(which includes even other advaitins). :)

It should be noted that we have exactly one school that preaches ajAti vAda, and there is exactly one school that preaches Dvaita. The rest of the Acharyas are atleast reconciled on jAti vAda, and also either pure monism or a diluted version of it. That should possibly show the general trend of the scripture. All of these must be considered as just opinions in the absence of personal verifications. Since a singular solid beleif is needed for any sAdhana, you do have to accept one guru and firmly beleive in his words, and try to realize his teachings.(and leave the rest to God!)

atanu

17 June 2006, 04:59 AM

atanu

17 June 2006, 05:30 AM

[/color]

Not going into details much, you had identified three objects. Rudro maharshi, One Lord and another Not Lord

How all these inculcates in your mind as ONE Lord????

Atma and Lordship have a difference. If you read Svet. You will find that Atma houses Itself as Lord. Self is Lord, the world, and the Jiva.

Regarding your query, Svet. Upanishad itself states: Eko Rudro dvitiyya na tastu.

When, dvitiyya na tastu, then it is very clear that the param briksha seer, the Lord (Pragnya) and not Lord (Chitta) are all Rudro -- the seer.

The seer; the process of seeing; and the seen; these triunes are apparent, but reality behind these three is ONE: Eko rudro dvitiyya na tastu --- Param Briksha Seer. And the main point remains that the birds are not the ATMA (which is real) and indivisible.

[/color]
Give the references pls

However, quote is not I am the Lord but only I am a spirit.

Reference was given. Gopala Tapaniya.

Yes, definitely, did I ever make out "I am the Lord". This is a perrenial vaisnava sarcasm. I am a spirit pure and simple.

[/color]
This is again not acceptable to Advaita. If one does not perceives one does not knows that he knows, he carries no jnana hence doomed. You are rejecting the idea of Jnana all together.

Say, one gets Jnana from scriptures, does he gets his Jnana from scriptures without sensory objects or not? If no, I wonder how one reads and how one sees the letters or hears a discourse.

If yes, how scripture that gives knowledge through direct perception become more authoritative than the perception itself?

Scriptures are authoritative on objects that are beyond the scope of perception, I would like to remind again here.

If I perceive a different meaning for "Tatvamasi" and you perceive a different meaning, is that the responsibility of perception or scripture?

That is a problem. You say I percieve "Tatvamasi". It is not a matter of perception but it is a matter of experience. A prriori decision that perception is stronger than shruti is defective. You are not even inclined to accept that perceptions are infinite and can only guide if they are inspected against scripture.

And please do not ever ascribe identity in Turiya with Lordship. Lordship has a sattwwa Guna -- Turiya is beyond guna and not attained with a trace of desire present.

TS has also highlighted the point that sadhakas at different stages percieve different faces of the truth. But I repeat: Turiya is shivo, advaitam, in which world disappears, but still indescribable and only proof of it is in identity.

[/color]
Not a problem, I am not defending but clearing the doubts on my stance to you.

No one is asking to keep doing Vichara infinitely, One must come to a conclusion at some level.

I understand. The perspectives are reverse. I would check and question my experiences of waking (when I am solid), dreaming (when I am subtle) and deep sleep (when I am bodiless, egoless, ignorant, but blissfull) against scripture which says that the the reality, the unchanging SELF TURIYA is the substratum of these states.

And I would never say: scripture is not stronger against my perception. Since my perception is not constant and my perception may differ form every other and because there are millions of contradictory perceptions, which cannot overrule the shruti as such. Though perceptions may over rule perceptions of shruti.

The undisputed shruti is that Turiya the fourth is the SELF -- which must be known. And I will examine truism of my perceptions against the following other shrutis:

Prajnanam Brahma
Consciousness is Brahman
(Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rg Veda)

Ayam Atma Brahma
This Self is Brahman
(Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda)

Tat Tvam Asi
Thou art that
(Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda,
Kaivalya Upanishad)

Aham Brahmasmi
I am Brahman
(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda,
Mahanarayana Upanishad)

I will examine perceptions against these shruti, always knowing that emodied i, as it is known now, is not Brahman: Why so? And I will not discard and explain away or modify these shruti only beacuse they do not match my perceptions at present. My perceptions are definitely weaker against shruti.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu

17 June 2006, 01:17 PM

This point is left apparently dangling by Sri Shankara and usually carries a "mock" tag on it, but later commentartors such as Padmapada have clarified this. The difference in nature attributed here is that the world is Isvara Srishti and not Jiva srishti. Yogacara holds that the world itself is a mental creation(Vijnanavada), and this is not so, because it is not the mind that creates the world, but the Universal Cosmic principle that creates it. Hence it has to be necessarily different from a dream, which is purely a jiva's creation.:)

Certainly God's creation is more real and long lasting than jiva's 3 hour dreams isnt it?;)

Whether dream or jagrat, the creations are of God. And there is a wrong perception that taijjassa creations are weaker. On the contrary, Taijassa creations are the intermediate creations.

Mahanarayana Upanishad

XII-11: God-like sages attained in the order (of their spiritual practices) the Self-luminous Reality laid in the three states of consciousness and secretly held by the teachers who praise it by chants in the Vedic speech (the great formulas such as ‘Thou art That’). Indra or Virat, the regent of the visible universe and the waking consciousness created one, the visible world. Surya representing Taijasa and Hiranyagarbha created one, namely, the world of dream, and from Vena came the remaining one, the dreamless sleep. By the self-supporting Paramatman all these threefold categories were fashioned.

Similarly, in Mandukya also nothing is said of Ishwara shristi and Jiva shristi. In all states it is Self that enjoys (and rules).

On the other hand, we create homes etc. in jagrat, whereas dream state creations appear more automatic.

Regards.

TruthSeeker

17 June 2006, 02:02 PM

But Mahanarayana Up. says Indra, Vena, Pragnya are three creators of three worlds of Jagrat, Dream, Shushupti and it is Paramatma who is the only fashioner of all three. Similarly, in Mandukya also nothing is said of Ishwara shristi and Jiva shristi. In all states it is Self that enjoys (and rules).

On the other hand, we create homes etc. in jagrat, whereas dream state creations appear more automatic.

Regards.

This is the view of the vivaraNa school. What is Jiva, by the way? It is Taijasa, and isn't a dream an creation of Taijasa(Mind or Buddhi)?

Quoted from Panchadasi of Sage Vidyaranya which should clarify it better:

Ikshanadi-praveshanta srishtir Ishana kalpita |

Jagradadi-vimokshantah samsaro Jiva-kalpitah ||

atanu

17 June 2006, 02:40 PM

This is the view of the vivaraNa school. What is Jiva, by the way? It is Taijasa, and isn't a dream an creation of Taijasa(Mind or Buddhi)?

Quoted from Panchadasi of Sage Vidyaranya which should clarify it better:

Ikshanadi-praveshanta srishtir Ishana kalpita |

Jagradadi-vimokshantah samsaro Jiva-kalpitah ||

Yes I know it. But Jagrat creations are not of Ishwara if dreams are not. All creations are consciousness based. So, Indra (universal mind), Hirayanagarbha (universal soul), Vena (universal consciousness) are considered three creators of these three worlds but ultimately fashioned by the Brahman.

In the individual level, which is not different from Self level (since Mandukya unifies Brahman and Atma), the creators are Agni, Taijassa, Pragnya.

Panchdasi specifies 'Samsara'. Yes. The broken I and You, that creation of samsara does not belong to truth.

atanu

17 June 2006, 02:44 PM

This is the view of the vivaraNa school. -----

Ikshanadi-praveshanta srishtir Ishana kalpita |

Jagradadi-vimokshantah samsaro Jiva-kalpitah ||

I hope you have noted the Mahanarayana citations which I introduced later on edit mode, possibly while you were replying.

atanu

17 June 2006, 03:14 PM

Thanks, I am taking medication already.;)

The world cannot disappear dear, such a concept has been heavily condemned by Krishna. Hope I dont have to periodically repeat 16.8.

Advaita does not say the universe is based on untruth (ASAT). We say Brahman is Jagat. Those who believe that the world is made of I and you, created based on sexual congress only without an underlying spirit consider the world as Asatyamapratishtham -- based on Asat. They are the subject here. And you belong partly to that group since you consider the world as I and you.

We say Brahman is Jagat so how can this verse apply to us? . Gita verse does not say what you say. I have already shown from Gopala Tapaniya that for the Self, You and I are not known.

Asatyamapratishtham te jagadaahuraneeshwaram;
Aparasparasambhootam kimanyat kaamahaitukam.

8. They say: �This universe is based on untruth, without a (moral) basis, without a God, brought about by mutual union, with lust for its cause; what else?�

And Mandukya says:

7. The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, action-less, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

Meaning that the Self has no internal or external (No I and you). The phenomenal world ceases in Self and only the eternal remains. For Advaita the Universe is more real than it is for you, since it is Brahman and not the ever fleeting objects and I and you.

Obviously, how could you ever engage in such a debate without knowing anything about VA? Have you read Ramanuja's Gita Bashya, Sri Bhasya or Vedartasangraha?

As if your posts exemplify any knowledge? You have no spiritual common sense that all effort is to know the Self and not for exhibiting. I am replying only for the purpose of right record, else I would avoid you.

Yaavaanartha udapaane sarvatah samplutodake;
Taavaan sarveshu vedeshu braahmanasya vijaanatah.

sarabhanga

18 June 2006, 12:12 AM

atanu

18 June 2006, 01:05 AM

ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवोब्रह्मैव नापरः

brahma satyaṁ jaganmithyā jīvobrahmaiva nāparaḥ

Brahma is eternally true; that which passes is illusory ~ surely, Jiva and Brahma are not different.

Welcome to this thread Sarabhanga ji,

Some vedantic truths supporting brahma satyaṁ jaganmithyā jīvobrahmaiva nāparaḥ are cited below:

'In the beginning, my dear, there was that only which is, one only without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1); 'All this is that Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 7); 'There is here no diversity whatever' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 10); 'For where there is duality as it were, there one sees the other'; 'but where the Self has become all of him, by what means, and whom, should he see? by what means, and whom, should he know?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'the effect is a name merely which has its origin in speech; the truth is that (the thing made of clay) is clay merely' (Kh. Up. VI, 1, 4); �for if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up. II, 7)

The following passages are from the Vishnu-pur�na:

In which all difference vanishes, which is pure Being, which is not the object of words, which is known by the Self only--that knowledge is called Brahman' (VI, 7, 53); .--'Of that Self, although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind, and that is Reality; those who maintain duality hold a false view' (II, 14, 31); 'As owing to the difference of the holes of the flute the air equally passing through them all is called by the names of the different notes of the musical scale; so it is with the universal Self' (II, 14, 32); 'He is I; he is thou; he is all: this Universe is his form. Abandon the error of difference. The king being thus instructed, abandoned the view of difference, having gained an intuition of Reality' (II, 16, 24). 'When that view which gives rise to difference is absolutely destroyed, who then will make the untrue distinction between the individual Self and Brahman?' (VI, 7, 94).

OM OM OM

sarabhanga

18 June 2006, 02:15 AM

If all this is a perpetual illusion ...
Shankaracarya never suggested that Maya is eternal!

ramkish42

19 June 2006, 12:53 PM

Welcome to this thread Sarabhanga ji,

Some vedantic truths supporting brahma satyaṁ jaganmithyā jīvobrahmaiva nāparaḥ are cited below:

'In the beginning, my dear, there was that only which is, one only without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1); 'All this is that Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 7); 'There is here no diversity whatever' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 10); 'For where there is duality as it were, there one sees the other'; 'but where the Self has become all of him, by what means, and whom, should he see? by what means, and whom, should he know?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'the effect is a name merely which has its origin in speech; the truth is that (the thing made of clay) is clay merely' (Kh. Up. VI, 1, 4); �for if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up. II, 7)

The following passages are from the Vishnu-pur�na:

In which all difference vanishes, which is pure Being, which is not the object of words, which is known by the Self only--that knowledge is called Brahman' (VI, 7, 53); .--'Of that Self, although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind, and that is Reality; those who maintain duality hold a false view' (II, 14, 31); 'As owing to the difference of the holes of the flute the air equally passing through them all is called by the names of the different notes of the musical scale; so it is with the universal Self' (II, 14, 32); 'He is I; he is thou; he is all: this Universe is his form. Abandon the error of difference. The king being thus instructed, abandoned the view of difference, having gained an intuition of Reality' (II, 16, 24). 'When that view which gives rise to difference is absolutely destroyed, who then will make the untrue distinction between the individual Self and Brahman?' (VI, 7, 94).

OM OM OM

The words Parah does not indicate oneness to qualify with the word Na to indicate not one.

However, it indicates superiority.

The words Jihvo brahmaiva naaparah (जीवोब्रह्मैव नापरः)indicates, jiva is not superior to Brahma

Seems somewhere something is wrong in the translation

If the word परःindicates एकं, request you to post similar sloka with words परःindicating oneness or अद्वितीयःpls

ramkish42

19 June 2006, 02:07 PM

Atma and Lordship have a difference. If you read Svet. You will find that Atma houses Itself as Lord. Self is Lord, the world, and the Jiva.

Regarding your query, Svet. Upanishad itself states: Eko Rudro dvitiyya na tastu.

When, dvitiyya na tastu, then it is very clear that the param briksha seer, the Lord (Pragnya) and not Lord (Chitta) are all Rudro -- the seer.
This creates more confusion.

1. The story is not in Svetaasvataram
2. if all are one, why it is not indicated in the story
3. if all are one, why is said to eat the fruit of karma and other does not
4. no one can conclude tree is same as birds, no one ever will do the same with birds as same as fruit.
5. Even if it so, why Rudro seer eating Rudro seer, got bound by Karma and why another rudro seer did not indulge in such karmic fruit eating
6. Why the word tastu is not interpretted

The seer; the process of seeing; and the seen; these triunes are apparent,

I afraid this is not so very apparent you see. Make it apparent pls

Reference was given. Gopala Tapaniya.

Yes, definitely, did I ever make out "I am the Lord". This is a perrenial vaisnava sarcasm. I am a spirit pure and simple.

Funny indeed. I am saying you are spirit and you are saying I am the spirit which is lord, in short you are saying you are lord and telling me this is a perennial vaishnava sarcasm. Make way for the truth and tell me what you are - are you a spirit or are you Lord, if you are both where did gopala tapaniya said it. It just reads, I am a spirit

That is a problem. You say I percieve "Tatvamasi". It is not a matter of perception but it is a matter of experience. A prriori decision that perception is stronger than shruti is defective. You are not even inclined to accept that perceptions are infinite and can only guide if they are inspected against scripture.
I agree perceptions are infinite but I object it is projected as if it is a problem. I see no such problem. If one is not going to do vichara, one is not going to find out. However, vichara cannot be prelonging without any intermediary decisions. Once a decision is made, then vichara can proceed.

You are trying to make a idea that infinite vichara cannot culminate to a decision, which I object. Hope you will clear now.

Why experience is beyond the scope of perception. Experiecen is gathered infact by perceptions and anumaana - Prathyaksha + Anumaana = Experience.

And please do not ever ascribe identity in Turiya with Lordship. Lordship has a sattwwa Guna -- Turiya is beyond guna and not attained with a trace of desire present.

Oops - new point for Advaita. Hope Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada is happy with this development of ascribing lordship has gunas.

TS has also highlighted the point that sadhakas at different stages percieve different faces of the truth.

This is possible only for sadhana such as Hata Yoga, where in at different stages different realities emerges. Vedanta is not such sadhana. You are getting confused between the book and wisdom, Method and methodology. When the wisdom is given there is no different truths. Different stages might resemble like doubts but logic serves the answer mostly through perception, hence different stages does not exist in wisdom. Vedanta is wisdom. Pls do not compare it with things like Hata Yoga.

But I repeat: Turiya is shivo, advaitam, in which world disappears, but still indescribable and only proof of it is in identity.

I have no objection to this view, but if you have objection to my view, you have prove you stance first. Yet you have not answered any of queries in full.

I understand. The perspectives are reverse. I would check and question my experiences of waking (when I am solid), dreaming (when I am subtle) and deep sleep (when I am bodiless, egoless, ignorant, but blissfull) against scripture which says that the the reality, the unchanging SELF TURIYA is the substratum of these states.

Now you have explain what is eternity - is it blissful or not. If not why an soul should go to eternity when the bliss is available in deepsleep.

Though perceptions may over rule perceptions of shruti.
Smriti has perceptions. Yes, perceptions are smriti rules over perceptions of common man, for perception of intelligent is taken as right perception. Shruti should speak truth, hence, should be corroborated with perception. If I do not perceive Shri Atanu is telling truth, my best response will be to ignore him. If I see, Shri Atanu has some truth but confusing, I will discussing with Shri Atanu and exploring the ideas. Same will happen to shruti if it is not corroborated, best response it will get is ignorance shoved down its throat.

Let us not do it.

Prajnanam Brahma
Consciousness is Brahman
(Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rg Veda)

Violation of Adisankara bhagavatpada's system. If brahman is consciousness, then it must be saguna. I am getting doubts as to whether you are an Advaiti. Pls do clarify

Ayam Atma Brahma
This Self is Brahman
(Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda)

Tat Tvam Asi
Thou art that
(Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda,
Kaivalya Upanishad)
These are valid quotes, but Visishtadvaita subscribes to it, as atma is part and parcel of Lord. There is some variations, that I will post soon in the original thread

Aham Brahmasmi
I am Brahman
(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda,
Mahanarayana Upanishad)
You had clarified Aham and Brahma parts, how about asmi.

I am lord is conveyed by Aham brahma, but asmi cannot be translated with the word "as". Try out and give me proper translation.

This translates as I exist as Brahman - thus indicating Svarupa/guna similarity and not otherwise. Asmi cannot be translated to Same, to indicate, I am same as brahman.

Visishtadvaiti use this phrase as I am same as brahman to indicate this similarities in terms of Guna, indicating I exist as brahman.

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

19 June 2006, 02:09 PM

Shankaracarya never suggested that Maya is eternal!

Welcome to the thread Guru.

Request you to tell me his opinions pls, to what extent maya is God himself as advitiyabrahman and to what extent it is not eternal.

Jai shree krishna

sarabhanga

20 June 2006, 12:22 AM

sarabhanga

20 June 2006, 01:15 AM

aham brahma asmi

I am Brahman I am

sarabhanga

20 June 2006, 02:31 AM

अहं � अस्मि
ahaṁ � asmi

εγω � ειμι
ego � eimi

I am � I am

atanu

20 June 2006, 03:23 AM

This creates more confusion.

1. The story is not in Svetaasvataram

I assume that you are talking about two bird story. If that is true please check up in Svetaasvataram. It is also there in Mundaka.

Funny indeed. I am saying you are spirit and you are saying I am the spirit which is lord, in short you are saying you are lord and telling me this is a perennial vaishnava sarcasm. Make way for the truth and tell me what you are - are you a spirit or are you Lord, if you are both where did gopala tapaniya said it. It just reads, I am a spirit
[quote=ramkish42]

Funny indeed. There is no I and You in spirit. So, how can I or you be a Lord. You are just coming fom ego I level.

[quote=ramkish42]
I agree perceptions are infinite but I object it is projected as if it is a problem. I see no such problem. If one is not going to do vichara, one is not going to find out.

So please replace 'perception' by Vichara, giving appropriate value to shruti. If someone says "I will not accept that the sky is not blue, since it appears blue to me" -- is akin to VA.

Oops - new point for Advaita. Hope Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada is happy with this development of ascribing lordship has gunas.

Yes. Please note that Krishna truly is unborn mahesvara but endowed with body using his own maya.

Now you have explain what is eternity - is it blissful or not. If not why an soul should go to eternity when the bliss is available in deepsleep.

Thats what. Though Mandukya says: shushupti is bliss, since you do not percieve the bliss directly, you oppose it -- typical of VA.

Vichara will tell you that all the ego conflicts of waking (and in dream also often) do not exist in shushupti. Everyone says I slept blissfully (except in case of nightmare -- but that is in the dream domain). Bliss is there in deep sleep but one does not attain it consciously so the goal is Turiya: the conscious deep sleep or the waking deep sleep.

Same will happen to shruti if it is not corroborated, best response it will get is ignorance shoved down its throat.

See how confusing you are. You want to ignore something before corroboration. How funny dear. Corroboration will require vichara and not rejection.

This translates as I exist as Brahman - thus indicating Svarupa/guna similarity and not otherwise. Asmi cannot be translated to Same, to indicate, I am same as brahman.

Visishtadvaiti use this phrase as I am same as brahman to indicate this similarities in terms of Guna, indicating I exist as brahman.

Advaita also says: I am Brahman in Swarupa. But what are the five koshas? Are they external to Brahman? Can anything be external to consciousness? How do you know it then?

All your arguments are from ego I concept, which itself in untenable.

atanu

20 June 2006, 03:38 AM

I have no objection to this view, but if you have objection to my view, you have prove you stance first. Yet you have not answered any of queries in full.

If you agree to my statement that shivoadvaitam Turiya is to be known in identity with it, then where is the difference? Except of course that since Turiya can never be percieved, with senses. So, as per VA, the verse describing Turiya in Mandukya Upanishad, is not stronger than the perception of its absence.

This is unacceptable. That is all.

atanu

20 June 2006, 03:52 AM

You had clarified Aham and Brahma parts, how about asmi.

I am lord is conveyed by Aham brahma, but asmi cannot be translated with the word "as". Try out and give me proper translation.

What is your concept of I? You have perception of millions of I's, and perception being stronger, I am Brahman, shruti cannot be stronger. With your perception there must be millions of Brahman -- which is absurd.

So, finally we arrive at the question "Who Am I?" Without knowing the "I", how can the truth of "I am Brahman" be ever realised?

atanu

20 June 2006, 04:15 AM

What is your concept of I? You have perception of millions of I's, and perception being stronger, I am Brahman, shruti cannot be stronger. With your perception there must be millions of Brahman -- which is absurd.

So, finally we arrive at the question "Who Am I?" Without knowing the "I", how can the truth of "I am Brahman" be ever realised?

Scripture and Gurus teach that the spiritual hridaya wherein pure "I am" awareness has the birth is the Self -- the highest goal.

atanu

20 June 2006, 04:51 AM

You had clarified Aham and Brahma parts, how about asmi.

I am lord is conveyed by Aham brahma, but asmi cannot be translated with the word "as". Try out and give me proper translation.

This translates as I exist as Brahman - thus indicating Svarupa/guna similarity and not otherwise. Asmi cannot be translated to Same, to indicate, I am same as brahman.

Visishtadvaiti use this phrase as I am same as brahman to indicate this similarities in terms of Guna, indicating I exist as brahman.

Jai shree krishna

I am that (Brahman) I am. There is no Guna involved. It is the pure awareness of I-I. Gunas only differentiate.

If "I exist as Brahman" is true (as opposed to "I exist as Atanu"), then how I differ from Brahman?

Quote:
Prajnanam Brahma
Quote:
Consciousness is Brahman
(Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rg Veda)

Violation of Adisankara bhagavatpada's system. If brahman is consciousness, then it must be saguna. I am getting doubts as to whether you are an Advaiti. Pls do clarify

Will you please explain the difference between the pure "I- I" awareness as opposed to "I am Ramkish" or "I am Brahman" awareness? What gunas are involved in the pure "I-I" awareness and what gunas are invoved in "I am Ramkish" awareness??

sarabhanga

20 June 2006, 05:34 AM

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि ~ aham brahma asmi ~ Yajus

εγω ειμι ό ων ~ ego eimi ho on ~ Exodus

I am that eternal Being ~ I am that Brahman

ramkish42

20 June 2006, 11:42 AM

The words jīvobrahmaiva nāparah indicate that Jiva is neither superior nor inferior to Brahma.

jīvobrahmaiva nā parah

Jiva and Brahma are not far.
Jiva and Brahma are not distant.
Jiva and Brahma are not remote.
Jiva and Brahma are not opposite.
Jiva and Brahma are not strange.
Jiva and Brahma are not foreign.
Jiva and Brahma are not alien.
Jiva and Brahma are not adverse.
Jiva and Brahma are not hostile.
Jiva and Brahma are not another.
Jiva and Brahma are not different.
Jiva and Brahma are not higher or lower.

Thanks guru. As such this subscribes what I understand.

jīvobrahmaiva na aparah

To put in the your own words
नापरः = ना + परः
नाsपरः = ना + अपरः
Request you to recall the comments you had made to my call to explain "Tatvamasi" as "Atatvamasi" as given by Shri Madhvachari, proponent of tattvavada.

Your goodself has commented such things are unwarranted and no one has rights to destroy shrutivakya.

Jiva and Brahma are not another.
Jiva and Brahma are not distant.
Jiva and Brahma are not opposite.

Hence this translations are untenable for this vakya

Seems somewhere something is wrong in your translation. ;)

I am not sure against whom this is aimed. I trust you take more liberty with other Advaitin, hence due to absense of names in quotes, I trust this is against me.

If so, as you had concurred with me and also made views opposite to my contention, I concur with you to the extent you had concurred, and do not concur with you as shown above to the extent you had not concurred with me.

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

20 June 2006, 11:53 AM

I

Funny indeed. I am saying you are spirit and you are saying I am the spirit which is lord, in short you are saying you are lord and telling me this is a perennial vaishnava sarcasm. Make way for the truth and tell me what you are - are you a spirit or are you Lord, if you are both where did gopala tapaniya said it. It just reads, I am a spirit

Funny indeed. There is no I and You in spirit. So, how can I or you be a Lord. You are just coming from ego I level.

So how do you explain advaita. How do you explain statements of Adisankara Bhagavatpada which talks about worshiping "I". How do you explain his statements "I bow to myself again and again"

So please replace 'perception' by Vichara, giving appropriate value to shruti. If someone says "I will not accept that the sky is not blue, since it appears blue to me" -- is akin to VA.

My original Visishtadvaita thread is not grown to explain these questions. If you raising this queries in advance, then we will be in a debate. I am not interested in a debate at this present time. Request you to follow my thread as and when it grows for complete understanding of my stance and Visishtadvaita.

As advaitins have more queries on visishtadvaita, probably, I will examine advaitin stance also in the original thread. Have some patience to give me time.

Thats what. Though Mandukya says: shushupti is bliss, since you do not percieve the bliss directly, you oppose it -- typical of VA.

You have not answered my question but insist I am wrong. That is OK, but will you answer my question atleast.

Vichara will tell you that all the ego conflicts of waking (and in dream also often) do not exist in shushupti. Everyone says I slept blissfully (except in case of nightmare -- but that is in the dream domain). Bliss is there in deep sleep but one does not attain it consciously so the goal is Turiya: the conscious deep sleep or the waking deep sleep.

How vichara can be done when you yourself does not know what is happening in shushupti?

See how confusing you are. You want to ignore something before corroboration. How funny dear. Corroboration will require vichara and not rejection.

I think you have not understood me properly. Request you to read again.

All your arguments are from ego I concept, which itself in untenable.
How did you come to this conclusion?

ramkish42

20 June 2006, 12:01 PM

If you agree to my statement that shivoadvaitam Turiya is to be known in identity with it, then where is the difference? Except of course that since Turiya can never be percieved, with senses. So, as per VA, the verse describing Turiya in Mandukya Upanishad, is not stronger than the perception of its absence.

I have not objection does not mean I agree with you but I am not objecting for it is advaitin concept and has nothing to do with visishtadvaita.

Request you not to interpret visishtadvaita in the light of advaita.

If you believe advaita is truth, I am ok with that, but I am not OK with you saying visishtadvaita is not truth.

Hope I had made clear

This is unacceptable. That is all.

Some times like this I would like to remind you of your style. The abrupt denial does not matches you style. Hope you will remember this in future.

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

20 June 2006, 12:03 PM

What is your concept of I? You have perception of millions of I's, and perception being stronger, I am Brahman, shruti cannot be stronger. With your perception there must be millions of Brahman -- which is absurd.

Hope you will understand this thread is question answer thread to the original visishtadvaita thread. If concept of I is not started in the original thread, I cannot discuss this over here, bypassing other things.

So, finally we arrive at the question "Who Am I?" Without knowing the "I", how can the truth of "I am Brahman" be ever realised?

Good that you had arrived at it, you can discuss it, but I will make my statements first only in my original thread. Hope you will have patience till then.

ramkish42

20 June 2006, 12:05 PM

Scripture and Gurus teach that the spiritual hridaya wherein pure "I am" awareness has the birth is the Self -- the highest goal.

You have to explain you concept of "I am" to assert this

ramkish42

20 June 2006, 12:09 PM

I am that (Brahman) I am. There is no Guna involved. It is the pure awareness of I-I. Gunas only differentiate.

If "I exist as Brahman" is true (as opposed to "I exist as Atanu"), then how I differ from Brahman?

Either Atanu or Brahman if linked with "AS" with "I exist", says Atanu or Brahman, as the case may be, as some qualities comparable with "I" and "I exist" thus indicates gunaas.

Will you please explain the difference between the pure "I- I" awareness as opposed to "I am Ramkish" or "I am Brahman" awareness? What gunas are involved in the pure "I-I" awareness and what gunas are invoved in "I am Ramkish" awareness??

Request you to answer my queries than asking so many questions only to me.

Hope you can also answer than just asking questions.

ramkish42

20 June 2006, 12:13 PM

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि ~ aham brahma asmi ~ Yajus

εγω ειμι ό ων ~ ego eimi ho on ~ Exodus

I am that eternal Being ~ I am that Brahman

Does the word अस्मि means that?

atanu

20 June 2006, 12:20 PM

Nmaste Ramkish Ji,

So how do you explain advaita. How do you explain statements of Adisankara Bhagavatpada which talks about worshiping "I". How do you explain his statements "I bow to myself again and again"
?

The mind worships the Self, till it is absorbed. All japa, meditation etc., happen with one bird worshipping the Lord bird.

How vichara can be done when you yourself does not know what is happening in shushupti?
?

Shushupti is a pada out of three. Behind is the eternal seer -- Turiya. Yogi, who successfully remains as seer of the three states, is always awake. For him Vichara never stops. That is the way to ward off forgetfulness. Then comes Turiyatita.

Regards.

I read somewhere that you are in Chennai and incidentally I am also lodged in a Chennai hotel. May exchange notes on phone even.

atanu

20 June 2006, 12:31 PM

IIf you believe advaita is truth, I am ok with that, but I am not OK with you saying visishtadvaita is not truth.

Hope I had made clear

This is a bit strange. However, I understand you, since my Guru's sayings have been traslated/interpreted by both Advaita and VA adherents.

Some times like this I would like to remind you of your style. The abrupt denial does not matches you style. Hope you will remember this in future.

Jai shree krishna

In general, I agree to this except in case of perception having greater force than shruti.

atanu

20 June 2006, 12:35 PM

Hope you will understand this thread is question answer thread to the original visishtadvaita thread. If concept of I is not started in the original thread, I cannot discuss this over here, bypassing other things.

Good that you had arrived at it, you can discuss it, but I will make my statements first only in my original thread. Hope you will have patience till then.

As you wish. I would have however, liked it here, informally with your own explanations and not citations etc.

atanu

20 June 2006, 12:42 PM

You have to explain you concept of "I am" to assert this

Well Ramkish Ji,

You only postponed it till you broach it in VA thread. To be informal, I do not have any problem to touch the matter here as well.

"I am" is not a concept at all. It is awareness of existence without any other thought. Non-yogis pass through such states unknowingly sometimes. Extreme blissfulness and lightness of spirit marks such fleeting moments. Yogis abide by such a state consciously.

Different people may unconsciosly be passing through such pure state -- as between two thoughts, in the period between waking and deep sleep, or when watching a distant flying object etc.

In nutshell, this is not a conceptual matter but a matter of experience, but one thing is certain that this only happens when one is devoid of body and ego consciousness..

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu

20 June 2006, 12:58 PM

Either Atanu or Brahman if linked with "AS" with "I exist", says Atanu or Brahman, as the case may be, as some qualities comparable with "I" and "I exist" thus indicates gunaas.
.

What is that quality that links? And what are the qualities that are different?

Request you to answer my queries than asking so many questions only to me.

Hope you can also answer than just asking questions.

I will try. But in certain cases to elucidate a point certain questions become important, for example, in this case: the awareness of "I-I" or "I am" against "I am Atanu".

These questions are for mutual help. But if you dislike them, then I will try to avoid them. But in this case, to appreciate that "I am That I am" has no guna linkage, you have to appreciate it yourself. None from ouside can make you realise. For that some internal vichara is essential.

If you have already experienced "I am that I am" or I-I or "I am", opposed to I am Ramkish or I am a jiva or I am a minute soul or I am a Tamilian etc. and have noted some Guna in any of the former experiences then you may enlist those gunas.

If you meditated and examined your own I, you would find it abolutely Nirguna. Gauranteed. I is Nirguna. It has no body, no shape, no color.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan

20 June 2006, 03:01 PM

This is a bit strange. However, I understand you, since my Guru's sayings have been traslated/interpreted by both Advaita and VA adherents.

Advaita takes four or five verses in the scripture out of context and equates jiva and Brahman. Most non advaitins think that such identity statements have to be properly reconciled to those poritions of the scripture that deny an identity. The odd Hindu thought that idenitit statement was just a completely non identity statement. Personally, I find no baiss for equating jiva and Brahman, becuase there is no evidence for its possibility. Nobody can imagine Brahman caught in a net of Maya and trying to atatin salvation through Sudarshan and Atanu.;)

In general, I agree to this except in case of perception having greater force than shruti.

Tell me clearly - If the scripture says that the earth is flat, would you give greater force to perception than scripture. You do not know classic vedanta, all schools including Advaita consider shruti cannot override perception, except Advaita does not stick on to this when it is not convenient.

I may not see or know God now. Shruti can override this kind of unknown perception. But if shruti says that the earth is flat or the moon is blue, it either has to be dumped or interpreted with respect to the perceptio to the extent possible.

There are many vAkyas that connect Brahman and the soul, some of them apparently try to make out an equality( or similarity), some of them say that soul is a part or attribute of Brahman. It boils down to how you reconcile such statements. Does one set of verses overide the validity of other set of verses? Advaita thinks so, and Shanakra says that most of the vedas is false telling wherver it does not suit him. VA adherents hold the vedas to be too sacred to even consider such a possibility. Idenitity verses have to be treated on par with those that deny idenity but hold similarity and connection.

Sudarshan

20 June 2006, 03:10 PM

If you meditated and examined your own I, you would find it abolutely Nirguna. Gauranteed. I is Nirguna. It has no body, no shape, no color.

How do you validate the claims of a person who has known something Nirguna or devoid of all atributes? The very concept is self defeating. Nobody on earth has percieved anything Nirguna, if so he cannot even talk about it. At times, he may have no words to describe it and may call it Nirguna. But oftentimes we see that Brahman is described in all glorious qualities.

The word Brahman means perfect, huge etc. Now apply the prefix Nirguna to it, we get "attributeless and perfect", "attributeless hugenes" etc. Perfection itself is an attribute. If you meditated wou;dn't you find something perfect? If so, then there is no Nirguna there.:)

Sudarshan

20 June 2006, 03:23 PM

If you meditated and examined your own I, you would find it abolutely Nirguna. Gauranteed. I is Nirguna. It has no body, no shape, no color.

Brahman does have a body made of pure bliss or consciousness - scripture validates that.
Anandam BrahmaNo rUpam. To perceive this form of Brahman, you need to have divine eyes which Krishna gave Arjuna. Arjuna did not find Krishna to be Nirguna either, but instead found him to e encompass the whole universe and extended beyond space and time.

Brahman is beyond shape and color of course, when viewed from the point of view of human vision. That does not mean it is Nirguna. Brahman has a quality called Brahmatvam by which you can identify it when you find it in meditation, else meditation will have no final objective.

sarabhanga

20 June 2006, 09:09 PM

The word parah � indicates superiority.

The words jihvo brahmaiva naaparah (जीवोब्रह्मैव नापरः) indicate Jiva is not superior to Brahma.

Seems somewhere something is wrong in the translation.

The words jīvobrahmaiva nāparah indicate that Jiva is neither superior nor inferior to Brahma.

jīvobrahmaiva nā parah

Jiva and Brahma are not higher or lower.
Jiva and Brahma are not distant.
Jiva and Brahma are not opposite.
Jiva and Brahma are not another.
Jiva and Brahma are not different.

jīvobrahmaiva na aparah

Jiva and Brahma are not distant.
Jiva and Brahma are not opposite.
Jiva and Brahma are not another.
naa parah and na aparah can provide exactly the same translation, although the former grammatical derivation is certainly preferred.

Regarding tattvamasi vs. atattvamasi, I have previously admitted the grammatical possibility of this variation, but such an interpretation (in that case) necessarily gives exactly the opposite meaning to what is intended by the context of the Upanishad and must be rejected.

Jiva and Brahma are not distant. Jiva and Brahma are not opposite. Jiva and Brahma are not another.

As such this subscribes what I understand.

Jiva and Brahma are not distant. Jiva and Brahma are not opposite. Jiva and Brahma are not another.

These translations are untenable.
:confused:

sarabhanga

20 June 2006, 09:28 PM

asmi is the first person singular active present form of as (�to be�); and asmi declares that �I am�. :1cool:

atanu

20 June 2006, 11:57 PM

Nobody can imagine Brahman caught in a net of Maya and trying to atatin salvation through Sudarshan and Atanu.;)
.

Only Sudarshan is so imagining. Why do you superimpose your concepts on truth.

Advaita thinks so, and Shanakra says that most of the vedas is false telling wherver it does not suit him. .

Sudarshan you have abused me as not well read etc. etc.. Now I say that you are not well read and not well discerning also. You are stuck in the groove of ego.

Lord Krishna also says in Gita: Arjuna the knowledge of Vedas are about Gunas and Guna bound (not exact translation). Do not ask me to provide the ref.. Find it out, it will do you good.

You have not even GITA.

atanu

21 June 2006, 12:26 AM

Only Sudarshan is so imagining. Why do you superimpose your concepts on truth.

Before signing off for a long time I wish to record one important thing.

All VA and Dvaita discussion takes place from the preamble of the apparent truth of I and You, which do not exist in Self.

To understand this, one has to first understand that the Universe that I percieve is an unique ONE for me alone. An atheist will laugh at a spiritual person and such a laugh is fully warranted from Athiest's point of view. Similar is the Dvaita scorn for VA and Advaita. And similar is VA scorn for Advaita, which, however first percieves the truth from the point of View of ONE AHAM and then proceeds to embrace VA, Dvaita, and atheists as well.

This univers, all that I see -- sun, moon, stars, others, and this so-called body of mine -- constitute my universe. It is there since I percieve it. These are there since I am there. If someone, such as Sudarshan comes and tells me: Universe exists, that also is possible since I exist and percieve. I only percieve Sudarshan existing.

Now what is this I? It is the pure intelligence that percieves and interprets and cognizes. Further, since nothing can be out of this awareness, all things of this universe also exist in this awareness only.

This I is absolutely alone. All other things that appear to exist, exist only because this lonely I exists. If one can percieve this much then Vichara can proceed very fruitfully for him.

This unlimited I, which has arisen in the truth as AHAM has considered the body (which is just another object of this universe) as I. This is the only mistake. The substratum, from which the AHAM arises, has no feeing of I (it is not AHAM) and is ever free.

This is the prasad of Shiva given to me in his infinite mercy, through my Guru, and I write it for Shri Ramkrish.

Om Namah Shivayya

ramkish42

21 June 2006, 04:23 AM

naa parah and na aparah can provide exactly the same translation, although the former grammatical derivation is certainly preferred.

Regarding tattvamasi vs. atattvamasi, I have previously admitted the grammatical possibility of this variation, but such an interpretation (in that case) necessarily gives exactly the opposite meaning to what is intended by the context of the Upanishad and must be rejected.

:confused:

Guruji, you got my question wrongly. Actually I made it confounding, hence I cannot blame you.

I said untenable in the sense in the same way you had commented on "atmaatatvamasi"

I do not question the sanskrit grammar nor the translation attched with na aparah but when aatmaatatvamasi is not be split as atma atatvamasi, how can you susbcribe to the view that naaparah can be split as na + aparah

Want to know what is the difference you try to ascribe to two statements?

ramkish42

21 June 2006, 04:25 AM

asmi is the first person singular active present form of as (�to be�); and asmi declares that �I am�. :1cool:

If so what the word "Aham" is doing out there in the citation.

"I am brahman I am" cannot be right statement, remind you what your goodself has commented to Shri R Kannan while commenting on Tatvamasi

ramkish42

21 June 2006, 04:33 AM

Sudarshan you have abused me as not well read etc. etc.. Now I say that you are not well read and not well discerning also. You are stuck in the groove of ego.

Request both Shri Sudarshan and Shri Atanu Banerjee to desist this kind of posting pls.

Both of you well learned, however making this kind of statements will not raise your aura.

We have mutual difference, but let us respect mutual difference in terms of philosophies and practices

Intention, I understand, here, is not to find out who is superior but to find out what is what in clear terms

ramkish42

21 June 2006, 04:46 AM

To understand this, one has to first understand that the Universe that I percieve is an unique ONE for me alone. An atheist will laugh at a spiritual person and such a laugh is fully warranted from Athiest's point of view. Similar is the Dvaita scorn for VA and Advaita. And similar is VA scorn for Advaita, which, however first percieves the truth from the point of View of ONE AHAM and then proceeds to embrace VA, Dvaita, and atheists as well.

There are lot of assumptions in making such statements.

1. Visishtadvaita and other systems has borrowed a lot from Advaita, where in it is not so
2. Statement is made as if so called "Scorn" are exclusively meant for non advaitin sections, where in I have remind Shri Atanu that Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada, while commenting on his buddhist opponent said either he must be a fool or a knave, which words is not repeated by any of the other philosophers, be it Shrimad Ramanuja or shri Madhavacharyar. Advaita has it own sets of "Scorns"
3. When asked questions, it is not answered in full, hence such statements are unwarranted in toto

I asked if Rudro seer is same as birds and fruit, how does rudro seer eating himself as a fruit in the form himself as a bird become bound by Karma is unanswered till this point
If Brahman satyam jagat mitya, is meant Brahmam Eva Satyam then what is veda and other scriptures, which question I had raised subtly is not answered till this point
Why sankara system of interpretting is changed by tatkala advaitins while interpretting Prajnaanam brahma and Satyam jnanam anantam brahma is not answered till this pointJust by making statements that Advaita is alone truth is going to substantiate the stance taken, nor I can be forced to accept this view as correct. If people assumed that Advaita alone is true, there is no need for people like Shrimad Ramanuja, Shri Madavacharyar, Shri Vallabha, Shri Nimbarka gave an alternative suggestions. This clearly shows there are much learned people whom Advaita is unable to convince.

My point is instead of making ideas that Advaita is sole truth, let us respect the other systems also and try to explore them in the way they are presented so that our knowledge will improve on the subject.

This has nothing to do with our individual's private practise

Jai shree krishna

sarabhanga

21 June 2006, 07:56 AM

ramkish42

21 June 2006, 12:32 PM

Quite simply, naaparah may be naa parah or na aparah, without any necessary change in meaning.

aatmaatat may be aatmaa tat, however aatmaa atat requires the imagined insertion of an extra akara (which subsequently disappears in sandhi) in order to give a meaning that is exactly the opposite of that required by the context!

You are missing again गुरू
आत्मातत्वमसि is आत्म +अतत्वमसि and not आत्मा + अतत्वमसि

As said in आत्मविद्या, आत्म also refers आत्मा

Jai shree krishna

atanu

22 June 2006, 11:05 AM

1. Visishtadvaita and other systems has borrowed a lot from Advaita, where in it is not so
2. Statement is made as if so called "Scorn" are exclusively meant for non advaitin sections, where in I have remind Shri Atanu that Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada, while commenting on his buddhist opponent said either he must be a fool or a knave, which words is not repeated by any of the other philosophers, be it Shrimad Ramanuja or shri Madhavacharyar. Advaita has it own sets of "Scorns"
3. When asked questions, it is not answered in full, hence such statements are unwarranted in toto

General statements which I barely follow. About the third point: what were the questions? Why you are averse to answer a few yourself when my queries are meant to clear the way to set up exact definitions.

I have stated that knowledge gained from the perspective of I and You cannot be true since the Self is ONE without a concept of I and You. I know this effortlessly and firmly and have no need to clear your queries. Proclaiming that the statement that "there is no chair in a dark room" made in a dark room to be still the truth when the lights show that there indeed are chairs --- is fallacy.

And there is Shruti: When the light has risen there is Shiva alone. So, the truth is that which is known when the Self -- the knower, is truly known.

if Rudro seer is same as birds and fruit, how does rudro seer eating himself as a fruit in the form himself as a bird become bound by Karma is unanswered till this point

There is shruti: I am food. I am the eater of the food.

My point is instead of making ideas that Advaita is sole truth, let us respect the other systems also and try to explore them in the way they are presented so that our knowledge will improve on the subject.

This has nothing to do with our individual's private practise

Jai shree krishna

This I fully agree. And I do not say that the concept Advaita is the sole truth --- since what one understands of it is a mere concept and not the advaita Self itself.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu

22 June 2006, 11:21 AM

Request both Shri Sudarshan and Shri Atanu Banerjee to desist this kind of posting pls.

Please do not be parental. It does not suit one whose posts are often laced with sarcasm and irritation? (like using Guru epithet with a wrong connotation).

ramkish42

22 June 2006, 02:37 PM

Please do not be parental. It does not suit one whose posts are often laced with sarcasm and irritation? (like using Guru epithet with a wrong connotation).

This is wrong understanding.

The idea for my original posting as long history, you will never understand it. Request you to stop reading my posts under the idea of irritation and sarcasm.

I always treated you as a learned person.

I have every rights to question Guru, there is nothing wrong in my guru connotation, again this has another story on this forum, however, unlike the previous one this you can guess.

ramkish42

22 June 2006, 02:42 PM

General statements which I barely follow. About the third point: what were the questions? Why you are averse to answer a few yourself when my queries are meant to clear the way to set up exact definitions.

I have stated that knowledge gained from the perspective of I and You cannot be true since the Self is ONE without a concept of I and You. I know this effortlessly and firmly and have no need to clear your queries. Proclaiming that the statement that "there is no chair in a dark room" made in a dark room to be still the truth when the lights show that there indeed are chairs --- is fallacy.

And there is Shruti: When the light has risen there is Shiva alone. So, the truth is that which is known when the Self -- the knower, is truly known.

Again, my questions are not answered.

By this I am unable to understand your understanding in full, hence unable to answer in toto.

By the way, "there is no chair in a dark room" is true till the lights are on or the chair is discovered manouvering in dark. Dark room has no chair is an intermediatary perception, is true unless and until the opposite is proven. There are possibilities that the opposites may not be proven at all. Assume, if the lights are on and you find no chairs, what will you say.

There is shruti: I am food. I am the eater of the food.

Cite in full, who said this, what is the context how this has to be interpretted etc.

Jai shree krishna

sarabhanga

22 June 2006, 08:28 PM

AtmavidyA is a compound ~i.e. �Soul-Knowledge�.

If one considers AtmaAtattvamasi as a simple compound (using Atma-), then the reading would be sa Atma-atattvam asi � iti ~ �It is the Soul-Untruth and you � are thus�.

�That which is that subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Untruth of Self; and you, O Svetaketu, are thus.�

�This (body) indeed withers and dies when the living Self has left it; the living Self dies not. That which is that subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Untruth of Self; and you, O Svetaketu, are thus.�

�As that (truthful) man is not burnt, thus has all that exists its self in That. It is the True. It is the Untruth of Self, and you, O Svetaketu, are thus.�

Your suggestion is plainly ridiculous!

ramkish42

22 June 2006, 09:47 PM

AtmavidyA is a compound ~i.e. “Soul-Knowledge”.

If one considers AtmaAtattvamasi as a simple compound (using Atma-), then the reading would be sa Atma-atattvam asi … iti ~ “It is the Soul-Untruth and you … are thus”.

“That which is that subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Untruth of Self; and you, O Svetaketu, are thus.”

“This (body) indeed withers and dies when the living Self has left it; the living Self dies not. That which is that subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Untruth of Self; and you, O Svetaketu, are thus.”

“As that (truthful) man is not burnt, thus has all that exists its self in That. It is the True. It is the Untruth of Self, and you, O Svetaketu, are thus.”

Your suggestion is plainly ridiculous!

Just to remind you again the suggestion is from one of learned philosopher of India, Shri Madhavacharyar propounder of Tattvavada.

As such the idea of atma + atatvamasi is not countered grammatically but only with context, for a language like sanskrit the suggestion made by Shri Madhavacharyar is also within the context as shown by him.

I am unable to comprehend the terms "Compound" and "Simple Compound", hope guruji will explain this, and on what context "atmavidya" cannot be an example for understanding "atmaatat"

By and large, Visishtadvaita agree with Atmaa + tat and not with atma + atat, but the idea to post this is to pull more information from guru, hence request guruji not to cut it short by saying ridiculous but by explaining more like (i) Is that grammatically incorrect? (ii) Having casted more doubts with statements like Aham Brahmaasmi with two words indicating "I am" with aham and asmi, logically to what extent the meaning is feasible (iii) is that mandatory to agree with the system of Sankaracharyar, if so, why it is not followed with other vedic statements like Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma etc

Jai shree krishna

sarabhanga

22 June 2006, 09:49 PM

"I am brahman I am" cannot be right statement
WHY NOT? The statement was widely known (and understood) in the ancient world, and realizing the true nature of this "I am ~ I am" relationship is the central theme of all Dharma. Just ask any Rastafarian. ;)

sarabhanga

22 June 2006, 10:21 PM

sarabhanga

22 June 2006, 11:22 PM

atanu

23 June 2006, 11:26 AM

Cite in full, who said this, what is the context how this has to be interpretted etc.

And regarding "I am the food and I am the eater", your mis-conception of I has crept into tyour query. I is not this body Atanu or that body Ramkish. I is the universal ONE AHAM.

I requested you to find out whether your I has a form or limit or not? It is by mere thought process that you think I is this physical form. On the the other hand, without the consciousness that you are nothing would exist.

Does I have a form and limit?

ramkish42

23 June 2006, 12:25 PM

अहं (aham) is apparently quite different from अस्मि (asmi), but only for one who is ignorant of both Sanskrit and Vedanta!

In Advaita, no difference perceived.
In Vishishtadvaita, a qualitative distinction remains.
In Dvaita, the aham is regarded as essentially distinct from the asmi.

In Dvaita (including Samkhya and Islam), the ego (aham) can NEVER be equated with the eimi (asmi). And it is interesting that the possibility of atattvamasi appeared in Vedanta only AFTER Islam had already become well-established in Bharatavarsha!

If Asmi is quite different I do not see that in the advaitin translations.

Asmi is often ignored and only Aham brahma is explained often.

Now that idea of not ignoring this asmi in the translation on advaitin is ridiculous for there is not reference to "I exist" available in the any translations.

If both are quite different then the phrase aham brahmaasmi should be interpretted as Aham brahma and Brahmaasmi, indicating ego is brahma and I am that brahma sharing the word brahma with both indicators, which is conspicously absent.

Request guruji not to use such words against me

ramkish42

23 June 2006, 12:31 PM

I have not been discussing with Madhvacarya, but rather with Ramkish42, and as such I have answered all of your questions. Unless you can provide a reasonable explanation of the incomprehensible translations that your suggested interpretation requires, I can say nothing more on this perversion of Vedanta.

As I am not a dvaitin, I am none to comment, but I was under impression that guruji will explain how he mentioned ideas of Madhavacharyar as ridiculous in other thread as well as here. Does this forum members has to agree with the idea that advaita is the only right system and others are ridiculous.

If so, none of my queries on advaita is answered yet, even my question why not atatvamasi is not answered either grammatically or otherwise as indicated

If so why use the word perversion? why should one agree with advaita in toto? Is vendanta is synonymous with advaita?

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

23 June 2006, 12:33 PM

And regarding "I am the food and I am the eater", your mis-conception of I has crept into tyour query. I is not this body Atanu or that body Ramkish. I is the universal ONE AHAM.

I requested you to find out whether your I has a form or limit or not? It is by mere thought process that you think I is this physical form. On the the other hand, without the consciousness that you are nothing would exist.

Does I have a form and limit?

We will stop this at this level for you are not answering any of my questions but putting questions to me perpetually

The idea of this thread is not to explain visishtadvaita in the light of advaita but on its own. Having pulled in advaita and concepts of advaita vis-a-vis visishtadvaita, there is no point in asking question while ignoring queries put on advaita.

Jai shree krishna

sarabhanga

23 June 2006, 09:12 PM

अहं (aham) is apparently quite different from अस्मि (asmi), but only for one who is ignorant of both Sanskrit and Vedanta!

In Advaita, no difference perceived.

If Asmi is quite different I do not see that in the advaitin translations.
Since Advaita is neither ignorant of Sanskrit nor of Vedanta, the apparent difference is disregarded by all Advaitins!

And most translations of the Christian Turiya (4th) Gospel render �I am I� in the sayings of Jesus simply as �I am�.

Now that idea of not ignoring this asmi in the translation on advaitin is ridiculous for there is not reference to "I exist" available in the any translations. If both are quite different then the phrase aham brahmaasmi should be interpretted as Aham brahma and Brahmaasmi, indicating ego is brahma and I am that brahma sharing the word brahma with both indicators, which is conspicously absent.
None of this makes any sense to me!

अहं (aham) is apparently quite different from अस्मि (asmi), but only for one who is ignorant of both Sanskrit and Vedanta!

In Advaita, no difference perceived.
In Vishishtadvaita, a qualitative distinction remains.
In Dvaita, the aham is regarded as essentially distinct from the asmi.

In Dvaita (including Samkhya and Islam), the ego (aham) can NEVER be equated with the eimi (asmi). And it is interesting that the possibility of atattvamasi appeared in Vedanta only AFTER Islam had already become well-established in Bharatavarsha!
Nothing here has been �used against� anyone. I have merely stated my understanding of the facts. If you disagree with any particular point we can consider it further, and I am always happy to re-examine my own understanding in the light of any new information.

sarabhanga

23 June 2006, 09:14 PM

I have NOT considered ANY Vakya merely from the perspective of Dvaita or Advaita. And regarding atattvamasi, my comments have ONLY been from the perspective of Sanskrit grammar and the plain text of the Chandogyopanishad!

Does this forum members has to agree with the idea that advaita is the only right system and others are ridiculous. Why should one agree with advaita in toto? Is vendanta is synonymous with advaita?
What does this hysterical nonsense have to do with anything?

None of my queries on advaita is answered yet, even my question why not atatvamasi is not answered either grammatically or otherwise as indicated.
I have honestly attempted to answer ALL of your queries (as you have presented them here), and I suggest that you re-examine my previous replies.

atanu

25 June 2006, 04:05 AM

We will stop this at this level for you are not answering any of my questions but putting questions to me perpetually

The idea of this thread is not to explain visishtadvaita in the light of advaita but on its own. Having pulled in advaita and concepts of advaita vis-a-vis visishtadvaita, there is no point in asking question while ignoring queries put on advaita.

Jai shree krishna

Jai Jai Shri Krishna,

As you desire Guruji. But please note that the thread is "Queries from VA thread" -- obviously the queries are directed to you since you are the guru. But you only began to counter question.

But let us truly stop it, since you have reached a dead end. Now without knowing the true nature of your own I, you cannot proceed. It will happen on its own time.

Best Wishes and Regards,

Atanu

Om Namah Shivayya

ramkish42

25 June 2006, 10:42 AM

Jai Jai Shri Krishna,

As you desire Guruji. But please note that the thread is "Queries from VA thread" -- obviously the queries are directed to you since you are the guru. But you only began to counter question.

But let us truly stop it, since you have reached a dead end. Now without knowing the true nature of your own I, you cannot proceed. It will happen on its own time.

Best Wishes and Regards,

Atanu

Om Namah Shivayya

I have not requestioned you to undermine the system you belong to, but to understand the queries, why did they arise at first.

As your idea of understanding visishtadvaita was purely from advaitic standpoint, I have to question your approach, hence those questions.

I am not a guru and does not purport to be one.

Jai shree krishna.

Sudarshan

25 June 2006, 08:35 PM

This I fully agree. And I do not say that the concept Advaita is the sole truth --- since what one understands of it is a mere concept and not the advaita Self itself.

Even if Advaita is the sole truth, what is the practical use of the philosophy, and what does it preach to acheive its goal? Virtually nothing!

I can see you often writing one should realize the undivided Atman or something, but Advaita gives no practical solution to the problem. How do you arrive at this goal? By just imagining that "I am Brahman"? Then it should be very simple.

Better to invest oneself in philoshopes that are more practical, preach Bhakti and Saranagati, which have high emotional appeal and spiritual value. What you talk here might be suitable for one in a million( a few sanyasins perhaps?) and have virtually no place in practical religion. The distinctions of Pravritti and Nivritti are your own concepts and not endorsed by scripture.

The Jnana Yoga and all the stuff have no place for the common man - just bush beating. Mental speculations and training techniques may work for a very few people. First try to obtain a Darshan of Bhagavan by constant devotion and selfless discharge of duties - he will come and reveal you the technique of realization. A kid trying to take a leap across a 5m wide pond is sure to fall into it and drown. So many people who have tried the path of Jnana instead of Bhakti have miserably failed, and when long years of penance do not work it can break the hearts and cause severe depression. In the religion where love towards God is paramount and the relationship imagined is like friend or a servant, there is never any scope for such depression, nor any panic sets in anytime.

Dviata first, because that is our plane of activity -- non Dvaitic stuff including Vishsitadvaita can come much later through God's grace. Sri Madvacharya did a great service by providing a practical philosophy.

ramkish42

26 June 2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharabhanga
अहं (aham) is apparently quite different from अस्मि (asmi), but only for one who is ignorant of both Sanskrit and Vedanta!

In Advaita, no difference perceived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramkish
If Asmi is quite different I do not see that in the advaitin translations.
Since Advaita is neither ignorant of Sanskrit nor of Vedanta, the apparent difference is disregarded by all Advaitins!

And most translations of the Christian Turiya (4th) Gospel render �I am I� in the sayings of Jesus simply as �I am�.

Guruji, pranams.

Here we are not discussing anything about christianity or ahmiyaad ahmimazdo and similar stuff.

Question here is, if Aham is ego and asmi is I am then how it is represented in the translations you had provided. Your translation reads as if soul is brahman, though it is indicated, however, there is no reference to Ego. If soul exists because of ego, then the sruti vakya indicates both, i.e. soul and ego separately, which is not furnished in any advaitin translations.

I understand Ahamasmi indicates I exist, hence the right translation should be I exist as brahman, hence the qualifying word "AS" does not indicate complete togetherness and clarifies both are separate and on some plane exist together, which is clarified by Visishtadvaitin in body soul theory.

None of this makes any sense to me!

Verily because, guruji, when translating Astu you recognise the presence word "Astu" in all slokas and when translating asmi you ignore it at some places.

Neither I am repeating nor I am rejecting your idea in whole.

If you recognise the presence of the word Asmi in Aham brahmaasmi then you should interpret this phrase in accordance with other sruti vakyas like "yasyaasmi nathamantharemi" Yajur brahmana Ashtaka 3-7, "patim visvasya..." and Brihadaaranyaka upanishad that says soul is the body of the lord. Even otherwise, if this indicates Ego using the word Aham, then reference to the soul should had been indicated by asmi, then it should be ego is brahman and I am brahman which I indicated in my previous posting using Aham brahma and brahmaasmi, using the word brahma as a common factor. You had rejected both, thus ignoring the word asmi in toto in translation.

If you understand this phrase as I am that brahman then this stance has to be differenciated from the stance taken by Hiranya in saying "Aham eva brahman", hence such insistence. Having understood there must be some difference but unable to identify what is that difference is really confusing.

Hope guruji, you will clarify all this

Sudarshan

26 June 2006, 12:40 PM

Here we are not discussing anything about christianity or ahmiyaad ahmimazdo and similar stuff.

Question here is, if Aham is ego and asmi is I am then how it is represented in the translations you had provided. Your translation reads as if soul is brahman, though it is indicated, however, there is no reference to Ego. If soul exists because of ego, then the sruti vakya indicates both, i.e. soul and ego separately, which is not furnished in any advaitin translations.

I understand Ahamasmi indicates I exist, hence the right translation should be I exist as brahman, hence the qualifying word "AS" does not indicate complete togetherness and clarifies both are separate and on some plane exist together, which is clarified by Visishtadvaitin in body soul theory.

Verily because, guruji, when translating Astu you recognise the presence word "Astu" in all slokas and when translating asmi you ignore it at some places.

Neither I am repeating nor I am rejecting your idea in whole.

If you recognise the presence of the word Asmi in Aham brahmaasmi then you should interpret this phrase in accordance with other sruti vakyas like "yasyaasmi nathamantharemi" Yajur brahmana Ashtaka 3-7, "patim visvasya..." and Brihadaaranyaka upanishad that says soul is the body of the lord. Even otherwise, if this indicates Ego using the word Aham, then reference to the soul should had been indicated by asmi, then it should be ego is brahman and I am brahman which I indicated in my previous posting using Aham brahma and brahmaasmi, using the word brahma as a common factor. You had rejected both, thus ignoring the word asmi in toto in translation.

If you understand this phrase as I am that brahman then this stance has to be differenciated from the stance taken by Hiranya in saying "Aham eva brahman", hence such insistence. Having understood there must be some difference but unable to identify what is that difference is really confusing.

Hope guruji, you will clarify all this

aham brahmAsmi cannot even qualify for an abedha shruti unlike tat tvamasi, becuase it violates Panini's rule of grammar. (3.2.123 - vartamAne laT). In Sri Shankara's commentary, asmi is translated as bhavAmii, which suffers from the same flaw. The whole context in which the sentence is made further rules out such interpretations.

Even if you were to take the words as they stand, then you are right: "I am Brahman I am" would be a horrible translation. It should be a dependency relationship only - I exist in(as) Brahman.

Sudarshan

26 June 2006, 02:33 PM

It should be remembered that the context for 1.4.10 of Brihadaranyaka follows from the question posed earlier: "They say: "Since men think that by the Knowledge of Brahman they become all, what, pray, was it that Brahman knew by which It became all?".

Are we assume that Brahman became Brahman by obtaining brahmavidya like other men? So, the terms in aham brahmAsmi on literation interpretations do not answer the above questions. Moreover, the Advaitic Brahman without the distinction of knower and known, cannot know that "I am Brahman".

Brahma simply means perfect or complete. When somebody realizes that "I am perfect" he attains the Brahman - that is the essence of this vAkya. That is what Vamadeva says as well. When Vamadeva knew that he was perfect( freed of all Karma), he was able to identify himself with Sun and Manu. ( through co-ordinate predication).

The passage actually reads like this: Brahman knew of itself as - I am Brahman I am. It should have read as Brahman knew of itself as Brahman. That is why, the conventional meanings of aham and asmi in the context do not make any sense.( and does not answer the question raised earlier)

sarabhanga

26 June 2006, 08:49 PM

ramkish42

27 June 2006, 12:28 PM

Namaste Ramkish,

ahaM = I am = ego = I am = asmi = I am = eimi = I am = brahma = supreme Being = ho on = that Being = 'o on = aum

ών = ॐ

ahaM brahma asmi = I am [that] Brahman I am = ego eimi ho on = I am that Being I am

ahaM is Jivatman; and asmi is Paramatman. ;)

ahaM brahmAsmi = I am �I am Brahman� = I am �I am Being� = I am �I be� = I am �I exist� = I am �I am� = I truly AM!

I am the every essence of �I am� = I am Existence, itself = I am (I am) Brahman.

The third person imperative astu ~ i.e. �It (must) be!� or �Let it be!� does NOT appear in ahaM brahmAsmi NOR in tattvamasi.

asmi appears in ahaM brahma asmi, but NOT in tat tvamasi.

Each Vakya should first be understood in the context of its own Upanishad!

Thanks guruji

However, there are areas not explained. if ahaM = I am = ego is correct then I am �I am Brahman� becomes "Ego is I am brahman", which corroborates my statement. "I am [that] Brahman I am" is one of bad explanation guruji had ever given over this forum.

If "ahaM is Jivatman; and asmi is Paramatman", what does word brahman doing in between, what is the perceived or sruti difference you are establishing between paramatman and brahman?

The statement "asmi appears in ahaM brahma asmi, but NOT in tat tvamasi" is highly irrelevant over here for we are discussing only first and not the latter. Having related both, when you reject the idea of Brahman is Brahman in tatvamasi without looking into the subtle difference established by two words used to indicate (Tat and Tvam), what is reason in trying to establish subtle differences for aham and asmi

Jai shree krishna

atanu

29 June 2006, 04:37 AM

Thanks guruji

However, there are areas not explained. if ahaM = I am = ego is correct then I am �I am Brahman� becomes "Ego is I am brahman", which corroborates my statement. "I am [that] Brahman I am" is one of bad explanation guruji had ever given over this forum.

If "ahaM is Jivatman; and asmi is Paramatman", what does word brahman doing in between, what is the perceived or sruti difference you are establishing between paramatman and brahman?

Jai shree krishna

AHAM (which is one I sense everywhere and which is ONE SELF being aware of "I" is confused with Ahamkara: such as "I am Ramkish".

The pre I awareness devoid of all qualifications (added post thought to I) and Brahman are not different.

aham brahmAsmi does not indicate two individuals as Brahman alone is. There is no second. Rest is all verbal acrobatics of restless minds.

"That Thou art" also does not mean two individuals since THat alone is. The vakya means one's conception of I as a different being from THAT is faulty. And this pointless discussion demonstrates the ability of analytical mind to hide the identity though taught again and again to svetaketu.

"I am" is the ever existent truth and that itself is Brahman.

Om Namah Shivayya

sarabhanga

29 June 2006, 04:37 AM

Namaste,

Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, �I am Brahman�. From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vamadeva saw and understood it, singing, �I was Manu (moon), I was the sun�. Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.

This is the Anushandhana Vakya, from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [1.4.10] of the Yajur Veda; which explains the creative wisdom of Brahman, in answer to the question: �If men think that by knowledge of Brahman they will become everything, what then did that Brahman know, from whence all this sprang?�.

aNu-SaNDha means �subtle hermaphrodite� ~ and the Anushandhana Vakya is Brahman in the very moment of His creative self-expansion.

sarabhanga

29 June 2006, 04:54 AM

Brahma simply means perfect or complete.
brahma is derived from bRh (or bRMh), which means �to be thick, grow great or strong, or increase�. :)

And the causative bRMhayati is �to make big or fat or strong, increase, expand, further, or promote�. :Cool:

The term Brahma, while applied to the perfect Absolute, is more correctly the means or the cause of perfection or completion. ;)

atanu

29 June 2006, 05:21 AM

Advaita takes four or five verses in the scripture out of context and equates jiva and Brahman. -----.;)

Tell me clearly - If the scripture says that the earth is flat, would you give greater force to perception than scripture. -------

Tell me clearly how self defeating but how adamant you can be? You come on strong with all the wrong examples and never accept a single folly.

In your example, the perception is that the Earth is flat. A child till explained with evidences that the earth is spherical, will know the earth as flat only.

It is because of query the earth is known as spherical and not because of perception. But you (VA) are asking us to discard query and meditative knowledge of the sages in favour of perceptions. A child like proposition indeed.

The perception is "I am a body made of bones and flesh distinct from all other such bodies" and scripture is "I am Brahman". So, enquiry should be made within as to how this is, instead of taking the perception as stronger. Brahman is known to mind through scripture alone and nothing else. So, promoting a sense perception as stronger is useless in quest for the truth.

On the other hand, Brahma Jigyasa is auspicious.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu

29 June 2006, 05:50 AM

Before signing off for a long time I wish to record one important thing.

All VA and Dvaita discussion takes place from the preamble of the apparent truth of I and You, which do not exist in Self.

To understand this, one has to first understand that the Universe that I percieve is an unique ONE for me alone. An atheist will laugh at a spiritual person and such a laugh is fully warranted from Athiest's point of view. Similar is the Dvaita scorn for VA and Advaita. And similar is VA scorn for Advaita, which, however first percieves the truth from the point of View of ONE AHAM and then proceeds to embrace VA, Dvaita, and atheists as well.

This univers, all that I see -- sun, moon, stars, others, and this so-called body of mine -- constitute my universe. It is there since I percieve it. These are there since I am there. If someone, such as Sudarshan comes and tells me: Universe exists, that also is possible since I exist and percieve. I only percieve Sudarshan existing.

Now what is this I? It is the pure intelligence that percieves and interprets and cognizes. Further, since nothing can be out of this awareness, all things of this universe also exist in this awareness only.

This I is absolutely alone. All other things that appear to exist, exist only because this lonely I exists. If one can percieve this much then Vichara can proceed very fruitfully for him.

This unlimited I, which has arisen in the truth as AHAM has considered the body (which is just another object of this universe) as I. This is the only mistake. The substratum, from which the AHAM arises, has no feeing of I (it is not AHAM) and is ever free.

This is the prasad of Shiva given to me in his infinite mercy, through my Guru, and I write it for Shri Ramkrish.

Om Namah Shivayya

Om Namah Shivayya

tatvam

23 August 2006, 01:11 AM

TruthSeeker

23 August 2006, 06:10 AM

Can you explain the Bheda sruthi,Abheda sruhi,and Ghataka sruthi.?

Hi tatvam,

Bheda sruthi = Dvaita
Abheda sruhi = Advaita
Ghataka sruthi = Dvaita-Advaita

To verify the answers, I would invite you to enquire yourself, so that you can know the truth. Is jiva same as Brahman? How does one know that without knowing either the jiva or the Brahman?

tatvam

23 August 2006, 09:24 PM

Hi tatvam,

Bheda sruthi = Dvaita
Abheda sruhi = Advaita
Ghataka sruthi = Dvaita-Advaita

To verify the answers, I would invite you to enquire yourself, so that you can know the truth. Is jiva same as Brahman? How does one know that without knowing either the jiva or the Brahman?

Hi Truthseeker,
I didn't ask you the philosophy..I asked one thing that how can you coordinate all different sruthis of Veda..is Veda contradicting itself with different types of sruthis(like Bheda,Abheda..)?

I think total Vedas are telling the same and single truth, we are interpreting wrongly..

tatvam

23 August 2006, 09:46 PM

AHAM (which is one I sense everywhere and which is ONE SELF being aware of "I" is confused with Ahamkara: such as "I am Ramkish".

The pre I awareness devoid of all qualifications (added post thought to I) and Brahman are not different.

Hi Atanu,
I don't understand your above statement.." I = Brahman"
what do you mean by it?
please explain me..what is Brahman first..and then what is "I(awareness devoid of qualifications)" ?

awareness is a quality or self?
If I am Brahman..why I don't know that? is it because of Avidya or Maya?
what is avidya? is it a quality?
If I am Brahman and because of Avidya I became as Jeeva..then what is the guarantee that I couldn't again get avidya after knowing that I am Brahman?
Please... I am very much confused about all the different statements here..please clarify me (any one can clarify it).
I will be thankful to you.

satay

24 August 2006, 12:44 AM

I think total Vedas are telling the same and single truth, we are interpreting wrongly..

namaste,
have you studied the vedas? What is your interpretation? Please share...

satay

24 August 2006, 12:46 AM

Hi Atanu,
I don't understand your above statement.." I = Brahman"
what do you mean by it?
please explain me..what is Brahman first..and then what is "I(awareness devoid of qualifications)" ?

awareness is a quality or self?
If I am Brahman..why I don't know that? is it because of Avidya or Maya?
what is avidya? is it a quality?
If I am Brahman and because of Avidya I became as Jeeva..then what is the guarantee that I couldn't again get avidya after knowing that I am Brahman?
Please... I am very much confused about all the different statements here..please clarify me (any one can clarify it).
I will be thankful to you.

You ask very good questions! Nice...why not meditate on those and find out your own answers instead of asking someone else? :headscratch:

tatvam

24 August 2006, 01:15 AM

namaste,
have you studied the vedas? What is your interpretation? Please share...

Hi satay,
I have not studied Vedas..I am a VA follower(which explains Vedas in exact manner)..and I studied some thing about Advaita..and I am convinced with VA.
And also I think Advaita is the wrong interpretation.

Thank you.

tatvam

24 August 2006, 01:20 AM

You ask very good questions! Nice...why not meditate on those and find out your own answers instead of asking someone else? :headscratch:

Hi Satay,
I have not asked you specifically..I asked to him, who argued that "I = Brahman"
and also I requested if anybody can answer my questions..
If you can't answer my questions..better leave
By meditation can you get all answers to your questions?

Thank you.

satay

24 August 2006, 01:49 AM

Hi satay,
I have not studied Vedas..I am a VA follower(which explains Vedas in exact manner)..and I studied some thing about Advaita..and I am convinced with VA.
And also I think Advaita is the wrong interpretation.

Thank you.

If you are convinced about VA what do you care about advaita? Also, who cares what you think about advaita if it right or wrong...who cares what you think? :dunno: To an advaitin what does it matter what 'you' or 'I' who are just some electrons on the net 'think'?

satay

24 August 2006, 01:54 AM

Hi Satay,
I have not asked you specifically..I asked to him, who argued that "I = Brahman"
and also I requested if anybody can answer my questions..
If you can't answer my questions..better leave
By meditation can you get all answers to your questions?

Thank you.

You are correct you didn't ask me specifically.

..better leave

unfortunately, I can not 'leave'...my feet have chains...:crazy:

I asked you in PM to review the site rules. I trust you have done so already. if not, please go through the site rules.

This site is for positive presentation of hindu dharma...where we want to coexist with "all" hindu thoughts of all schools.

satay

24 August 2006, 01:57 AM

By meditation can you get all answers to your questions?

Thank you.
Do you meditate?

satay

24 August 2006, 02:03 AM

hey tatvam

You said that you are convinced about VA. Would you be so kind to explain to the rest of the members who may not know what VA is all about? There is a dedicated forum here for VA...you can start a new thread there...

Looking forward to your posts...

:coffee:

satay

24 August 2006, 02:08 AM

Hi satay,
I have not studied Vedas..I am a VA follower(which explains Vedas in exact manner)..and I studied some thing about Advaita..and I am convinced with VA.
And also I think Advaita is the wrong interpretation.

Thank you.

You haven't studied the vedas but you are convinced that VA explains Vedas in an exact manner? hmm...

you have studied 'some thing' about Advaita and you think that advaita is the wrong interpretation of vedas...but you haven't studied the vedas...hmm...

ah? why don't you prepare a scholary rebuttal against Advaita and post it here in Advaita forums? That would be more constructive than chasing 'atanu'.

tatvam

24 August 2006, 02:16 AM

tatvam

24 August 2006, 02:22 AM

You haven't studied the vedas but you are convinced that VA explains Vedas in an exact manner? hmm...

you have studied 'some thing' about Advaita and you think that advaita is the wrong interpretation of vedas...but you haven't studied the vedas...hmm...

ah? why don't you prepare a scholary rebuttal against Advaita and post it here in Advaita forums? That would be more constructive than chasing 'atanu'.

Hi Satay,
Do all need to study Vedas to understand VA and Advaita?
I think Advaita and VA are based on Vedas and they are just explanations of Vedas.
correct me if I am wrong..
don't get angry man..I am just asking( you are misunderstanding me I think) I am a learner and I jsut said my understanding.

You are correct you didn't ask me specifically.

unfortunately, I can not 'leave'...my feet have chains...:crazy:

I asked you in PM to review the site rules. I trust you have done so already. if not, please go through the site rules.

This site is for positive presentation of hindu dharma...where we want to coexist with "all" hindu thoughts of all schools.

You have edited the line..I didn't ask you to leave from forum..but I asked you to leave answering if you can't answer me properly.

I read the site rules..and you only started posting negative posts..I posted with enthusiasm to learn more about Advaita from Atanu..but you spoiled my enthusiam.
Please look into your replies to me..do you think they are in positive manner?
Please pardon me if I did hurt you in any post.

satay

24 August 2006, 02:24 AM

Hi Satay,
Do all need to study Vedas to understand VA and Advaita?
I think Advaita and VA are based on Vedas and they are just explanations of Vedas.
correct me if I am wrong..
don't get angry man..I am just asking( you are misunderstanding me I think) I am a learner and I jsut said my understanding.

Did I come across as angry? I am rarely angry...

Your previous post seemed illogical that's all...you said that you haven't studied he vedas but VA is the correct interpretation of vedas. and then you said that you studied something about advaita but are convinced that advaita is wrong interpretation. That doesn't make any sense if you haven't studied the vedas.

anyway, why don't you present your case about why you think advaita is wrong interpretation? (do it in the advaita forum please...saves me some work having to move your thread)

satay

24 August 2006, 02:28 AM

You have edited the line..I didn't ask you to leave from forum..but I asked you to leave answering if you can't answer me properly.

oh okay. I shall stay then.

I read the site rules..and you only started posting negative posts

No idea what you are talking about.

..I posted with enthusiasm to learn more about Advaita from Atanu..but you spoiled my enthusiam.

But my question remains...what do you care about advaita if you are convinced about VA?

Please pardon me if I did hurt you in any post.

not sure how one can get hurt with an electron...:headscratch:

tatvam

24 August 2006, 02:34 AM

oh okay. I shall stay then.

No idea what you are talking about.

But my question remains...what do you care about advaita if you are convinced about VA?

not sure how one can get hurt with an electron...:headscratch:

Do you think your posts are in positive way?

tatvam

24 August 2006, 02:40 AM

oh okay. I shall stay then.

But my question remains...what do you care about advaita if you are convinced about VA?

I don't care about Advaita..but I am arguing with you people who believe in Advaita.
If you believe you are a Brahman..then stop discussions in forum and which is mere illusion and be like a "Existence".
Ah..after all advaitins' philosophy is different and implementation is different.
why are you worrying about my caring of Advaita?
Are you a admin?

satay

24 August 2006, 02:43 AM

Do you think your posts are in positive way?

You said that you are convinced that VA is correct and advaita is wrong. You also said that you want to learn about advaita even though you already think it is wrong interpretation of vedas. Based on what you said I posed three questions to you as follows:
1. why do you care about advaita if you are convinced about VA?
2. why don't you post a rebuttal of advaita in that forum so that you can share with others why you think advaita is wrong.
3. why don't you post explanation of VA so that other members can learn from you.

What's negative about my questions?

On the other hand, in your first post here yesterday you made a personal insult to atanu which I deleted and requested you to read the site rules. And today, you say that advaita is wrong but don't want to provide any rebuttal of it. hmm...negative ?:headscratch:

tatvam

24 August 2006, 02:48 AM

You said that you are convinced that VA is correct and advaita is wrong. You also said that you want to learn about advaita even though you already think it is wrong interpretation of vedas. Based on what you said I posed three questions to you as follows:
1. why do you care about advaita if you are convinced about VA?
2. why don't you post a rebuttal of advaita in that forum so that you can share with others why you think advaita is wrong.
3. why don't you post explanation of VA so that other members can learn from you.

What's negative about my questions?

On the other hand, in your first post here yesterday you made a personal insult to atanu which I deleted and requested you to read the site rules. And today, you say that advaita is wrong but don't want to provide any rebuttal of it. hmm...negative ?:headscratch:

Ok..you see my all posts in this thread..where I started..I asked some questions regarding Atanu's post ..then you came between and asked me that did you read Vedas? then I answered that I am a follower of VA..see the flow..and how you diverted it.

satay

24 August 2006, 02:51 AM

I don't care about Advaita..

What? In a previous post you said

I posted with enthusiasm to learn more about Advaita from Atanu

So were you lying? Now you are contradicting yourself. Are you all right man?

but I am arguing with you people who believe in Advaita.

first of all there are no 'people' here...secondly, I never told you what I believe and you are making a big assumption implying that 'I' believe in advaita without knowing anything about me and without even taking the time to learn about what I believe in.

If you believe you are a Brahman..then stop discussions in forum and which is mere illusion and be like a "Existence".

I never said what I believe...are you okay?

why are you worrying about my caring of Advaita?

did I seem worried?

Are you a admin?
what is 'admin'?

tatvam

24 August 2006, 02:51 AM

You said that you are convinced that VA is correct and advaita is wrong. You also said that you want to learn about advaita even though you already think it is wrong interpretation of vedas. Based on what you said I posed three questions to you as follows:
1. why do you care about advaita if you are convinced about VA?
2. why don't you post a rebuttal of advaita in that forum so that you can share with others why you think advaita is wrong.
3. why don't you post explanation of VA so that other members can learn from you.

What's negative about my questions?

On the other hand, in your first post here yesterday you made a personal insult to atanu which I deleted and requested you to read the site rules. And today, you say that advaita is wrong but don't want to provide any rebuttal of it. hmm...negative ?:headscratch:

Thanks for your advice..I will post in Advaita forum.

satay

24 August 2006, 02:52 AM

Thanks for your advice..I will post in Advaita forum.

did you think I was giving you advice?:crazy:

TruthSeeker

24 August 2006, 03:20 AM

Hi satay,
I have not studied Vedas..I am a VA follower(which explains Vedas in exact manner)..and I studied some thing about Advaita..and I am convinced with VA.
And also I think Advaita is the wrong interpretation.

Thank you.

Namaste tatvam,

You say you have not studied vedas. Then you say that you are a VA follower. And then add that VA explains vedas in an exact manner. You then claim that you do not know Advaita. But you are convinced that Advaita is wrong.

No logic anywhere. You might call yourself a blind VA follower + a blind Advaita disbeliever, just like our Abrahamic brothers.

I doubt if you are a "true" VA follower, which does require one to be humble and not make claims like the above. Are you a VA follower at all, or somebody who came to make fun of VA followers?:)

tatvam

24 August 2006, 04:18 AM

Namaste tatvam,

You say you have not studied vedas. Then you say that you are a VA follower. And then add that VA explains vedas in an exact manner. You then claim that you do not know Advaita. But you are convinced that Advaita is wrong.

No logic anywhere. You might call yourself a blind VA follower + a blind Advaita disbeliever, just like our Abrahamic brothers.

I doubt if you are a "true" VA follower, which does require one to be humble and not make claims like the above. Are you a VA follower at all, or somebody who came to make fun of VA followers?:)

Namaste Truthseeker,
Sorry..I couldn't make sence with my statement, what I wanted to say is "I didn't read vedas mean..as "Anantha vy vedaaha:.." nobody can read Vedas fully..what I mean to VA explains vedas perfectly mean..VA explains Bheda sruthi,Abheda sruthi,Ghataka sruthi in a coordinating manner(which actually seems contradiction to one another) where advaita failed to explain the bheda sruthis perfectly.

TruthSeeker

24 August 2006, 05:01 AM

Namaste Truthseeker,
Sorry..I couldn't make sence with my statement, what I wanted to say is "I didn't read vedas mean..as "Anantha vy vedaaha:.." nobody can read Vedas fully..what I mean to VA explains vedas perfectly mean..VA explains Bheda sruthi,Abheda sruthi,Ghataka sruthi in a coordinating manner(which actually seems contradiction to one another) where advaita failed to explain the bheda sruthis perfectly.

Ok..so what shall we do now?

Coordination can be done in many ways isn't it? How could anyone say mine alone is correct. Advaita's coordination is like this :-

bheda shruti talks of samsAra
Ghataka shruti talks of Isvara
abedha shruti talks of moksha.

tatvam

24 August 2006, 05:28 AM

Ok..so what shall we do now?

Coordination can be done in many ways isn't it? How could anyone say mine alone is correct. Advaita's coordination is like this :-

bheda shruti talks of samsAra
Ghataka shruti talks of Isvara
abedha shruti talks of moksha.

Namaste truthseeker,

Bheda sruthi means for example :
" dwaa suparnaa sayijaa sakhaaya.."
is it talking about Samsaara? who said so?
it is not samsaara..because as per advaita samsara is mere illusion..and here the sruthi is talking about Paramatma and Jeevatma which are eternal.

satay

24 August 2006, 09:36 AM

it is not samsaara..because as per advaita samsara is mere illusion..

man! you really need to learn something about advaita first...wow!
If I were you I would stick with VA or learn at least the basic principles of advaita before any advaitin here considers your posts worthy of response.

:rolleyes: amazing...

TruthSeeker

24 August 2006, 10:42 AM

Namaste truthseeker,

Bheda sruthi means for example :
" dwaa suparnaa sayijaa sakhaaya.."
is it talking about Samsaara? who said so?
it is not samsaara..because as per advaita samsara is mere illusion..and here the sruthi is talking about Paramatma and Jeevatma which are eternal.

How can you make assumptions that Paramatma and Jeevatma are referrred to here, and that the jeevatma is eternal? What exactly do you call as jeevatma? ( could you trace jeevatma to one of the tattvas?). Also, could you describe various tattvas defined by VA ( starting from the five elements) , and which of these are eternal?

The same Mundaka Upanishad mentions that the jeevatma is extremely equal to Brahman( 3.1.3), and that the knower of Brahman becomes the Brahman.(3.2.9), and there is certainly no harm done in assuming jeevatma to be non eternal.

tatvam

24 August 2006, 10:46 PM

man! you really need to learn something about advaita first...wow!
If I were you I would stick with VA or learn at least the basic principles of advaita before any advaitin here considers your posts worthy of response.

:rolleyes: amazing...

Hi Satay,

I don't understand your problem, are you alright?
I am explaining what I know about Advaita , and if you think my openion is wrong about advaita and if you can correct me...do it in that way..but you are doing in other way..

As per my understanding of advaita "Samsara is mere illusion"
I got the points from following references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Adi Shankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara), 788 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/788)�820 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/820) CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era), was the first in the tradition of Advaita Vedanta who consolidated the Advaita Vedanta siddhānta (system). He wrote commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasthana_Trayi). A famous quote from Vivekacūḍāmaṇi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viveka_Chudamani), one of his Prakaraṇa graṃthas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara#Prakara.E1.B9.87a_gra.E1.B9.83tha) (philosophical treatises) that succintly summarises his philosophy is:[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#_note-1)

Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah � Brahman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman) is the only truth, the world is unreal, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self

tell me what is the meaning of jagat midhya if you know..

There is unltimately no difference between Brahman and individual self..as per advaita and they proved it by abheda sruthi.

then why the single brahman became the unreal world?

see the Shankara's philosophy which I know:

Brahman

According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman (pronounced as /brəh mən/; nominative singular Brahma, pronounced as /brəh mə/) is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being.

is my understanding of advaita is wrong?

tatvam

24 August 2006, 11:06 PM

How can you make assumptions that Paramatma and Jeevatma are referrred to here, and that the jeevatma is eternal? What exactly do you call as jeevatma? ( could you trace jeevatma to one of the tattvas?). Also, could you describe various tattvas defined by VA ( starting from the five elements) , and which of these are eternal?

The same Mundaka Upanishad mentions that the jeevatma is extremely equal to Brahman( 3.1.3), and that the knower of Brahman becomes the Brahman.(3.2.9), and there is certainly no harm done in assuming jeevatma to be non eternal.

Hi truthseeker,

the advaita explanation of Mundakopanishad's sloka : "Dwaa suparnaa.." is as follows:

Third Mundaka
Chapter I
1 Two birds, united always and known by the same name, closely cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit; the other looks on without eating.

next sloka:

2 Seated on the same tree, the jiva moans, bewildered by his impotence. But when he beholds the other, the Lord worshipped by all and His glory, he then becomes free from grief.

doesn't it refer Jeeva and Brahman? then what is that two birds refers?

yes I too know that Mundakopanishad mentions the knower of Brahman becomes the Brahman...then what is the meaning of jeeva and Brahman one is eating fruite and another is looking it.

Is the shruthi contradicting ?

that is what I am telling Advaita explained the abheda shruthi as the "I = Brahman"

Then why this difference came ?

as per advaita :

Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirguna_Brahman)).

According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being.

If only Brahman was existed then from where avidya came?

is it second element..then what is the Advaita?

or Avidya is attribute? how it can be attribute , because as per adi Shankara knowledge-self is Brahman...avidya is opposite to knowledge..then how avidya can be attribute of Brahman?

tell me what is avidya then?

if because of avidya Brahman became dual as this world..then when he will become again as Brahman without avidya..and is there any chance to get avidya again after becaome Brahman? ofcourse it should be there..