All this is Brahman

[mithya]

It doesn't mean the cup you see in front is Brahman. Because you define the thing you see in front as a cup based on color, shape, size, form etc. And that itself is based on sensory input, eyes in this case. In other words, without eyes, there's no color, shape, form. Without ears, no sound. Without the nose, no smell, and so on and so forth.

Therefore, the cup is not really a cup, it's a cup as far as the eyes are concerned. Else, what is it? It's got to be the formless, attributeless entity, Brahman. The same goes for objects pertaining to other sense organs as well.

It's in this context we say "All this is Brahman." It doesn't mean every individual object is Brahman. That's ridiculous. These objects exist due to our sensory perceptions. Without them, they don't exist the way we think they exist. Their real nature is devoid of forms and qualities. Hence, what we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, and think are unreal. They don't exist at all. It's only the formless Brahman that exists, but thanks to senses, we think IT exists as forms, qualities etc. The latter is an illusion, while the former alone is real. Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

Unfortunately, most neo-Hindus and even self-proclaimed vedantins don't ever say the world is false, that everything we perceive is false, and that the Formless alone is real. They speak a dubious language to convince their audience, thereby diluting the greatness of advaita.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Let me test my understanding:

you mention

Therefore, the cup is not really a cup, it's a cup as far as the eyes are concerned. Else, what is it? It's got to be the formless, attributeless entity, Brahman. The same goes for objects pertaining to other sense organs as well.


A view of saguṇa Brahman (form) does not apply, only nirguṇa ( formless) Brahman is, well Brahman? Is this what you mean to say? only formless is Brahman.

If so what then is the cup's material? Is it other then Brahman? If so, then assist me with the truth ekaṁ sva advitīyam¹. All is One, except for cups? http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

praṇām

words

ekaṁ or eka एक- one and the same , solitary , single + sva स्व- one's own + advitiya अद्वितीय- without a second

[devotee]

A view of saguṇa Brahman (form) does not apply, only nirguṇa ( formless) Brahman is, well Brahman? Is this what you mean to say? only formless is Brahman.

If so what then is the cup's material? Is it other then Brahman? If so, then assist me with the truth ekaṁ sva advitīyam¹. All is One, except for cups? http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Namaste Yajvanji,

Somehow similar feelings came to my mind on reading this post ! :)

Regards,

OM

[saidevo]

Namaste everyone.

I think Mithya has expressed the nature of Brahman very well: for one who was debating that Brahman and Consciousness are material, he has come a long way, so we need to encourage this new member and not snub his points of view.

Brahman by his very nature is only NirguNa Brahman. SaguNa Brahman is only a projection on the Absolute Reality of Brahman. The Absolute Reality of Brahman is essentially Consciousness which is expressed in terms of Sat-Chit-Ananda. SaguNa Brahman multiplies himself into the world of forms and entities using his IchChA-JnAna-KriyA shaktis and the three guNas Sattva-Rajas-Tamas inherent in him.

Here is what I think of Mithya's pov:



It doesn't mean the cup you see in front is Brahman. Because you define the thing you see in front as a cup based on color, shape, size, form etc. And that itself is based on sensory input, eyes in this case. In other words, without eyes, there's no color, shape, form. Without ears, no sound. Without the nose, no smell, and so on and so forth.


The object that we know as a cup is only due to our sensory-mental perception in the waking state of our existence. However, the observation "Without ears, no sound." etc. is only partially right because we can and do perceive sounds and shapes and color in our mind, so the perception is also mental.



Therefore, the cup is not really a cup, it's a cup as far as the eyes are concerned. Else, what is it? It's got to be the formless, attributeless entity, Brahman. The same goes for objects pertaining to other sense organs as well.


I think Mithya only speaks of the NirguNa Brahman here, not SaguNa. The 'material' of the 'cup' (in the question Yajvan has posed) is found in Mithya's expression "formless, attributeless entity, Brahman." This is in otherwords not the Prakriti that exists for us in the cup but the Consciousness of Brahman. And this also agrees with the statement "ekaM sva advitIyam" because there is only one thing here which is the Reality. Yajvan's question "All is One, except for cups?" has the answer "Yes, all is One and the cups are only its forms."



The latter is an illusion, while the former alone is real. Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

Unfortunately, most neo-Hindus and even self-proclaimed vedantins don't ever say the world is false, that everything we perceive is false, and that the Formless alone is real. They speak a dubious language to convince their audience, thereby diluting the greatness of advaita.


This is where Mithya misses the point. Sankara said "brahma satyaM, jagat mithya" but by the term 'mithya' he meant only the conditional reality of the world ('vyavahArika satyam'), which is the nature of SaguNa Brahman. So the Hindus who perceive the world this way instead of as an illusion are not at all at fault.

[atanu]

Friends,

There is another aspect in addition to all valuable aspects already noted. The 'ekaM sva advitIyam' though is the brahmasatyam, is only known to 'ekaM sva advitIyam'. So, a cup which knows itself as a cup cannot say "I am Brahman". Only Vishnu can procalim "I am Brahman" without taint. Though All this is truly Brahman.

Yet, is Mithya without an agenda? His points relate to Bheda-Abheda faith, though he may or may not know it. IMO, he knows it well. There is no harm or wrong in adhering to faith but some inconsistencies rankle. Why Mithya takes up the case of a cup as not being Brahman? What comes next?

Om

[atanu]

It doesn't mean the cup you see in front is Brahman.

Dear Mithya,

You should read the verse in Gita, wherein Lord says:

24. Brahman is the oblation; Brahman is the melted butter (ghee); by Brahman is the oblation poured into the fire of Brahman; Brahman verily shall be reached by him who always sees Brahman in action.

-----------------------------

The point I am making is that a Cup does not have to decide whether it is Brahman. The decision is made by you.

Om

[atanu]

It doesn't mean the cup you see in front is Brahman.

It's in this context we say "All this is Brahman." It doesn't mean every individual object is Brahman. That's ridiculous.

Unfortunately, most neo-Hindus and even self-proclaimed vedantins don't ever say the world is false, that everything we perceive is false, and that the Formless alone is real. They speak a dubious language to convince their audience, thereby diluting the greatness of advaita.

Namaste,

This is an example of superposition and also of circular logic. As per Mithya, a person, who is not a neo-Hindu and not a self proclaimed Vedantist (but is a real vedantist) will not speak dubiously and will say that everything we perceive is false. This is apparently fine as far as it goes.

But then how such a person determines that the cup is a separate reality, which is not Brahman? I hope that the falacy is clear?

Om

[mithya]

Except for Sai, no one has even bothered to understand what I was trying to say. So let me explain this a bit more.

Let's call reality X. This X is interpreted as thought by the mind, as sound by the ear, as form by the eye, and so forth. Which means thought is NOT X, sound is NOT X etc. etc. Thought, sound, sight happen to be the interpretation of X, rather than X itself.

Going by this, what's the nature of the cup in this context? Well, what we call cup is NOT X, it's X interpreted in a certain way by the eye. It's NOT X itself. In other words, perception of reality is NOT reality itself. Hence, forms must be negated in this manner, so that we can reach a point where X=Formless, Attributeless Brahman, Nirguna Brahman. Saguna is simply a conventional reality, as real (or perhaps as unreal) as the tiger in the dream that wakes us to REALITY.

In conclusion, Brahman is Formless, and forms are illusions which occur due to the 'translation' (which is essentially a distortion) done by the mind and senses. This 'distortion' or 'form' cannot be equated with Brahman. On the contrary, this distortion MUST be negated for Brahman to be. This is the meaning of "All this is Brahman." It's quite diabolical to say forms are Brahman, since forms are illusory. So how can illusion=Brahman?

In fact, such a view is in line with Shuddhadvaita of Vallabha, a vaishnava school. Sankara's advaita isn't so silly, it negates forms to affirm the Formless which is the Sole Reality behind these illusions.

[mithya]

But then how such a person determines that the cup is a separate reality, which is not Brahman? I hope that the falacy is clear?


The cup has form. Brahman is formless. So the cup cannot be Brahman. Then what is it? It's NOT Brahman itself, but a false interpretation of Brahman by our limited senses. Which means, without senses, this flawed interpretation (and therefore the cup or any form, for that matter) wouldn't even exist. Therefore, forms are false, and Formless Brahman alone is true.

[satay]

namaksar,

one word: Ajativada

[atanu]

Except for Sai, no one has even bothered to understand what I was trying to say. So let me explain this a bit more.

Let's call reality X. This X is interpreted as thought by the mind, as sound by the ear, as form by the eye, and so forth. Which means thought is NOT X, sound is NOT X etc. etc. Thought, sound, sight happen to be the interpretation of X, rather than X itself.



If X is reality then what is mind that is interpreting the X? Is it Y?



The cup has form. Brahman is formless.

Again, if Brahman is X (which is All). Is the cup then Y -- another true entity? I am sorry that you do not realise that you are first giving the cup a distinct different reality and then negating it as "Not Brahman". Whereas advaita teaches that there is no second; there is only Brahman. However, your logic is OK till this point for the purpose of illustration. This is the way of Neti-Neti more or less.

But further, you link this to some neo vedantins who presumedly say that "a cup is Brahman" and thus lower the greatness of advaita. I have not heard any advaitin teaching that a cup is Brahman. Why you put your assumption into some neo-vedantists mouth is mystery to me.

-----------------------------
No advaitin (neo or Adi) says that a Cup is Brahman. What is said is as below:

24. Brahman is the oblation; Brahman is the melted butter (ghee); by Brahman is the oblation poured into the fire of Brahman; Brahman verily shall be reached by him who always sees Brahman in action.


Unfortunately, most neo-Hindus and even self-proclaimed vedantins don't ever say the world is false, that everything we perceive is false, and that the Formless alone is real. They speak a dubious language to convince their audience, thereby diluting the greatness of advaita.

I see dubious attempt here. Please show me a so-called neo-vedantist (neo advaitin?)who says that "A cup is Brahman" and thus lowers the greatness of advaita.

Om

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

saidevo writes

I think Mithya has expressed the nature of Brahman very well: for one who was debating that Brahman and Consciousness are material, he has come a long way, so we need to encourage this new member and not snub his points of view.

I also think mitya's offer is valuable… no 'snubbing' , just looking for clarity on the POV regarding
I think mithya only speaks of the NirguNa Brahman here, not SaguNa
That said,
mithya writes


In conclusion, Brahman is Formless, and forms are illusions which occur due to the 'translation' (which is essentially a distortion) done by the mind and senses.
This was the point I was after and mithya has addressed it ( thank you). I see the point made that illusion is being equated to distortion which I think is a good way of viewing it vs. the world is NOT real. I am not inferring mithya or anyone ( so far) is offering the 'not real' POV at this juncture.

The world is real yet a different expression of the Infinite. I am not a fan of the world being illusion as if un-real. It is just another expression of the Fullness (bhūman) that is brought to our awareness.

This full expression - I find the most clarity is offered in the 36 tattva's reviewed and defined in kaśmir śaivism. I am not voicing better, just more clarity for my comprehension. It may not be the same for others.

It takes one seamlessly from the pure Absolute to the Full relative field of life, seamlessly. A continuum of consciousness being expressed on every level of creation. Kaśmir śaivism's nature is in concert with ekaṁ sva advitīyam.

praṇām

[mithya]

advaita teaches that there is no second; there is only Brahman.

Yes, there's only Brahman which is formless. So you agree with me when I say the world of forms that we perceive is NOT Brahman and therefore devoid of reality? it's just an illusion? If so, you and I agree. Else, you're saying on the one hand that Brahman which formless alone is real, and contradict the next minute by saying the forms such as cup can be equated to the Formless Brahman. Hope you see your logical fallacy here.


But further, you link this to some neo vedantins who presumedly say that "a cup is Brahman" and thus lower the greatness of advaita. I have not heard any advaitin teaching that a cup is Brahman. Why you put your assumption into some neo-vedantists mouth is mystery to me.

You gotta be kidding me! Starting from Ramakrisha to Sai to Ravishankar, all neo-vedantins say, "The world is Brahman, you're Brahman, I am Brahman, the animals are Brahman," etc. etc. In other words, they've always equated the world of forms to the Formless Brahman, instead of negating the forms as illusory, and affirming Brahman as the Sole Reality. Vivekanand in this regard went too far, which you probably know. So I am surprised you'd even raise this question.

[devotee]

Yes, there's only Brahman which is formless. So you agree with me when I say the world of forms that we perceive is NOT Brahman and therefore devoid of reality? it's just an illusion? If so, you and I agree. Else, you're saying on the one hand that Brahman which formless alone is real, and contradict the next minute by saying the forms such as cup can be equated to the Formless Brahman. Hope you see your logical fallacy here.


Namaste Mithya,

I really admire your post when I compare it with your previous posts. However, please try to think over :

i) If the cup is an illusion, does it mean that cup doesn't exist ?
ii) What is creating this illusion ? Mind ? If mind is creating this illusion, is mind different from Brahman ?
iii) How do we perceive that something is formless ? This formlessness is also a concept arising within mind. Is the "formless" really "formless" ? When whatever I conceive is completely within my mind, this concept of "formlessness" is also within mental realm, right ?

If Brahman alone exists, as you accept, then what is mind, illusion, the form, the formlessness & who is trying to understand all these ?

OM

[atanu]

You gotta be kidding me! Starting from Ramakrisha to Sai to Ravishankar, all neo-vedantins say, "The world is Brahman, you're Brahman, I am Brahman, the animals are Brahman," etc. etc. In other words, they've always equated the world of forms to the Formless Brahman, instead of negating the forms as illusory, and affirming Brahman as the Sole Reality. Vivekanand in this regard went too far, which you probably know. So I am surprised you'd even raise this question.

I did not know that Vivekananda has said "A cup is Brahman" and thus has lowered advaita.

But Yes. I was kidding. I wanted to bring out the real you. And it has come out. Let saidevo, yajvan take over now.

When mithya said that the neo vedantic claim "a cup is Brahman" was ridiculous, I understood what he meant. He meant that Shankara saying "Jiva is none other than BRAHMAN " IS RIDICULOUS.

Mithya is Mithya. But probably he has managed to hood wink many here.
---------------------------------

"Jiva is none other that Brahman" is the basic teaching of Shankara that the teachers whom Mithya has named have propounded. Mithya is basically attacking Shankara and none else. Can one see the link between all of anadi's claims and mithya's claims?

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Mithya,

I really admire your post when I compare it with your previous posts. However, please try to think over :

OM

Namaste Devotee,

I admired mithya from the beginning -- for the clever way he tried to legitimise use of the mayavadi term for advaitin (by acting as advaitin himself). Then post after post, he has tried to build up the case of eternal difference between the world of matter (cup) and spirit (brahman).

He forgot that the so-called permanent difference itself is mAyA (is perception). He attacks perception as wrong taking founadation of a wrong perception that cup is one and Brahman is another.

I admired mithya from the very beginning as mithya. He is actually trying to prove that advaita does not mean "not two" but advaita means "non-material", which Brahman is. A cup, on the hand, similar to Jiva is material.

That is what he wants to prove.

Om

[mithya]

i) If the cup is an illusion, does it mean that cup doesn't exist ?

How do you know the cup exists? If you say it exists because you see it, does that mean snake exists just because you see it superimposed on the rope?

[mithya]

As there's so much misunderstanding here, let me explain this one last time with the rope-snake analogy.

Once I realize that there's no snake, I say to myself, "There was never a snake, what I thought was a snake was a rope all along!" In this case, even though I say, "The snake was a rope all along," I don't mean it in the sense of identity, because rope and snake are actually two distinct entities and hence it'd be preposterous to say rope=snake. Yet, language makes it appear as if I am equating the two. In reality, I am establishing the snake as rope NOT by equating them, but by NEGATING the former to affirm the latter.

Genuine advaitins like Sankara, Madhusudhana and even the present day Sankara have always done this, they always arrive at Brahman through negation; whereas the neo-vedantins adopt a false approach, that is, identification. Why? I don't know, maybe, they're ignorant. Or, maybe, they're afraid of being ridiculed, and so they play it safe by not even bothering to mention the illusory nature of the world.

[atanu]

As there's so much misunderstanding here, let me explain this one last time with the rope-snake analogy.
Starting from Ramakrisha to Sai to Ravishankar, all neo-vedantins say, "The world is Brahman, you're Brahman, I am Brahman, the animals are Brahman," etc. etc. In other words, they've always equated the world of forms to the Formless Brahman, instead of negating the forms as illusory, and affirming Brahman as the Sole Reality. Vivekanand in this regard went too far,

Genuine advaitins like Sankara, Madhusudhana and even the present day Sankara have always done this,

---- whereas the neo-vedantins adopt a false approach, that is, identification. Why? I don't know, maybe, they're ignorant. Or, maybe, they're afraid of being ridiculed, ----.

Mithya,

You are the architect of confusion, if there is any. Confusion is actually in you and thus you claim that Vivekananda etc. are ignorant or are afraid.

How do you know that Vivekananda did not arrive at "Jiva is none other than Brahman" through negation? Net-Neti is a way to discriminate when still there is ideation of a superposition being real. For Neti-Neti vichara one requires something to negate. Where there is no such ideation, then what is Neti-Neti? At that stage comes the knowledge "I am Brahman" or "Soham"

Yet, in next stage, the sadhaka being the Turya itself, the sense of "I am Brahman" is also impossible in samadhi.

Next, a brahma jnani teacher, established in Turya, yet partaking in the states of waking/dreaming/sleeping will teach "I am Brahman" and "You are Brahman" and "All is Brahman", since "Brahman is the consciousness". Just as Ramakrishna or Vivekananda or Shri Shri Ravi Shankar teach.


And just as Shri Krishna teaches:
24. Brahman is the oblation; Brahman is the melted butter (ghee); by Brahman is the oblation poured into the fire of Brahman; Brahman verily shall be reached by him who always sees Brahman in action.When Brahman is in action, all things are evident, yet nothing is independent or second to Brahman, who remains "Without a Second", which is the timeless reality yet knowable only in Samadhi.

-----------------------------

It is difficult to understand as to from which side you are coming. I am mystified by your cocky sureness which makes you claim that Vivekananda et. al. were ignorant, implying that only mithya is not ignorant. This is preposterous and ridiculous.

Om

[devotee]

Namaste Mithya,


How do you know the cup exists? If you say it exists because you see it, does that mean snake exists just because you see it superimposed on the rope?

But can we say that "cup" doesn't exist ? "cup" may not exist as I percieve, but does "it' exist" or not ? The perception may be false but what is being perceived falsely cannot be false !

See, this existence or even non-existence concepts are within our mind. We have some idea about what 'existence' means & similarly some idea about what means non-existence. However, there is nothing which can be taken as the absolute reference here for comparison because there is none but One ! That is why Lord Krishna says in B.G., "It is neither Sat nor Asat". Can we perceive something which is not "sat" but on the other hand it is also not "asat" ?? You can't.

You say, "Cup doesn't exist". But how do we know that it also doesn't exist ? The snake is not there but there is certainly something on which the "snake" is superimposed. You cannot have a false perception unless there is something to be taken as false.

You say that the Brahman is formless but actually whatever is form is formless & whatever is forrmless the same does appear as form. Which is more Brahman-like -- the space or the cup ? So, there is no illusion in space & there is only illusion in cup ?

OM

[atanu]

How do you know the cup exists? If you say it exists because you see it, does that mean snake exists just because you see it superimposed on the rope?

Devotee has explained this excellently. Let us look at it from another perspective.

There is some one who has to perceive the cup. Can we examine the relationship of the perceiver with the cup that he perceives?

Om

[saidevo]

Namaste everyone.

I must first thank Atanu for giving me the right perspective and approach to what Mithya is driving at.



You gotta be kidding me! Starting from Ramakrisha to Sai to Ravishankar, all neo-vedantins say, "The world is Brahman, you're Brahman, I am Brahman, the animals are Brahman," etc. etc. In other words, they've always equated the world of forms to the Formless Brahman, instead of negating the forms as illusory, and affirming Brahman as the Sole Reality. Vivekanand in this regard went too far, which you probably know.




Why? I don't know, maybe, they're ignorant. Or, maybe, they're afraid of being ridiculed, and so they play it safe by not even bothering to mention the illusory nature of the world.


Ramakrishna, Sai (both Shirdi and Sathya), Ravishankar and Vivekananda are all Self-realized souls: it would be plain silly to label them as 'neo-vedantins' and height of ignorance that borders on arrogance to say that they are 'ignorant' or 'afraid' and 'play it safe'.

I would appreciate Mithya if he says that a cup is a sensory-mental perception and hence does not have the reality it seems to have for us. But when he tries to give a distinctly different, alternative reality to a cup in his bid to establish that the cup is not Brahman, I would certainly say that his argument is fallacious. Here is my reasoning about that fallacy--mithya--that Mithya seeks to put on his views consistently:

• Who are we to say that the cup is not Brahman? Did the cup tell us that it is not Brahman, only poor formless material unlike the humans with a great soul and mind and intellect? How do we know that a cup 'feels' differently that it is not Brahman right now and can only become so when it 'dies' and sheds its form?

• I would dare say that the cup--the material cup--and for that matter the three 'lower' kingdoms of mineral, vegetable and animal--are in a better state to realize their 'brahmatvam' or Brahmanity than us, humans. A cup has no waking or dreaming state; it is always in the state of deep sleep--perhaps turIya--and has unified its knowledge about the seer and the seen, the knower, known and knowledge!

• In the same way, the vegetable kingdom has probably no mind, so no dreaming state; and the animal kingdom has a far less complicated mind, so readily enjoys its deep sleep and perhaps peeps into the states of turIya. How can we be so arrogant to declare that a cup is only material, not Brahman and that it is the same with a plant, a bird, animal or another human? What knowledge do we possess to make such a declaration and then ridicule the Self-Realized as 'neo-vedantins' when they say that you and I and your pet dog and plant and the teacup are all Brahman? Has the physical science with its dubious ramifications into world of mind given such knowledge to us? Did we get into a state of turIya and find that the poor cup was always doomed to stay in its material state?

A wave and its froth are only emanations from the ocean and all the three are basically water in nature. The wave and its froth will realize that they are the water of the ocean only when they subside and merge into it. The wave that has already done this and risen again does not declare that the other waves or froth are not the Brahman of the Ocean since they are yet to realize it, although they might themselves 'know' the reality.

[simex]

Mithya, please excuse me if I have misunderstood your posts, but I think I see an error in your logic.

You say that forms, like 'cup', are illusory; that they are a misapprehension by the mind. So, to say "cup is Brahman" would be false, since 'cup' is an illusion, as opposed to Brahman, which is real. But, how is it that the illusion comes to you, if it is not real? How can you be aware of something that is not real?

You are correct to say that forms are illusory, but you fail to see that the illusions themselves are real, no matter how illusory they may be. Illusions are a phenomenon which occurs, and as a result we are discussing them here.

So X is reality, which I mistake for a cup, but the mind which mistakes X for 'cup' is also X. Most importantly, the act of misapprehending is also X. The apprehension of a cup requires 3 'separate' things: reality, which is misapprehended; A body, complete with a mind; and the concept "cup". But all of these are X, so there is no separation at all: X is misapprehending itself as a "cup", and this misapprehension is absolutely real, because it is nothing more than X (i.e. reality).

Yes, forms are illusion, but even "illusion" is a form, as are all concepts.

[saidevo]

"The cup is not Brahman, only an illusion, because it is not formless. The 'neo-vedantins' like Sai Baba, Ramkrishna and Ravishankar say that we are all Brahman, in fact everything in this world is Brahman. They are either ignorant or afraid to say that Brahman is only formless--a state we can never reach so long as we are in a form."

If this is Mithya's line of thinking and argument, I can as well extend it and say (no offense meant):

"Why a cup? What I see of myself is also an illusion because I am a form myself. I cannot see and know myself without my senses and mind, let alone the intellect and wisdom! I am a form in my waking and dreaming states, I don't know what happens in my deep sleep state, and I have not tasted the state of TurIya. This means, for me, that Brahman--and my own consciousness as part of it--should be subtle material; no no, perhaps subtle energy because a material has a form! What else can it be, with all its powers of omnipresence and omniscience?

"It follows that people like the neo-vedantins who say that I am Brahman are only kidding! They are perhaps ignorant when they say that an animal is also Brahman. They are perhaps afraid to declare that this world is only an illusion because Brahman cannot be formful.

"How can I accept their statements? How do I know that they are Self-Realized, when I have not myself had that realization? After all they look and act and converse the way I do or any other human being does, and the only indication that they are different from me is their lofty declaration that is hard to accept! How can I believe them unless I know it myself?..."

At this point of my thinking, the cup of tea I held between my fingers suddenly seemed too hot to hold, slipped to the ground spilling the tea all over my shirt and broke into formlessness. It seemed to tell me, "Perhaps now you would accept me as Brahman!" A voice inside me foreboded, "Perhaps you would know when you shed your own form."

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I read many of the posts offered and am happy the conversation exists ( even with the appearent mischief ). How so? Proper inquiry establishes a conviction about the true nature of the rope and removes the great suffering of worldy existence casued by the delusionaly snake¹.

This Brahman is great - can It be the cup and the non-cup? Can it be the form and formless? The perfection of Consciousness can assume many/any forms without losing its non-dual nature. That it is why It is rooted in bṛh - great, strong, expand.

To point at It is a limiting action , as one cannot limit Brahman; by its very nature it is without limits; one cannot say it is this or only that ( a cup).
Even if you eliminate all the finite cups, people, worlds, galaxies, Brahman still exists. Chasing it with words is like looking for the children born from the barren mother.

for one that has been bitten by the serpent of ignorance the only remedy (auṣadha or medicine) is knowledge of the Supreme
(brahma-jñānauṣadhaṁ)¹

praṇām

references
Vivekacūḍāmaṇi - 12th śloka; 63rd śloka

[mithya]

I would appreciate Mithya if he says that a cup is a sensory-mental perception and hence does not have the reality it seems to have for us. But when he tries to give a distinctly different, alternative reality to a cup in his bid to establish that the cup is not Brahman, I would certainly say that his argument is fallacious. Here is my reasoning about that fallacy--mithya--that Mithya seeks to put on his views consistently:

• Who are we to say that the cup is not Brahman? Did the cup tell us that it is not Brahman, only poor formless material unlike the humans with a great soul and mind and intellect? How do we know that a cup 'feels' differently that it is not Brahman right now and can only become so when it 'dies' and sheds its form?



Where did I ever say the cup must shed its form and 'become' Brahman. Don't put words into my mouth. What we call cup is a cup only because our senses/mind give it a certain form, and therefore we call it a cup. Else, does it exist? No, which means Brahman alone exists as a substratum, and everything else, including our forms, are false.

Abusing me won't help your case. Calling me insincere, like Atanu and others, won't help. Creating a strawman and attributing false statements to me won't help. It only betrays your ignorance and frustration.

[mithya]

To sum it up, according to neo-vedantins here and elsewhere, all forms are Brahman even though Brahman is formless. This is contradiction number one. There's no such thing as illusion, even though illusion is the single most important concept in advaita, without which differences can never be explained. This is contradiction number two. Everything is real, and everything is Brahman! This is not only contradiction number three, but this is suspiciously similar to dvaita and Shudha advaita, and has nothing to do with Sankara's advaita whatsoever.

Case closed.

[simex]

In response to your question, Mithya, "real" and "illusion" are not mutually exclusive. It sounds like you are confusing "real" with "material" and "unreal" with "immaterial".

In the snake/rope example, the illusion is a real thing that occurs, it's just that it occurs in the mind of the observer.

To say that anything is "unreal" is preposterous! Once you think of it, it is at the very least a thought. Thoughts are real; this post is the manifestation of thought in the material.

[mithya]

Here's something from advaita-vedanta.org, I am sure these people are more learned than you can ever be. Pay attention to the bolded part in the second paragraph.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
avidyA and mAyA -
Why does human perception fail to see brahman directly? SankarAcArya attributes it sometimes to avidyA (ignorance) and sometimes to mAyA (the power to deceive). As the bRhadAraNyaka upanishad puts it, "vijnAtAram. are kena vijAnIyAt?" - How is the Knower Itself to be known? It also stands to reason, therefore, that any effort at characterizing brahman falls far short of brahman. No words reach brahman; how can mere verbal descriptions claim to describe It? advaita now turns to the ancient technique of adhyAropa-apavAda (sublation of superimposition) to explain this.



Thus, although brahman is called the instrumental and material cause of the universe, advaita tells us that this is only a preliminary view of brahman, motivated by a need to explain creation of the universe. In order to understand brahman, one has to go beyond this preliminary view, and understand brahman in Itself, not necessarily in relation to the universe. Then it is understood that the whole universe is only superimposed on the underlying Reality that is brahman. To really know brahman, one needs to sublate this superimposition, and look at the substratum (adhishThAna) that is brahman. As for the exact nature of avidyA and mAyA, later authors (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/later.html) seem divided into two major schools of thought, namely the bhAmatI (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/bhavir.html#bha) and the vivaraNa (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/bhavir.html#viv) schools.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bolded part makes it clear that unless we sublate/negate this superimpostion, which is the world of forms (which includes cups, Yajvan!), Brahman which is the formless substratum cannot be known. Anyone who disagrees with this, even if he's a world-famous guru, disagrees with advaita. No way around it. So deal with it.

[satay]

namaste mithya,


Since you and atanu can't argue, you're resorting to abuse. Well done!



I don't want to speak for atanu but I have nothing to 'argue' with mithya.
I am looking for a quote on where 'advaita' says, 'anything is unreal'...can't find...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I wonder if the conversation's intent is to know the nature of the SELF ( ātma-vastunaḥ), or of if at some juncture it has become one of jalpa¹. It is the desire to know ( jijñāsa) that is most befitting Brahman.

For me, I will yield to the greater minds on this debate and retire to other conversations, which may bear fruit.

praṇām

words
jalpa जल्प- a kind of disputation (overbearing reply and disputed rejoinder)

[Znanna]

Namaste,

If the cup contains water or wine, and I am thirsty...

I'll drink.



ZN

eta: or vodka :)

[devotee]

Namaste All,

Yajvan ji has offered these two jewels :


Chasing it with words is like looking for the children born from the barren mother.


I think we all are saying the same thing in different words & none explains the Brahman as it is. "From where the words return" !


I wonder if the conversation's intent is to know the nature of the SELF ( ātma-vastunaḥ), or of if at some juncture it has become one of jalpa¹. It is the desire to know ( jijñāsa) that is most befitting Brahman.

Thanks yajvanji, I too quit this thread.

Regards,

OM

[saidevo]

We are missing several points that speak of the different levels of Reality in the snake-rope and cup examples, thanks to the power of illusion created by Mithya's statements!

The Reality of the snake-rope

A rope is seen as a snake, when looked from a distance or from lack of lighting. The error of illusion is removed when we come sufficiently near or bring a torch to ascertain the true nature of the object we saw as snake. Why did the rope appear as snake and not something else in the first place? How was the error of illusion removed? What is the relationship in the rope-snake that made the former appear as the latter? Let us try to find answers for these questions from Sankara's commentaries on the Brahma Sutra and GauDapAda's KarikA.

(For a detailed study, check these links:
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/summary_chittaranjan.htm
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/analogy_chittaranjan.htm)

• The rope appeared as snake in the first place because of an 'attribute' such as the shape of a 'coil' besides the lack of vision due to distance or absence of light. The rope, when it is devoid of attributes (such as length, color, coiled shape, etc.) cannot appear as snake. And the most important point that Sankara stresses is that even after our error of illusion was removed, the 'attribute' of the coil is still there in the rope, so it can still appear as snake under certain circumstances and to other people!

• The error of illusion was removed by negating or sublating the apparent and surface reality caused by the attribute coil-shaped in the rope. In this example, we find that the snake never existed, only superimposed by our mind under certain circumstances.

• Now that the error is removed, what is the relationship between the rope and the snake? The relationship is not that the rope IS the snake, but that the rope AS the snake, and the 'AS' was due to a specific attribute in the original object.

• Finally, once we know the Reality of the rope and the nature of illusion our mind created, we will never again mistake the rope for the snake.

The Reality of the cup

A cup made of earth is seen as a cup and not as the earth it is made of, again because of the attributes that the object possesses: shape, color, size, capacity, etc.

• Unlike the illusory reality of the snake in the rope created by the mind, the perceived reality of the cup in the earth is one of 'vypati' (invariable concomitance). It is invariable concomitance because unlike the snake, the cup does not disappear even after the reality is known; and that reality is also unchanging: the cup always remains a cup, totally concealing the earth it is made of.

• The cup is not an object created in our dream state, where our mind creates objects as it pleases, may be even a cup on a rope and a snake made of the earth! The cup is real for us, perceived as real in our waking state and it continues to retain its attributes superimposed on the earth--its basic nature--it is made of.

• Still the cup is unreal, because it is not a cup but only earth? Is the unreality due to 'mAyA'(illusion) or 'avidyA' (nescience) or a combination of both? How can the error of perception of the form in the place of the substance be removed?

Sankara says in his commentary on the Karika:

"The birth of a thing that exists can reasonably be possible only through Maya and not in reality. For one who holds that things take birth in a real sense, there can only be the birth of what is already born." (2.27)

"There can be no birth for a non-existing object either through Maya or in reality, for the son of a barren woman is born neither through Maya nor in reality." (2.28)

"Thus the definite conclusion arrived at by hundreds of Vedic texts is that the reality of the Self that is a CO-EXTENSIVE WITH ALL that exists within and without, and is birthless, is one without a second, and there is nothing besides. It is now said that this very fact is established by reason as well."

• Thus we see that different layers of Reality are in action in the example of the cup. Its Absolute Reality is the earth, Brahman. Its Relative Reality is the cup, perceived as such by our senses and mind. It continues to retain its reality of being 'vypati' in the absence of an onlooker. And, most wonderfully, while 'jnAnis' in their state of 'turIya' see the AR of the cup, they also see the 'vypati'!

• The error of illusion in this case arises when we seek to give an independent, dual reality for the cup other than the earth it is made of. On the surface it is a cup but in reality it is only earth. We obtain the reality of earth by sublating the surface reality and not by dissolving the form and attributes of the cup.

Here is a quote from the above Website that beautifully sums up the levels of reality for us:



The Mandukya Upanishad says (I,2):
"All this is surely Brahman. This Self is Brahman. The Self, such as it is, is possessed of four quarters." And commenting on this, Shankara says that "Turiya is realised by successively merging the earlier three, starting from Visva.

How can Visva be merged with Taijasa, and Taijasa with Prajna, and Prajna with Turiya if each is not in reality subsumed in the next?

Knowing objects in truth is to know the depth of objects and not their surface. It is the seeing into the heart of things, and the heart of an object is its 'self'. Therefore is the suffix 'self' attached to a thing to describe its true nature - for then we say that it is it-self. Negation is the negation of a thing's surface posturing as the thing it-Self. In other words, the truth of the world is its soul, and the seemingly soulless world is a superficial façade of its reality. It is this 'corpse' of the world, this death as it were, that is what is negated! The SLEEP OF DEATH characterises the three states of jagrat, svapna, and sushupti, whereas the Self is ETERNALLY AWAKE. The Self never sleeps because its nature is Consciousness. And in that consciousness shines the REAL LIVING WORLD!


Thus it is not just the so-called neo-vedantins who seek to declare that all this is Brahman and that all these are real in their own realms of existence. Sankara himself established and explained the different levels of reality and illusion in his concepts of Advaita, which he derived only from the Vedic texts.

[atanu]

advaita now turns to the ancient technique of adhyAropa-apavAda (sublation of superimposition) to explain this.

To really know brahman, one needs to sublate this superimposition, and look at the substratum (adhishThAna) that is brahman. As for the exact nature of avidyA and mAyA, later authors (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/later.html) seem divided into two major schools of thought, namely the bhAmatI (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/bhavir.html#bha) and the vivaraNa (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/bhavir.html#viv) schools.


Namaste Mithya,

Exactly Mithya. To really know brahman, one needs to sublate this superimposition, and look at the substratum (adhishThAna) that is brahman.

One cannot stick to the notion that this is Cup "Y" and that is Brahman "X". Finally only the "X" exists and the same Brahman decides whether to be formless (samAn) or full of forms (uneven). If one keeps saying and believing that this a cup and that is Brahman, one is not going to know the adhishThAna.

We all understand that a limited thing/form like 'cup' is not Brahman, which is unlimited, undefinable etc. It is the very basic knowledge which a beginner is likely to know. What to speak of Ramakrishna or Swami Vivekananda.

But Brahman surely is the cup as well as the saucer and the tea.

-----------------------
And do you mean to say that all revered sages whom you have abused as ignorant, did not/do not know this adhishThAna? On the other hand, for them everything is adhishThAna alone.

We all understand that a limited thing/form like 'cup' is not Brahman, which is unlimited, undefinable etc. It is the very basic knowledge which a beginner is likely to know. That you are making this an issue and in the process abusing Swami Vivekananda and others Brahma Jnanis, is your immaturity alone.

It can be due to two reasons: Either, you are really immature and you think that Swami Vivekananda and or even atanu, saidevo believe that a limited form/thing is Brahman. Or you are cool. You are anadi. Only Gaudiyas and IsCKONITES have the kind of hatred that you display for all gurus who are known to teach advaita.

Whatever you say to defend yourself and howsoever you show your idignation, you cannot hide your identity, my friend. From your logic it appears at times that you are an advaitin, trying to discuss and refine understanding of all. But you exposed yourself with your sudden outburst against some of the highest Advaitin sages of India.

Om

[mithya]

In this example, we find that the snake never existed, only superimposed by our mind under certain circumstances.


If you're likening the rope to Brahman and snake to the world, then by your own admission, the world NEVER existed and Brahman alone exists at all times. So you're in effect agreeing with me. Thank you.

[mithya]

namaste mithya,



I don't want to speak for atanu but I have nothing to 'argue' with mithya.
I am looking for a quote on where 'advaita' says, 'anything is unreal'...can't find...

Sankara said: Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

[atanu]

Query for Mithya:

Agreed that a a limited thing and form such a cup is not Brahman. You win hands down.

Then what is the Cup in relation to Brahman?

Where from it is and what it is?
What is its relationship with its perceiver.
Is there a second perceiver of the cup other than Brahman?
Does Brahman perceive something, which is outside of Brahman?
Is there anything external or internal to Brahman?------------------------------

While answering above, the following may please be kept in mind:

Svet. 3
Thou art woman, Thou art man; Thou art youth and maiden too. Thou as an old man totterest along on a staff; it is Thou alone who, when born, assumest diverse forms.
Svet. 4
Thou art the dark—blue bee; Thou art the green parrot with red eyes; Thou art the thunder—cloud, the seasons and the seas. Thou art beginningless and all—pervading. From Thee all the worlds are born.
--------------------------------------------
And also BG:
24. Brahman is the oblation; Brahman is the melted butter (ghee); by Brahman is the oblation poured into the fire of Brahman; Brahman verily shall be reached by him who always sees Brahman in action.
-------------------------------------------------
Thus though Brahman is SamAn, uniform, homogeneous (formless) and EKO one. Same EKO appears as many forms (uneven) when in action, as if for whatever reason. Brahman is the shapes as well, as indicated by above two verses.
--------------------------------------------
The question remains:

What is the Cup in relation to Brahman? Is it a cup that Brahman creates out of itself to drink a bit of Soma, himself (as alluded by ZN)?:rolleyes:

Om

[mithya]

We all understand that a limited thing/form like 'cup' is not Brahman, which is unlimited, undefinable etc.

Ah! That's quite a turnaround, isn't it? Post#16, you said:Then post after post, he has tried to build up the case of eternal difference between the world of matter (cup) and spirit (brahman).

You're contradicting yourself here. Plus, you also agreed with Yajvan, who said cup=Brahman. Now you say the exact opposite. So please make up your mind, is the cup Brahman or not? Which one is it?

[atanu]

If you're likening the rope to Brahman and snake to the world, then by your own admission, the world NEVER existed and Brahman alone exists at all times. So you're in effect agreeing with me. Thank you.

We have all the time agreed to you. But we waited for you to accuse Vivekananda, Ramakrishna and others as ignorant.

If the world never existed, then what is wrong, if Swami Vivenkananda says: The world is nothing but Brahman?

I repeat that either you are naive or you are too cool.:Cool:

[atanu]

Ah! That's quite a turnaround, isn't it? Post#16, you said:Then post after post, he has tried to build up the case of eternal difference between the world of matter (cup) and spirit (brahman).

You're contradicting yourself here. Plus, you also agreed with Yajvan, who said cup=Brahman. Now you say the exact opposite. So please make up your mind, is the cup Brahman or not? Which one is it?

See the post above please and sit silently for a few minutes and answer queries of post 42.

You have neither understood Yajvan nor me. And that will hold true, whether you are anadi (cool) or mithya.

Om

[mithya]

We have all the time agreed to you. But we waited for you to accuse Vivekananda, Ramakrishna and others as ignorant.

If the world never existed, then what is wrong, if Swami Vivenkananda says: The world is nothing but Brahman?

I repeat that either you are naive or you are too cool.:Cool:

Did I attack Sankara, Anandagiri, Madhusudhana or the early advaitins anywhere? NEVER! I only attacked neo-vedantins, because they hardly ever speak the truth, they say what the western audience wants to hear. So I see nothing wrong with questioning such people and their motives.

[atanu]

Did I attack Sankara, Anandagiri, Madhusudhana or the early advaitins anywhere? NEVER! I only attacked neo-vedantins, because they hardly ever speak the truth, they say what the western audience wants to hear. So I see nothing wrong with questioning such people and their motives.

Namaste Mithya,

Do you ever answer the question? I asked: If the world never existed, then what is wrong, if Swami Vivenkananda says: The world is nothing but Brahman?

How is Swami Vivekananda ignorant or fearful?

Om

[saidevo]

Namaste Atanu.



We all understand that a limited thing/form like 'cup' is not Brahman, which is unlimited, undefinable etc. It is the very basic knowledge which a beginner is likely to know.


When I said that the cup is Brahman, what I really meant was that Brahman is also in the cup, an inanimate object, and NOT that the cup like Brahman was unlimited, undefinable, etc.

The cup is essentially Brahman just as a wave is essentially the water of its source, the Ocean. It is not different from Brahman because Brahman is one without a second. More emphatically, Brahman is the cup, the snake in the rope and everything else in this world plus our own Jiva and Atman because the Upanishads declare:

sarvaM khalvidaM brahma tajjalAniti shAnta upAsIta |
--Chandogya Upanishad, 3.14.1

"Verily, all this universe is Brahman. From Him do all things originate, into Him do they dissolve and by Him are they sustained."

sarvaM hi etad brahma ayam AtmA brahma saH ayam AtmA chatuSh pAt |
--Mandukya Upanishad, verse 2

"All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters."

Commenting on this verse, Sankara says that "Turiya is realised by successively merging the earlier three, starting from Visva."

Strangely, the four states to realize the Self as Brahman are only for the Jiva, the human soul. The cup perhaps does not 'think' that it is anything other than Brahman.

[mithya]

Namaste Mithya,

Do you ever answer the question? I asked: If the world never existed, then what is wrong, if Swami Vivenkananda says: The world is nothing but Brahman?

How is Swami Vivekananda ignorant or fearful?

Om

You've answered your own question. See the bolded part. If the world never existed, and you still go ahead to say world=Brahman, you're in effect saying that Brahman is non-existent! This is why Swami V was wrong.

[atanu]

You've answered your own question. See the bolded part. If the world never existed, and you still go ahead to say world=Brahman, you're in effect saying that Brahman is non-existent! This is why Swami V was wrong.

And so are you. When you say that 'Cup is not Brahman', it presupposes existence of an independent entity called Cup.

On the other hand, to say that 'the cup is nothing but Brahman (in action) as is all other things experienced' is correct since mahavakya is "All this is Brahman".

This point and the next point below saidevo has already highlighted.

If you say "The Cup is not Brahman", that pre-supposes existences of "You" who knows Brahman and the Cup and a Seer. If "you" are real then the Cup is also as real as you, since both can be touched and seen. Pratyaksha is a valid pramana in all Hindu darshana.

Are you real? Then what are you? A form and thus unreal? Isn't it?

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu.
When I said that the cup is Brahman, what I really meant was that Brahman is also in the cup, an inanimate object, and NOT that the cup like Brahman was unlimited, undefinable, etc.

The cup is essentially Brahman just as a wave is essentially the water of its source, the Ocean. It is not different from Brahman because Brahman is one without a second. More emphatically, Brahman is the cup, the snake in the rope and everything else in this world plus our own Jiva and Atman because the Upanishads declare:

sarvaM khalvidaM brahma tajjalAniti shAnta upAsIta |
--Chandogya Upanishad, 3.14.1

"Verily, all this universe is Brahman. From Him do all things originate, into Him do they dissolve and by Him are they sustained."

sarvaM hi etad brahma ayam AtmA brahma saH ayam AtmA chatuSh pAt |
--Mandukya Upanishad, verse 2

"All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters."

Commenting on this verse, Sankara says that "Turiya is realised by successively merging the earlier three, starting from Visva."

Strangely, the four states to realize the Self as Brahman are only for the Jiva, the human soul. The cup perhaps does not 'think' that it is anything other than Brahman.

Perfect Saidevo ji. Most profound is "Strangely, the four states to realize the Self as Brahman are only for the Jiva, the human soul. The cup perhaps does not 'think' that it is anything other than Brahman."

I intuited that there was something wrong and felt that Mithya had an agenda other than what we could perceive. Something was rankling from beginning with all his posts. And all his conclusions were somehow reaching to same place as anadi's, though a lot of dodging here and there confused the issue.

I therefore ask him straight: If a cup is not Brahman then what it is? If a jiva is not essentially Brahman then what it is?

Om

[devotee]

You've answered your own question. See the bolded part. If the world never existed, and you still go ahead to say world=Brahman, you're in effect saying that Brahman is non-existent! This is why Swami V was wrong.

Namaste Mithya,

The thread is going nowhere & that is why I wanted to quit this thread. You disappoint me when instead of trying to answer the questions or thinking over the issues raised, you indulge into sarcastic comments & abusing remarks against great saints like Swamy Vivekananda.

What is the matter, you just want to win the argument, come what may ? You will get clarifications to all your doubts if you read and try to answer what I posted, Atnu posted just some posts back & what Saidevo posted.

1. If Cup is not Brahman, then what is it ? If the Cup is not there what is it which appears like Cup ?
2. Who is the seer here ? What is the relationship between the seer & the Cup ? Are the Cup, the seer & the Brahman different from each other ? What is this illusion ? Who is having this illusion & what is illusive ? Are these different from Brahman ?
3. If this world is not Brahman, what is this ? If it is illusion, there must be something which is illusive ? Has illusion any independent existence ?
4. What about Mandukya Upanishad ? Is it wrong when it says that the world we see is the waking state (quarter) of the Brahman ?


OM

[atanu]

Namaste Mithya,

The thread is going nowhere & that is why I wanted to quit this thread. You disappoint me when instead of trying to answer the questions or thinking over the issues raised, you indulge into sarcastic comments & abusing remarks against great saints like Swamy Vivekananda.

What is the matter, you just want to win the argument, come what may ? You will get clarifications to all your doubts if you read and try to answer what I posted, Atnu posted just some posts back & what Saidevo posted.

1. If Cup is not Brahman, then what is it ? If the Cup is not there what is it which appears like Cup ?
2. Who is the seer here ? What is the relationship between the seer & the Cup ? Are the Cup, the seer & the Brahman different from each other ? What is this illusion ? Who is having this illusion & what is illusive ? Are these different from Brahman ?
3. If this world is not Brahman, what is this ? If it is illusion, there must be something which is illusive ? Has illusion any independent existence ?
4. What about Mandukya Upanishad ? Is it wrong when it says that the world we see is the waking state (quarter) of the Brahman ?

OM

Thank you devotee,

Let him answer the questions to clarify his own thoughts. I also wish that first he answers the following questions straight:

If a cup is not Brahman then what it is? If a jiva is not essentially Brahman then what it is?

----------

I ask these because somehow I feel that the real person that mithya is believes in heart that Brahman is one and Jiva is another -- a servant. But mithya, the incarnation, the actor cannot accept that without exposing himself. That is how he has impaled himself on a shula.

However, if his answer is not contradictory to advaita then let us declare him the winner, so that advaitavada gains one more thread. ;)

Regards

Om

[atanu]

Namaste mithya,

Will you answer only the following?

If a cup is not Brahman then what it is? If a jiva is not essentially Brahman then what it is?


Om Namah Shivaya

[mithya]

If a cup is not Brahman then what it is?


Are you saying the cup is Brahman? If you are, then you're contradicting a post you made just a few hours ago:

Here it is:

Posted by Atanu #42


Agreed that a a limited thing and form such a cup is not Brahman. You win hands down So atanu, are you contradicting yourself?

[mithya]

This is what Ramana Maharishi says when a disciple asks whether the world is an illusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an excerpt from the book Self-Enquiry:

D: If the entire universe is of the form of mind, then does it not follow that the universe is an
illusion? If that be the case, why is the creation of the universe mentioned in the Veda?
M: There is no doubt whatsoever that the universe is the merest illusion. The principal purport of
the Veda is to make known the true Brahman, after showing the apparent universe to be false. It is
for this purpose that the Vedas admit the creation of the world and not for any other reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that Ramana Maharishi says in no uncertain terms that the world is false. Still some people are so adamant that they refuse to consider all this. If Ramana Maharishi can't convince you, who can?

[simex]

The relationship of a cup to Brahman is the exact same relationship as the wave to the ocean.

The wave appears to be an independent event, and as such, we give it a name and a separate existence: "wave". But, if you were to see this wave from high above the ocean in a plane, it would become evident that no object called "wave" is actually created and then destroyed on the beach. Instead, the ocean simply moves.

So, if you ask "Is the wave the ocean?" you can answer "yes" or "no". Yes what we take to be a wave is really nothing more than a movement in the ocean. The wave is made of ocean, and the discreteness exists only as a concept in your mind. A close examination would not yield a physical separation.

But also, the wave is not the ocean, in the sense that it is a small piece of something much vaster. The ocean is the sum total of all the waves, in this sense.

The problem with this discussion is that the statements "the cup is Brahman" and "the cup is not Brahman" are not two mutually exclusive statements. I don't know how to explain it other than the above analogy. Which part do you contest, Mithya? I am happy to walk you through every facet of my understanding, and hope you would extend the same courtesy.

namaste

[devotee]

Namaste Mithya,
What is "you", "the problem", "ego" or the action "hurt" ? Are they different from Brahman ? Where do they come from ? What is any other thing apart from Brahman which can create all these ? Didn't we agree that there is no other but only Brahman ?

OM

[mithya]

Another clarification for those who care:

Except for Ramana, Sankaracharya, and a few others, I still feel most 'advaitins' in the last hundred years or so have diluted advaita because they wanted to appeal to a western audience. This explains their refusal to acknowledge the illusory nature of the world in straightforward terms, as Ramana always does, their politically correct statements to charm a westernized audience (that's too realistic to believe in illusionist theories), and so on and so forth.

But that doesn't mean I don't respect the likes of Sri Sri, Vivekananda, or Sai for their social service. They have a heart of gold, but that doesn't make them immune to criticism. While I am not impressed by their scholarship, I'll always admire them for their dedication to the poor. They are great men, but I'd rather listen to Ramana if I want to know about advaita. I wouldn't really go anywhere near Sri Sri and the likes, because they're more interested in political correctness than truth.

Enough said.

[devotee]

Namaste Mithya,



Except for Ramana, Sankaracharya, and a few others, I still feel most 'advaitins' in the last hundred years or so have diluted advaita because they wanted to appeal to a western audience. This explains their refusal to acknowledge the illusory nature of the world in straightforward terms, as Ramana always does, their politically correct statements to charm a westernized audience (that's too realistic to believe in illusionist theories), and so on and so forth.

But that doesn't mean I don't respect the likes of Sri Sri, Vivekananda, or Sai for their social service. They have a heart of gold, but that doesn't make them immune to criticism. While I am not impressed by their scholarship, I'll always admire them for their dedication to the poor. They are great men, but I'd rather listen to Ramana if I want to know about advaita. I wouldn't really go anywhere near Sri Sri and the likes, because they're more interested in political correctness than truth.

Now, that is better way to discuss issues, isn't it ? Calling names, hurling abuses doesn't help, right ?

It is heartening to know that you have respect for Sri Sri, Vivekananda and Sai. But tell me, who is authorised to criticise ? If a class ten student criticises a graduate ... then certainly it shows something wrong on the part of that self-appointed critic. You can't make the Sun dirty by spitting on it !

If you like Maharishi Ramana & don't like Swamy Vivekananda, there should not be much problem. You have every right to disagree. But mind it,that is your opinion ... just an opinion ... it has nothing to do with reality. What Maharishi Ramana said & what Swamy Vivekannada said both are same ... the fault is not there ... it is in the limitation of words & your understanding. In fact, what you are saying is also not much different but you don't understand what you are saying or what others are saying.

Before criticising anyone, you must attain higher knowledge than that of the person you choose to cricise. Vivekannada was a Self-realised saint ... he knew what he was talking about .... the words may differ but Self-realisation of Mahairishi Ramana or anyone else cannot be different.

How do you aquire authority to criticise Vivekananda when you are not Self-realised ?

OM

[atanu]

Are you saying the cup is Brahman? If you are, then you're contradicting a post you made just a few hours ago:



Namaste Mithya,

I asked you: If the Cup is not Brahman, then what it is?

Please answer that only.
------------------------------------------

Also consider that when you yourself say that the cup is seen under illusion, then how do you know what it really is?

Om

[satay]

namaskar,

Seems like this thread is an 'infinite regression'. ;)

[atanu]

Namaste Friends,

There is no point in logical arguments with an imposter, whose very purpose of assuming an advaita stance is with a purpose.

The essence of everything that is known by direct contact and everything that is known by report is Brahman without exception, because Pragnya power is of Brahman alone. It does not vest with a cup or a man (manas-mind). The truth of the world is Brahman alone. Every wave in an ocean is water alone.

Let mithya clarify whether he agrees to shankara's teaching "Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah — Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self.

Mithya, like anadi and Nirotu, shows only the first two of the above three dictums. Only a fake advaitin will hold Vivekananda as ignorant. Only a mischief mongerer will cite Ramana to prove dvaita indirectly by labelling Vivekananda as ignorant. If mithya is spiritual/religious he should be careful of wrath, caused by his deception. It does not matter whether one successfully hoodwinks others. One should fear wrath.

Only a non-hindu will not pay heed. Even a Muslim should pay heed.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

It is true that Advaita states that kārya (effect) is non-different from kāraṇa (cause) but kāraṇa is different from kārya. The effects are different from the Cause. Similarly, Jagat (the world) is not different from Brahman; however Brahman is different from Jagat, which does not touch Brahman.

So, the cup is not Brahman. But there are two points of deception in mithya's posts.

First, it was asked of mithya several times to show us where any advaitin has said that "Cup is Brahman". He has not shown it.

Second, he termed Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Sai as ignorant for teaching identity of Jiva and Brahman. This is a key teaching of Shankara who says: jīvo brahmaiva nāparah.

So, either by deception or by not understanding his own logic, mithya is actually meaning to prove Shankara as ignorant. I think it is deception, as a caustic comment to devotee indicates it.

Om

[simex]

"Mercy is the might of the righteous" - Vishnu Puran

[atanu]

"Mercy is the might of the righteous" - Vishnu Puran

Namaste Simex,

True. A great quote. But mercy of the righteous operates only after wrath humbles the deceptive.

Regards

Om

[saidevo]

Namaste Mithya.

You are trying to give a twist to my explanations in post #38 by selective reading and claim repeatedly that I agree with YOUR VIEW that this world, like the snake on the rope is a superimposition, so it never existed and hence only Brahman exists.

In the same way you are also twisting Atanu's challenging question to you in post #42 as his opinion. Atanu clearly ASKS YOU, "Agreed that a limited thing and form such a cup is not Brahman. You win hands down." with an implicit IF in this statement because it is followed by a volley of questions that challenge your POV as expressed in your statements.

You can easily say that the snake as a superimposition is unreal, so the world must also be unreal as Sankara says ("brahma satyaM, jagat mithya").

When pressed for your view about the reality of the cup, you dodge with personal invectives (as you did especially to Devotee) and try to underestimate the greatness of sages like Swami Vivekananda. This only means that you cannot say that the perceived reality of the cup is the same as that of the snake because unlike the snake seen on the rope by the mind's eyes of only a few, the cup is seen with physical eyes by everybody as such with a distinct, superficial reality.

Despite my pointing out as early as in post #4 that Sankara means only a 'vyavaharika satyam' and not a complete unreality when he says "brahma satyaM, jagat mithya", you continue to try to maintain that the unreality of the world is like the an 'adyanta asat' (complete and extreme unreality) like the hare's horn or barren woman's child. If you are not convinced, check the article "Reality and Illusion (Satyam and Mithya)" by Mata Amritanandamayi Devi http://archives.amritapuri.org/matruvani/vol-02/sep02/02mv09reality.php, but again you might term her a 'neo-vedantin'!

The quote I gave from Mandukya Upanishad in post #48 and Sankara's commentary on that verse clearly talk of four states of existence of the Jiva wherein it perceives the different levels of reality of the world.

Quoting RamaNa Maharshi selectively doesn't help our discussion. RamaNa of course said "There is no doubt whatsoever that the universe is the merest illusion" but he spoke those words from the state of turIya in which he was always immersed. RamaNa also said that just like a spider spins its web from its own self and later retracts it, Brahman creates this world from itself and then retracts it into itself.

For all the purest form of Advaita that Sankara taught, he also composed devotional songs on the Hindu Gods, established the PanchAyadana Puja and united the six philosophies into 'shad darshana'. For all his staunch inquires into the Self with nothing except the question 'who am I?', RamaNa composed devotional songs, wore vibhUti and shed tears when kunkumam prasAdam was presented to him from his Mother Meenakshi of Madurai! What sort of Vedantins are they in your estimation?

[atanu]

Namaste Mithya,

I have collected a few questions for which I request answers.

If the world is illusion, then what is wrong, if Swami Vivenkananda says: The world is nothing but Brahman?
You are a form, Are you thus also illusion like the world or the cup?
If a cup is not Brahman then what it is? If Jagat is not Brahman then what it is?
Show us where any advaitin has said that "a cup is Brahman".
Do you ascribe in full to "Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah (Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self)?Om

[Znanna]

Namaste,

My brother shared this quote a ways back, seems appropriate repeated here -


"Do the Gods really exist?" The master replied: "If you believe you exist, why shouldn’t they?"

(Guru Ramana Maharshi)


ZN

[mithya]

As we're going in circles (and also because the mod is gonna ban me soon, since he's frustrated that my arguments aren't being refuted), this is perhaps my last post on the matter.


This only means that you cannot say that the perceived reality of the cup is the same as that of the snake because unlike the snake seen on the rope by the mind's eyes of only a few, the cup is seen with physical eyes by everybody as such with a distinct, superficial reality.Not at all, they're one and the same. The snake is false, the rope alone is real. Likewise, the cup is false and Brahman alone is real. Why? Let's see. You argue that snake is only seen by a few, whereas cup is seen by many. So how can one consider the two to be the same? There are two fallacies in this. First, we don't determine reality through a majority vote.

Second, the non-existent snake is seen on the rope through the tricks of the mind. Similarly, the non-existent cup is seen superimposed on Brahman due to the tricks of the senses. And because most human eyes function in the same way, it appears as if we're all seeing the same thing. This in turn strengthens the belief that what we see MUST have a concrete reality - or why would millions view the exact same thing at the exact same time? This is specious reasoning. Here's why.

In a magic show, thousands 'see' a man flying. But what they see isn't real, because if it were real, and if the man really were flying, then it wouldn't be magic anymore. It'd be reality! Therefore, thousands may see, hear, smell the same illusion, but that doesn't make the illusion real; for, a 'real illusion' is a contradiction in terms.

Bottom line, majority of people have the same sense organs, and they function in the same way. So they're all going to 'see' and 'hear' pretty much the same thing. But that doesn't mean what they see/hear is real. Like I said, we don't determine reality through a majority vote.



Despite my pointing out as early as in post #4 that Sankara means only a 'vyavaharika satyam' and not a complete unreality when he says "brahma satyaM, jagat mithya", you continue to try to maintain that the unreality of the world is like the an 'adyanta asat' (complete and extreme unreality) like the hare's horn or barren woman's child.I never did, so let me explain. If X is perceived as X, there's no possibility of mistaken perception. But because there's mistaken perception, we have to conclude that X is being perceived as NOT X. You cannot have it both ways. Likewise, if Brahman is perceived as Brahman, where's the question of mistaken perception? There would be none. But because there's mistaken perception, we conclude that Brahman is being perceived as something it's not (world). Else, it's tantamount to saying we have a mistaken perception because we're seeing x as x!



Quoting RamaNa Maharshi selectively doesn't help our discussion.
Says the man who doesn't quote Ramana to prove this point! At least, I quote from Ramana's work to prove that he held the world to be false. You haven't quoted anything from Ramana to prove otherwise. So your accusation carries with it a trace of hypocrisy, doesn't it?

[satay]

namaskar mithya,


As we're going in circles , this is perhaps my last post on the matter.


Good.



(and also because the mod is gonna ban me soon, since he's frustrated that my arguments aren't being refuted)


No, I am not frustrated. I couldn't care less if your arguments are or aren't refuted. I don't really see that you have presented your argument in clear terms anyway. You are hopping here and there and everywhere. Anyway, I digress.

I (along with other members), however, do care about the quality of posts on this site.

Forums rules are clearly listed under the FAQ section. All members have to adhere to those rules. I noticed that your posts were breaking several rules on this thread and on previously posted threads that I deleted without any warnings to you. I requested you in a pm to please try to comprehend the rules of the site and if you had any qustions about them please let me know. I also told you that if you keep breaking the rules, I will redirect you out of the forum. This 'redirection' happens to all who cannot follow the rules and whose agendas are not in alignment with the purpose of this forum. There is nothing personal about it.

Therefore, simply if you follow the forum rules then you will not be redirected.

Thanks,