PDA

View Full Version : VOID Void void



bhaktajan
14 September 2009, 10:19 AM
Atanu wrote:
"Na Asat is not nothingness."

Yes. But I was addressing the subtle topic of "VOID".

Can you face this topic "VOID"? And concieve that does not exist?

What say you about "VOID"?

bhaktajan
14 September 2009, 10:20 AM
Where is this absolute truth written in any of the Vedas?

Yes! Many many many.

But you must go beyond the "Void".

You must go beyond the varieties of Supersoul's jivatamas.

This is called the path of Vaishnavism.

You probleby have developed a strong opinion about the path of Vaishnavism ---a path that you are not a part of --and do not represent --and find troublesome to the formation of your philosophical logic & rationale, Yes?

atanu
15 September 2009, 12:10 AM
Atanu wrote:
"Na Asat is not nothingness."
Yes. But I was addressing the subtle topic of "VOID".
Can you face this topic "VOID"? And concieve that does not exist?
What say you about "VOID"?

No. As some one said in another post, you are are not truthful. You were not talking about void but you were talking about Brahman being void. And please do not speculate. If void is known, then it will be known by someone or some self. How is that?

I said na asat is not void. When shruti says there was nothing else, only IT was covered with desire -- Shruti means that there is IT and nothing else.

yes, yes. many many.

Just show us a few.


The Shruti [Rg veda, etc] is 95% not decipherable, not comprehendible —with out the Puranas (histories).
True. And Puranas are also not clear to a biased closed mind. Puranas are also closed to those who are not aware of the All Attractrive.

About being Vaisnava, I asked of you the import of All Attractive. Your version of Krishna is not attractive to me, what to talk of christians and Muslims?

Om Namaha Shivaya

bhaktajan
15 September 2009, 09:12 AM
Atanu wrote:
"You were not talking about void but you were talking about Brahman being void"

Bhaktajan:
I am talking about the real VOID.
You are Not addressing the topic of the nature of the Void or even the existance of the important aspect of the creation.

I am talking about the real VOID.

The same Void the Einstien and physicists refer to in the concept of "Zero".

It is a reality of the construct of the phenominal world that you 'think' has no reality.

Atanu wrote:
"If void is known, then it will be known by someone or some self."

Herein is the ironic hesitation on your (intellect's) part of the discussion. You cite claims to your familarity with the definition of "Brahman" ---but when I ask you to address the "Void", you ironically, stumble over the very essence of My meantion of the Void, 'Its ownership'.

You are Not addressing the topic of the nature of the Void --yet you say, 'You are Not addressing the topic of the nature of the Void' . . . Yes I am ---it is know as "Brahman" . . . or else 'It is owned by a seperate entity/principle.'

Brahman sits atop the void. The void is the same as Brahman. Brahman shares the same description(s) as the void. The VOID is an impersonal nomenclature. Maybe you are too influenced by Bhuddist doctrine to see the elemantary point I am making to name Brahman as the Void.

Oh, just had a realisation, I SEE NOW!:
Atanu has an aversion to the use of descriptive word "Void" cause that would confirm that he leans toward the philosophy of a Voidist, or, void-a-vadi.

That would be aside from Atanu want for the simplest of intellectual concepts that all schools teach in physics and calculus, and, Computer Code 0101's.

bhaktajan
15 September 2009, 09:42 AM
Atanu wrote:
"I said na asat [not non-eternal, not temporary] is not void. When shruti says there was nothing else, only IT was covered with desire"



The void is eternal and it is simply a name.

The hidden intellectual concept that I am showing Atanu is that the thought of the Void is an assessible and eaily understood concept.

Brahman is the next higher level of the meaning of the Void ---tantamount to The Supreme Personality of Brahman.

The logic is that the void is devoid of qualities yet beyond that fact where does the qualities come from? And what is the reservoir fountainspring of qualities?

All Attractive = is those qualities that spring forth and are appreciable by persons ONLY, that includes appreciable by bestial persons too.

When the reservoir fountainspring of all qualities in full par excellance IS SEEN BY AN ASPIRANT [or even known as 'na asat'] ---then the All Attractive Persona of the Godhead has pulled back the curtain of the Void to reveal the luminescence of His Body luster know as the effulgent Light Brahman.

Brahman is the luminescence of the Body of the All Attractive embodiment of all personal qualities. Such qualities are universally sought by all living beings thoughout the RELATIVE WORLD.

The All Attractive personal qualities are outside Brahman's "Field of Relativity" ---that area of The All Attractive personal qualities "Sphere of Influence" is the Absolute Realm where all is constructed of Brahman and is so is called 'sat-cit-ananda'.

That is the Vedic version hidden from humanity since Lord Brahma was born with his eyes still closed.

bhaktajan
17 September 2009, 02:50 PM
Dear Everybody conversant in the scriptural explainations of "The Nature of Brahman",

I know what is said about "The Nature of Brahman" [albeit I may not recall exact verses 'on-demand'].

I am asking about "The Nature of the Void".

It may be proposed that the void is a 'Non-Issue'/"Irrelevant"/"Not worthy of Discussion" etc ---but, no one is addressing this.

My understanding was that advaita dealt with the nature of the "constitution/construct of the phenomenal World" and thus how "We are not this body (phenomenal World)---we are Spirit soul ---etc etc etc"

The Void is out there. It is Out There. It is part and parcel of the "Phenomenal World" ---why does one jump over it and confuse it with Brahman's Potentcies?

Nevermind the IMO, flaw in advaita logic "Brahman is beyond 'manifest' qualities & Brahman is 'innately' the source of all qualities"

devotee
17 September 2009, 10:49 PM
Namaste,

First : The Brahman is not Void.
Second : The Void is not really Void. The concept of Void is within Mental realm & is relative.
Third : If Void is really Void, then there can't be anything called "Nature of Void".
Fourth : Advaita doesn't tell about the constitution of phenomenal world. It is not Physics. It is actually the final destination of all paths. And it is proven by thousands of Saints by attaining Self-realisation.
Fifth : "The Brahman is beyond qualities but is source of all qualities" ===> I don't know from which scripture it is taken but it is correct nonetheless. There is no flaw in the statement but it is difficult to understand this unless one is able to understand that all qualities are relative & within mental realm. The Reality/Brahman/SELF has no quality as we know in our world of relative existence.

OM

yajvan
18 September 2009, 11:18 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee


Namaste,

First : The Brahman is not Void.
Second : The Void is not really Void. The concept of Void is within Mental realm & is relative.
Third : If Void is really Void, then there can't be anything called "Nature of Void".
Fourth : Advaita doesn't tell about the constitution of phenomenal world. It is not Physics. It is actually the final destination of all paths. And it is proven by thousands of Saints by attaining Self-realisation.
Fifth : "The Brahman is beyond qualities but is source of all qualities" ===> I don't know from which scripture it is taken but it is correct nonetheless. There is no flaw in the statement but it is difficult to understand this unless one is able to understand that all qualities are relative & within mental realm. The Reality/Brahman/SELF has no quality as we know in our world of relative existence. OM

well said... Much more can be said about this, within a climate of openness and learning. Much is said about this Brahman in the Upanisads - perhaps another time we can revisit this and the attibutes the wise give to this Brahman.

praṇām

bhaktajan
18 September 2009, 12:46 PM
First : The Brahman is not Void.

The above does not address the void. And it makes no attempt to address the "Nature of the Void".

The "Nature of the Void" is not a scary thing.
The "Nature of the Void" is not something that heretical to advaita.
The "Nature of the Void" is part and parcel to study of "constitution of phenomenal world."

The Bhagavad-gita explains the nature of the soul etc etc etc.

Advaita is the study of the "constitution of phenomenal world."


Second : The Void is not really Void. The concept of Void is within Mental realm & is relative.

This absurd logic ---because it is not Logical ---devoid of logic.

What could be more Absolute then "Void"?
You are making a show of supposed argumentation regarding the subject of the Void by claiming
A)is not a part of Advaita School of Philosophy ---so you do not know anything of this subject
and
B) then offer a sutra-formated dialogue as a means to explain how it is "Like this and like that . . . "

Third : If Void is really Void, then there can't be anything called "Nature of Void".
If? If? The Void is what the word denotes.
Earth smells.
Water is wet.
Fire is hot.
Air is cooling.
Ether echos.
Mind desires
Intelligence discerns
Ego Possesses an 'I'
Time passes.
Karma rewards and engages.
Jivatamas survey all panoramas
Ishvara (God as Controller) maintains.
Void is quality-less.
. . . etc etc etc . . . ie: Puranas (histories)

Note that the qualities are abolutely relegated to a limited sphere-of-influence.

Fourth : Advaita doesn't tell about the constitution of phenomenal world. It is not Physics. It is actually the final destination of all paths. And it is proven by thousands of Saints by attaining Self-realisation.
Advaita is indeed all about the constitution of phenomenal world and is non-different from western Physics.

Time to go back to school and return after accredited study.


Fifth : "The Brahman is beyond qualities but is source of all qualities" ===> I don't know from which scripture it is taken but it is correct nonetheless.
It is my own quote I know it is correct ---BUT YOU mentally black-out with temporary blindness. Even the derisively used term 'circular-logic' is difficult to apply this term to your logic. You aggree with the first part of my Statement ---but YOU cannot see that it REFERS TO THE TRANSCENDENT as a 'Source' of Brahman's so-called qualities.

If Brahman is beyond(without) qualities . . . HOW can it be descibed as the "source of all qualities"?

The source would pre-date the realm of Brahman! This is found in the Gita, ---[which I quote as my primary source material].

[I]There is no flaw in the statement but it is difficult to understand this unless one is able to understand that all qualities are relative & within mental realm. The Reality/Brahman/SELF has no quality as we know in our world of relative existence.

Beyond mental realm? Just try to stay on task, "THE VOID" [noun---name of person/place/thing]. All qualities are part and parcel the manifest phenomenal cosmos subtile and gross.
Lastly, keep this in mind:
"The Reality/Brahman/SELF has no quality as we know in our world of relative existence" ---but it is difficult to understand this unless one is able to understand what lies beyond the constitution of phenomenal world which is called Transcendental (daivyam).

Long before arrive at the topic of daivyam we must familarise ourselves with Brahman.


But the above is a derailment from the topic of VOID.

The Void defines the idea of the VOID. The Void is REALITY. The phenomenal world is not the VOID. You are taking offense over a name ---when it is the "Quality" that is the important maxim.

God exists in three ways ---BEYOND WHICH THERE IS NO OTHER MENTION OF EXISTANCE:
1] The VOID
2] The PARAMATMA ---via the Phenomenal World [earth, water, fire, air etc . . . plus Time etc]
3] The Godhead [aka Parambrahman].

atanu
18 September 2009, 10:41 PM
Om
Dvaita darshana holds that "I am That" means 'I' and 'That' are two distinct entities. And it is not incorrect, since as per Shankaracharya, only the essence in "This" and the essence in 'That' is one and indivisible.

Does not the same logic apply to 'The Supreme Personality' and 'the Godhead' in the sentence "Supreme Personality of Godhead"? ? Going by intellectual Bhakajan's logic that 'A' and 'B' represent absolute difference, how does one reconcile this? Advaita dharshana, however, says "when all attributes are stripped from this (jiavatman) and 'that' (Ishwara-Paramatman), only the Atma tattva remains as the singular truth. Similarly Lord Krishna says: "It is difficult to overcome my mAya. Those know who know me as unborn mahesvara. Only a few in millions know me as I am". How is an unborn seen and known? I may now see a few bombs blasting.
.

So, Happy Navaratri to all. Sarva janah sukhinu bhavantu.

Jai Shri Krishna
Namah chaitanyamayi, anandamayi, brahmamayi Mother of the Universe.
Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
19 September 2009, 03:34 PM
If 'A' and 'B' are absolutely different from each other ---then we have an Absolute Truth.

'A is this, B is that' ---each cannot be the other; each is simply distinctly itself alone.

Absolute truth(s) indicate a truth that is Absolute ---thus "NO-CHANGE; ETERNAL"

BTW, Directions are an example of an ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

The North Pole is Absolutely diametrically different from the South Pole.

Maya is filled with 'A' and 'B's.

An Example of an Absolute Truth is, "Maya is filled with 'A' and 'B's".

'A' and 'B's are relative to eachother ---and also, sub-divisions of these 'A' and 'B's are relative to eachother.

'A' and 'B's transpire in space.

This Space is what I am addressing as the VOID.

The void cannot be sperated from the relative 'A' and 'B's.

The void is in no regards comparable to the 'A' and 'B's.

The void in one locale is equal and non-different from The void in another locale.

The void is in all locations and all directions untouched by the 'A' and 'B's.

'A' and 'B's come and go ---but the Void stays unchanged.

The Soul is not to be confused to be any of the 'A' and 'B's.

The Soul is more akin to the Void in all respects except . . . The Soul is an Location-of-its-own.

The Void has a lot of space to move around in . . . the Souls are Conscious individual points of view free to roam in all directions.

The Soul roams among the 'A' and 'B's and witnesses time as it relates to the 'A' and 'B's.

The difference between the Soul and the 'A' and 'B's is, the Soul is the subjective-individual-conscious-persona and the 'A' and 'B's are the material objects ==> this is an absolute truth.

The Empty space where all absolute truths exhibit their magnaimus oppulences do not affect the VOID. All absolute truths manifest in the VOID.

The Void is the Light eminating from the un-manifest source realm of Absolute 'A' and 'B' and 'Souls' roaming around in all absolute directions.

bhaktajan
21 September 2009, 10:59 PM
The Void is actually Light eminating from the un-manifest source realm

where every thing, every person, every place in all directions is "absolute".

This is explained in the Bhagavad-gita where Krishna describes the metaphor of the Banyan Tree.

There Krishna explains that the Temporal Material World [the Banyan Tree with its network of intertwined roots] is a Mirror reflection of the Eternal Original Image source ---that this "Mirror is Situated on Desire".

Attached is a graphic of those shlokas (verses).

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/misc/progress.gif

atanu
22 September 2009, 01:22 AM
The Void is actually Light eminating from the un-manifest source realm
where every thing, every person, every place in all directions is "absolute".


What value all these speculations, which are obviously devoid of any experience? Scripture tell us that Brahman is sad-chid-ananda.

Om

yajvan
22 September 2009, 08:39 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


We have had multiple conversations on void here on HDF in the past.
If one wishes to take this conversation to new levels, perhaps searching on 'void' or śūnyatā¹ will reveal thinking from 2007-2008 in which this subject was entertained thoroughly.

-OR - start a fresh post on void and let those that are attracted to śūnyatā offer thier POV's.

Me thinks on this string ' Supreme Personality' it has run its course on value-add.

praṇām

words
śūnyatā शून्यता - emptiness , loneliness , desolateness

bhaktajan
22 September 2009, 08:48 AM
Atanu, I DO NOT SPECULATE!

I know you know I know that "Scripture tell us that Brahman is sad-chid-ananda."

But, the thread is "Supreme Personality".

The "Supreme Personality" pre-dates all things --before even 'sunya' 'zero'].

I DO NOT SPECULATE!

The non-existent empty quality-less, without quality space that is untainted by the material energy is actually the "BRAHMA-JYOTI" ---the "Effulegence of Brahman".

This "Effulegence of Brahman" originates with the transcendent bodily luster of the "Supreme Personality".

This "Effulegence of Brahman" originating from the bodily luster of the "Supreme Personality" is one persons sole Quota ---it is God the personage alone.

Tvayi (unto you) is the word used in the Isopanisad's 2nd Mantra [as Yajvan cites earlier] ---"unto you . . . the Ishvara" is to whose person our own works must seek to reciprocate without claiming more then our quota from amongst our breatheren.

This is not speculation.

I offer palatable dishes for your consumption.

satay
22 September 2009, 09:41 AM
Admin Note

namaskar,

I see a lot of posts on several threads on 'void'. Let this thread be the collection of those posts. I will move all posts related to the topic of 'void' over here.

Thanks,

bhaktajan
22 September 2009, 10:02 AM
Why do I feel so remiss? Have I been rude?

I know the Topic may or may not seem bonefide.

I am always trying to keep any passionate discussion within the limits of academic scholarship.

I do sometimes add a little irreverent humor ---but I indeed attempt to maintain a true intellectual & scholastic movitation in all postings.

satay
22 September 2009, 10:46 AM
Hari bol bhaktajan,

I don't see any of your posts that can be classified as being 'rude'.

I saw that lately most of your posts were on the topic of 'void'. Nothing wrong with that in itself. However, we should try to stick to the topic of the thread otherwise it is 'trolling' which is against the forum rules.

I found your posts on void to be out of place in some threads. Thus the creation of this thread because I don't want to delete your posts.



Why do I feel so remiss? Have I been rude?

atanu
25 September 2009, 06:58 AM
Atanu, I DO NOT SPECULATE!

I know you know I know that "Scripture tell us that Brahman is sad-chid-ananda."

But, the thread is "Supreme Personality".

Namaste,


The full term is Supreme Personality OF Godhead.

And as per your view, 'a' and 'b' represent absolute difference, thus the above should be understood as signifying two distinctly different entities, to maintain consistency.

We have no such problem.



The "Supreme Personality" pre-dates all things --before even 'sunya' 'zero'].

I DO NOT SPECULATE!

I offer palatable dishes for your consumption.


Brahman is anadimat -- without beginning. What then predates Brahman? You are simply contradicting Lord's teaching and Gita.
Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
25 September 2009, 09:26 AM
Atanu,
Please disregard:
bhaktajan's 'madly in love with his ego';
bhaktajan's 'experienced neither the Supreme Personality nor Brahman';
bhaktajan's 'but I wonder why you are tolerated';
bhaktajan's 'offer trash';
bhaktajan's 'gloating';
bhaktajan's "old garbage"

Let us quote the Vedas of Vedavyasa.

Please state what contradictions ---I have made none.

YOUR COMMENT:
"The full term is A] Supreme Personality OF B] Godhead.---And as per your view, 'a' and 'b' represent absolute difference, thus the above should be understood as signifying two distinctly different entities,"

Your comment [a vailed challange] is without resolution. It is incorrect and an empty assertion.

I have stated that the 'state-of-Duality' is an absolute condition [sat] and this status-quo is made obvious when a person views that all states-of-duality exist within the Void. Thus both the Void + the 'state-of-Duality' = the entire picture entoto.

Since the void shares all the similarities of Brahman they are actually one and the same thing.

Black and white, male and female, left/right and up/down are distinctly opposites that cannot be seperated from eachother ---similarly, Duality & the Void (brahman) cannot be seperated from eachother. This is due to the absolute aesthetics [rules of creation/laws of physics/Vedic pramana] that dictates the composition of existance.

A is different from B because that is an absolute rule.

By definition Godhead is the Persona suprema/Suprema personalidad de Dio.

Your so-called non-cooperation in exploring the ramifications of the nomenclature "Void" is IMHO,
base on your conflating the two ideas:

A] "VOID AS BRAHMAN" = A VOID THAT DOES NOT REST UPON ITS OWN TERRITORY--- that is rests upon _________ something.

Since IMHO, you say 'Everything rests upon Brahman', you become alarmed that I suggest that the Void is beyond this ---yet you are at a 'DEAD-END' as to how to respond ---you have come to an existencal crisis that you mask by lashing out at a bhakatjan ---it becomes a 'dark-night-of-the-soul' moment for you.

B] VOID AS OBLIVION.

But I say the void I am bringing to everyones attention is actually known as "Brahman". Study the nature of Brahman according to the Vedas ---and one will lose all sense of fear when one knows that the Void is actually Brahman.

But I say the proper conceptualisation/metal picture of Brahman is that:
1] 'Brahman is that which constitutes the Void [the 'void' being an absolute state that shares the same definition of brahman]',
and that,
2] 'All things' [States-of-Duality] are also absolute [and even 'change' among the duality is absolute].

But I say that Where One Finds Brahman + All Things = the Material Cosmos where Time transpires.

HEY! I just had a 'realisation': Brahman is like the face of a clock & All Things are like the Arms of the clock ---and the three Gunas are the Three dimensions [Height-Width-Depth].

But I say the Vedas reveal the nature of that which is beyond the Void.

Beyond Brahman is Divyam-Prakriti.

Conscious-Energy is Timeless.

Conscious-Energy is also called Brahman. So we then see finer & finer differences are there to differentiate . . . but that then brings us to further absolute differisations.

Don't fear change when you are grounded in Brahman which is beyond all circumstances.

But I say beyond Brahman and beyond all circumstances ---is an absolute state of consciouness that is not part and parcel to the States of the material Cosmos: "Brahman+Things".

We are spirit souls in the material World ---in the material World where we would better desire to leave to be transported back to the Transcendent divyam realm beyond time . . . if only we knew better what constitutes sat-dharma.

devotee
25 September 2009, 11:13 AM
Namaste Bhaktajan,

You are asserting that Brahman is Void. The dictionary states these meanings of void when used as noun :

n.
1.An empty space, A vacuum.
2. An open space or a break in continuity; a gap.
3. A feeling or state of emptiness, loneliness, or loss.
4. Games Absence of cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand: a void in hearts.

So, what meaning above indicates Brahman ?

Shall we say that Brahman is simply an empty space or vacuum ?
Shall we say that it is a break in the continuity or a feeling/state of emptiness ?
Or Brahman is nothing but absence of cards of a particular suit in a game of cards ?

As the last two alternatives are ruled out, Brahman can be, perhaps, empty space or vacuum, as per your definition ? If Brahman is empty space then it should be powerless, without intelligence, without any consciousness & without any creative power as the empty space is ?

Or shall we say that empty space is omnipotent, the creator, sustainer & the destroyer ? If it is so, is the empty space really empty ?

OM

atanu
25 September 2009, 01:01 PM
Atanu,
Since the void shares all the similarities of Brahman they are actually one and the same thing.



The "Supreme Personality" pre-dates all things --before even 'sunya' 'zero'].

Brahman is beginningless. Beginningless cannot be predated. kAla (time) does not predate Brahman, else Brahman would be subject death and birth.

Also, Brahman is devoid of internal differences. Anyone who sees any difference goes from death to Death.


A is different from B because that is an absolute rule.

And thus in 'Personality of Godhead', the Personality is distinct from the Godhead -- an absolute rule.

Om

atanu
25 September 2009, 01:14 PM
But I say the proper conceptualisation/metal (sic) picture of Brahman is that:1] 'Brahman is that which constitutes the Void


Which Hindu scripture teaches that Brahman constitutes the void?

Om

Note: I know that some christian missionaries in the disguise of being hindus, such Datta teach that Brahman is Sunya and thus Meditative experience of Brahman is dark and useless.

Eastern Mind
25 September 2009, 01:15 PM
Namaste Bhaktajan,

You are asserting that Brahman is Void. The dictionary states these meanings of void when used as noun :

n.
1.An empty space, A vacuum.
2. An open space or a break in continuity; a gap.
3. A feeling or state of emptiness, loneliness, or loss.
4. Games Absence of cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand: a void in hearts.

So, what meaning above indicates Brahman ?

Shall we say that Brahman is simply an empty space or vacuum ?
Shall we say that it is a break in the continuity or a feeling/state of emptiness ?
Or Brahman is nothing but absence of cards of a particular suit in a game of cards ?

As the last two alternatives are ruled out, Brahman can be, perhaps, empty space or vacuum, as per your definition ? If Brahman is empty space then it should be powerless, without intelligence, without any consciousness & without any creative power as the empty space is ?

Or shall we say that empty space is omnipotent, the creator, sustainer & the destroyer ? If it is so, is the empty space really empty ?

OM

So which is it when you write VOID on your cheque? Must be a new meaning.

Is this nothingness also the fullness of everything?

Aum

atanu
25 September 2009, 01:32 PM
So which is it when you write VOID on your cheque? Must be a new meaning.

Is this nothingness also the fullness of everything?

Aum

I think, I see the point now. Brahman is truly penniless.

Eastern Mind
25 September 2009, 01:53 PM
I think, I see the point now. Brahman is truly penniless.

lol So lets get this straight. Once and for all. No arguing. I am Brahman. You are Brahman. Brahman is penniless. Therefore you and I are penniless.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
25 September 2009, 01:56 PM
A] "VOID AS BRAHMAN" = A VOID THAT DOES NOT REST UPON ITS OWN TERRITORY--- that is rests upon _________ something.
---
B] VOID AS OBLIVION.

This is exactly the propaganda of Datta.



2] 'All things' [States-of-Duality] are also absolute [and even 'change' among the duality is absolute].

But I say that Where One Finds Brahman + All Things = the Material Cosmos where Time transpires.

Why make things so complicated? Shri Krishna teaches "Know the Brahman, which is indivisible but appears divided in bodies". So honour and obey Lord. If you cannot then do not create equations such as:

Shunya=Brahman
Shunya=Oblivion

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 September 2009, 01:59 PM
lol So lets get this straight. Once and for all. No arguing. I am Brahman. You are Brahman. Brahman is penniless. Therefore you and I are penniless.

Aum Namasivaya

:D
So. Penniless one is the true Brahman and not you or I. Penniless is full of pennies.

Eastern Mind
25 September 2009, 02:08 PM
Atanu, I'm just too old and confused for all this. I have enough trouble remembering what day it is let alone going on in Brahman this or not that sense non sense rich not poor dualistic monism theism debate. I just want to pet the dog instead, please.

Aum Shanthi

atanu
25 September 2009, 02:25 PM
Atanu, I'm just too old and confused for all this. I have enough trouble remembering what day it is let alone going on in Brahman this or not that sense non sense rich not poor dualistic monism theism debate. I just want to pet the dog instead, please.

Aum Shanthi

Namaste EM,

Old or wise? Since, the wise alone puts to practice the dictum: Words come back from Him, Mind comes back from Him.

It is said that Navaratri is good time to pet the Lion.

Om Shanti

Eastern Mind
25 September 2009, 04:12 PM
It is said that Navaratri is good time to pet the Lion.

Om Shanti

I'm actually not sure what this means.

re Navaratri: Not my favorite festival. We actually don't go. Being shall we say somewhat more aware of the subtle energies flowing about, well... maybe you get the idea. I prefer Shakti as the half of Siva rather than by herself. The energy around Siva is peace, and calm as He is the cause. Around Shakti by herself, well, the energy starts to dance a lot. Not that this is a bad thing. Just not my preferred vibration. The little natural Dakshinamurthy shrine out there is really peaceful though. I go sit there.

Aum Namasivaya

bhaktajan
25 September 2009, 07:38 PM
Namaste Bhaktajan,

You are asserting that Brahman is Void. The dictionary states these meanings of void when used as noun :

n.
1.An empty space, A vacuum.
2. An open space or a break in continuity; a gap.
3. A feeling or state of emptiness, loneliness, or loss.
4. Games Absence of cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand: a void in hearts.

So, what meaning above indicates Brahman ?
Yes, the above defines Brahman ---also, we have all the descriptions of Brahman from the Vedas too ---add them together and that is the Whole Understanding---it is an Absolute-truth.

Re-read my postings on this thread.

Godhead expands the creation and thus, three catagories of existance are defined in the Vedas:
A] Brahman (the Void/The Field),
B] Paramatma (Localised finite individual conscious souls//Inert Atomic-Nucleai)
C] Bhagavan (Godhead)

You might interpret these 3 as allegorical? I do not.

There is no defect in ascribing the fame of the VOID to the auspices of BRAHMAN.

I had posted that Atanu's and now, EM's hesistency to conceed that Void & Brahman is one and the same concept is due to conflating the following two Ideas:


1] Shunya=Brahman [This is correct aqccording to Vedanta . . . of course the majesty of Universal Shakti is also said to spring forth from Brahman {that contradition-in-terms is for you all to resolve and you all have yet to do so}.

2] Shunya=Oblivion [Here lies the material conditioning of Atanu's & EM's egos ---they indeed know that OBLIVION is that which motivates their spiritual pursuits . . . The rightfull pursuit of Moksha equates escaping from the OBLIVION which they know all too well ---this brings up yet un-resolved "childhood/Novice Trauma" ---but this is due to 'fear of Oblivion' thus, Atanu & EM are subtlely traumatised by my mention of 'Void is same as Brahman'].

If I were to argue on your behalf Atanu & EM, I would proffer the postulation:
"that the Void is an Empty Vast Space that exists only within the expanse of Brahman's Expanse ---that beyond Shakti & Brahman there is no other existence."

I name the Void as the place where material elements are occupied with transpiring along with the influence of the Gunas thus giving the illusion of passing time.

The fact that the entire dynamo of "The Cosmos" [Shakti enveloped & emcompassed by Brahman] and requires great time and sacrifice to recognise this ---is no excuse to think that that is all there is.

Atanu & EM pose that:
"Brahman is without Qualities & untainted by the Gunas & Omnipresent"
and
Atanu & EM pose that [the opposite]:
"Brahman is the source of all Qualities & Gunas & Souls"

Bhaktajan says:
"Brahman is without Qualities & untainted by the Gunas & Omnipresent"
and
"Shakti occupies the space afforded by Brahman's Space"
and
"Brahman & Shakti together form the picture of 'Energy & The Void'"
and
"'Energy & The Void' are born from outside their own jurisdiction"
and
"That jurisdiction is the Brahmajyoti emanating from the Vaikuntas"

If you can't simply see waht I am saying then simply admit that it is outside your sphere of knowledge.

Do not say I do not know Vedanta.

yajvan
25 September 2009, 09:19 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


I have been reading the posts above… all this void , if in fact this is still the point of discussion, śūnyatā¹ .


Here's a few ideas I consider of value on this matter:

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.19.1
the world in the beginning was non-existent. Sat (Existence) termed as that ( That) alone existed.
A similar statement is found in the Taittrīya Upaniṣad,
asad vā idam agra āsīt - non-existence was all this in the beginning.


Now we move to Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1
In the beginning my dear, all this was Existence (sat), the One only without a second. Some people say all this in the beginning was asat or non-Existence and from that non-existence emerged the existence of the world ( world is a general name for creation).


For me , if one wishes to see in these śloka-s that the material (loka - that which can be looked at or perceived) part of life (bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ etc). was not , and consider it śūnyatā that is fine.

Yet the Upaniṣads as I see it confer Brahman was. Why is my confidence such ? If we look to the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.3 the ṛṣi Āruṇi teaches his own son Śvetaketu the following:
How can this be my dear that something existent ( the worlds, loka-s, etc) emerges from non-Existence? Therefore my dear, Existence (sat), One only without a second indeed was there in the beginning.


The point of view is the essence however subtle you may wish to call it is not śūnyatā, by the definition of śūnyatā. So what is this sat? That is the question to ponder and discuss.


The brahma-sutra-s do all the heavy lifting for us by boiling down the key Upaniṣads for our consumption. I will leave that reading to those that have interest to pursue.


For me and IMHO the finest essence, Brahman, that causal substance, is not śūnyatā. It may be quality-less, without our ability to voice it, yet it as far as I have been taught is fullness ( bhūman).


If one said - avakāśa dātr ākāśaḥ - that which gives room (ākāśa -space) for everything to exist. I too am okay with this as the brahma sūtra-s (22nd śloka) informs us that the word ākāśa must be understood as ( or the characteristic mark) of That ( Brahman).

For every thing that has come into being originates from ākāśa, he replied. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 1.9.1

Brahman is that Reality that gives everything room to be or even not be. And what is this then? cid-ākāśa - the space of Consciousness.

If one wishes to keep with the notion of śūnyatā, all is well with the world and the sun will rise the next day.


praṇām

devotee
25 September 2009, 09:25 PM
Yes, the above defines Brahman ---also, we have all the descriptions of Brahman from the Vedas too ---add them together and that is the Whole Understanding---it is an Absolute-truth.

====> Please quote definition of void from the Vedas.


Godhead expands the creation and thus, three catagories of existance are defined in the Vedas:
A] Brahman (the Void/The Field),
B] Paramatma (Localised finite individual conscious souls//Inert Atomic-Nucleai)
C] Bhagavan (Godhead)

So, Brahman, Paramatma & Bhagwan are all different. Right ? Please quote scriptures which say so.


There is no defect in ascribing the fame of the VOID to the auspices of BRAHMAN.

"Fame of Void" ? What do you mean by this term. Is Void famous ? Please elaborate what is fame of Brahman ?

"Auspices of Brahman" ? What do you mean to say by use of this term ? Can you please elaborate by quoting scriptures ?


1] Shunya=Brahman [This is correct aqccording to Vedanta . . . of course the majesty of Universal Shakti is also said to spring forth from Brahman {that contradition-in-terms is for you all to resolve and you all have yet to do so}.

Please describe Shunya. What is your understanding of this according to Vedanta ? Is Shunya just what we understand in Mathematics ?

2] Shunya=Oblivion

So, you want to say that Brahman is oblivion ? In which scripture it is written ? Or if you say that Atanu & EM say so then please quote their posts where they have said so.

Whatever you have written doesn't match with scriptures. Can you quote specific scriptures for whatever you have said in your post ?


If you can't simply see waht I am saying then simply admit that it is outside your sphere of knowledge.

It is not a question of my knowledge or your knowledge. Vedas mean & are the knowledge. If you quote scriptures (not PurAnAs please) to support whatever you say otherwise it is just your speculation which has no strength to stand on its own.


Do not say I do not know Vedanta.


I never said so. Who am I to say so ? However, you cannot simply give some opinion & assert that it is as per Vedanta without quoting Vedanta. Right ?

OM

atanu
25 September 2009, 10:24 PM
1] Shunya=Brahman [This is correct aqccording to Vedanta . . . of course the majesty of Universal Shakti is also said to spring forth from Brahman {that contradition-in-terms is for you all to resolve and you all have yet to do so}.

2] Shunya=Oblivion [Here lies the material conditioning of Atanu's & EM's egos ---they indeed know that OBLIVION is that which motivates their spiritual pursuits . . . The rightfull pursuit of Moksha equates escaping from the OBLIVION which they know all too well ---this brings up yet un-resolved "childhood/Novice Trauma" ---but this is due to 'fear of Oblivion' thus, Atanu & EM are subtlely traumatised by my mention of 'Void is same as Brahman'].


Post after post such assertions go on without any scriptural support or without reference to any experiential knowledge.

I do not know why abuse is not seen in post of this person, who with nonchalance, terms Brahman as Void and the knowledge of Brahman as Oblivion. This is nothing but the view of christian missionaries such as Datta.

And this Bhakta knows that Atanu and EM are pursuining this Void, whereas, the rightful spirituality, as per him, is actually to escape from this Void and oblivion.
----------------------------------
A drug addict is often in void. In deep sleep one is in void. That does not constitute Brahman. What so-called bhakta is saying is evil propaganda of christian missionaries who act in the disguise of being Hindus and teach that knowledge of Brahman is actually getting lost in oblivion, whereas true religion is theirs -- to follow in the footstep of an imaginary personality.

Whereas. Lord Krishna teaches that indivisible Brahman, equally residing in every heart and appearing to be divided in bodies, must be known.

How does it matter whether it is void or not void? How does it matter whether it is oblivion or not? Scriptures amply teach that it is satchidananda. It is the existence itself endowed with intelligence and bliss as one undivided.

So, Sat-Chid-Ananda, which resides in my very centre must be known.

It is ironic that, some in the name of Shri Krishna, denigrate His teaching and term Brahman as void or as oblivion etc.. This is christian missionary activity in disguise.

And it is ironic that some proudhindus applause, without realising anything.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 September 2009, 10:47 PM
Satay and friends

I have often wondered at the length and indirectness of posts of some. It is difficult to understand where they are coming from and where they want to go. But I understand, based on experience, that the final thump of their drum (cloaked in verbose garbage) is just:

Brahman is Void. Knowledge of Brahman is oblivion. You are seeking oblivion. True goal is just the opposite.

That is the message :


Originally Posted by bhaktajan http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=32927#post32927)
1] Shunya=Brahman [This is correct aqccording to Vedanta . . . of course the majesty of Universal Shakti is also said to spring forth from Brahman {that contradition-in-terms is for you all to resolve and you all have yet to do so}.

2] Shunya=Oblivion [Here lies the material conditioning of Atanu's & EM's egos ---they indeed know that OBLIVION is that which motivates their spiritual pursuits . . . The rightfull pursuit of Moksha equates escaping from the OBLIVION which they know all too well ---this brings up yet un-resolved "childhood/Novice Trauma" ---but this is due to 'fear of Oblivion' thus, Atanu & EM are subtlely traumatised by my mention of 'Void is same as Brahman'].

All are yet to resolve their ignorance, since BrahmA was born with closed eyes. Only Bhakta was born with open eyes.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 September 2009, 11:28 PM
I'm actually not sure what this means.

re Navaratri: Not my favorite festival. We actually don't go. Being shall we say somewhat more aware of the subtle energies flowing about, well... maybe you get the idea. I prefer Shakti as the half of Siva rather than by herself. The energy around Siva is peace, and calm as He is the cause. Around Shakti by herself, well, the energy starts to dance a lot. Not that this is a bad thing. Just not my preferred vibration. The little natural Dakshinamurthy shrine out there is really peaceful though. I go sit there.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM,

Ditto for me but I attend the morning aarti when convenient.

Actually, there is no division, from the dark end of avidya, when the desires of individual ego rule, through the successful culmination of the struggle aided by dasa hara (Durga who aids the struggle to overcome evil tendencies), one arrives at the other end of the continuum, which is vidya of single existence. Yet, vidya-avidya continuum is still prakriti. The shantam is said to be untouched by vidya-avidya.

That was my meaning of taming the tiger -- taming the bhandAsura (fake asura) called Ego. You must have traversed this struggle, to now be content in the goal of shantam. It is said that the silent culmination of OM is shantam-shivam, which is the Universe. It is diificult to comprehend without experience as to how the tranquil shiva, the fullness of the silent mind, is also this turbulent Universe.

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
25 September 2009, 11:53 PM
1] Shunya=Brahman [This is correct aqccording to Vedanta . . . of course the majesty of Universal Shakti is also said to spring forth from Brahman {that contradition-in-terms is for you all to resolve and you all have yet to do so}.

vs.

2] Shunya=Oblivion [Here lies the material conditioning of Atanu's & EM's egos ---they indeed know that OBLIVION is that which motivates their spiritual pursuits . . . The rightfull pursuit of Moksha equates escaping from the OBLIVION which they know all too well ---this brings up yet un-resolved "childhood/Novice Trauma" ---but this is due to 'fear of Oblivion' thus, Atanu & EM are subtlely traumatised by my mention of 'Void is same as Brahman'].

If I were to argue on your behalf Atanu & EM, I would proffer the postulation:
"that the Void is an Empty Vast Space that exists only within the expanse of Brahman's Expanse ---that beyond Shakti & Brahman there is no other existence."

. . . or Maybe I am wrong and I should resign from my day job ---because I cannot keep my any of my facts straight?

bhaktajan
25 September 2009, 11:58 PM
Atanu,
In post # 36 you ascribed this to me:
Brahman is Void. Knowledge of Brahman is oblivion. You are seeking oblivion. True goal is just the opposite.

your wellwisher in Sri Krishna's service,
Bhaktajan

Eastern Mind
26 September 2009, 06:07 AM
Namaste everyone:

lol ... at all this. I have very little knowledge of scripture, of voids, and such, and was merely trying, in my conversing with Atanu, to add a little humour into this debate. To have people not take themselves and all this quite so seriously, to lighten up a tad. Obviously I failed to put this across. So now I'll just say it directly. May peace be with all of you. I'll be aVOIDing this thread.

Aum Namasivaya

satay
26 September 2009, 09:23 AM
Namaskar,

As far as I know Bhaktajan is not a christian missionary but an ISKCON member. Bhaktajan you can correct me if I am wrong.

Bhaktajan is also not Datta.

Thanks,

bhaktajan
26 September 2009, 01:14 PM
I just now am visiting this Thread [I see that I have not been logged out since I last posted approx 24 hrs earlier].

I am an ISKCON member. I am a member of the Hare Krishna Movement.

Jai Sri Sri RadhaVrindavanChandra!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Why? What has happened? I shall now page-back to postings before #41 to read 'What has happened'.

If you don't hear from me after this posting . . . please tell the world my story. Godspeed to all. Hari Bol . . .

bhaktajan
26 September 2009, 01:27 PM
EM:
I . . . merely trying to add a little humour . . . to lighten up a tad.

Now I apollogise for denying your humor ---I do appreciate any levity, thank you.

BTW, Did you know "Humor is always at the expence of another ---as viewed from afar. The price of humor is almost always at the misfortune of another ---when viewed from a neutral POV".

Also, that the rasa of Laughter is coupled with ghastliness? [I may be wrong . . . I'm trying to remember this maxim]

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BTW, The opposite of 'the Void' is 'the Light'.

atanu
26 September 2009, 01:57 PM
In post # 36 you ascribed this to me:
Brahman is Void. Knowledge of Brahman is oblivion. You are seeking oblivion. True goal is just the opposite.

But this is of you own invention. You are being manipulative in a way that is not befitting a gentleman that I WOULD associate with.
Either you speak academically proper . . . or I will consider you persona non grata.

your wellwisher in Sri Krishna's service,
Bhaktajan

Namaste Bhakata,

My invention? You said:



Originally Posted by bhaktajan
1] Shunya=Brahman [This is correct aqccording to Vedanta . . . of course the majesty of Universal Shakti is also said to spring forth from Brahman {that contradition-in-terms is for you all to resolve and you all have yet to do so}.

2] Shunya=Oblivion [Here lies the material conditioning of Atanu's & EM's egos ---they indeed know that OBLIVION is that which motivates their spiritual pursuits . . . The rightfull pursuit of Moksha equates escaping from the OBLIVION which they know all too well ---this brings up yet un-resolved "childhood/Novice Trauma" ---but this is due to 'fear of Oblivion' thus, Atanu & EM are subtlely traumatised by my mention of 'Void is same as Brahman'].

a) You first decide that according to Vedanta, Brahman is a name of void. You have said exactly this in a post that Brahman is a name of void.

You have not given any evidence for both these assertions from scriptures. You have not shown a single scriptural evidence that Brahman is the name of Shunya. Or even that Brahman and Shunya are equivalent terms.

(My comment: This is nowhere to be found in Hindu scriptures. Rather, on removal of individual ego and jagat as void, what remains is the fullness of Brahman).

b) In the second statement above, you presume that Atanu and EM are seeking oblivion. This stems from your mis-judgement as below.



From Bhakata
Merging into Brahman does not constitute Absolute Dharma it is a relative salvation.

I say, first know the indivisible Brahman seated in all hearts and then speak with knowledge.

c) In a post you have also asserted that some entity predates the shunya, implying thereby that shunya, which according to you is Brahman, is a secondary product.

Nothing can predate Brahman, since it is the beginning of time. Brahman is beginningless. The whole Vedanta deals with Brahman-Atman and its realisation. As below:




Isha Upanishad
7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?



d) You have also claimed:



From Bhaktajan
"I am self-realised. Oh yes I am! Unfortunately it does not provide me with any means of paying the bills."

Shri Krishna says: I am the Self. And Self Realization means knowing Shri Krishna. This is how you know Shri Krishna that you are concerned about paying bills?

This is either a unknowing insult to Guru Narayana or a mischief -- to show that Self Realisation is worthless.

e) You said:


Absolute-ness means "A" is differs from "B" there is A & B plus many other letters. Each is absolutely different from the other --'spell-check' proves that.

Spell check will prove the absoluteness or Samadhi will?

By your logic in the phrase 'Supreme Personality of Godhead', 'the Personality' and 'the Godhead' are absolutely different. And you are just thirsting after an imagined personality, which you have never seen or experienced.

On the other hand, Brahman has specific meaning in Sanskrit of 'infinite expansion' and in scripture of being 'sad-chit-ananda'. As per the teaching of Shri Krishna:


Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

Brahman is the imperishable Supreme. Brahman is anadimat -- beginningless. So, nothing predates it.

Lord Krishna also gives two clear cut instructions:

1st Instruction of Bhagawan





Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute; Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.



And He further guides as to where the Anaadimatparam brahma will be found.



Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam; Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.
Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate; Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.
13.18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.



Lord clearly says that Brahman must be known. And He has indicated that Brahman is to be found seated in one's own Heart. I had asked:



From Atanu
How will one know this goal of knowledge, the Param Atma, who is samAn, indivisible and Atma? Will one know Param Atma as another? Will one know Param Atman as asamAn? Will one know this indivisible Param Atman as divided?
Can one stand apart and say "I have seen Brahman"? It is simply not possible to remain a second or a part and yet gain knowledge of indivisible and all pervasive Brahman. You have to lose your self (ego) to Self.



Without answering all these queries, you conclude that Atanu is seeking oblivion. Does Shri Krishna teach one to seek oblivion? He is specific that the indivisible Param Atman-Brahman-Paramam is to found seated in every Heart, It is one Hridaya.
It is immaterial that you specified Atanu. You are actually (without knowing or knowingly) demeaning the faith of many Hindus, who seek Self Realisation.

2nd Instruction of Bhagawan
Lord teaches: Submit to me.-------------------------

Which instruction of Lord are you obeying? None. A surrendered Jiva does not engage his mind in finding fault elsewhere. And a seeker of Self knows through Vichara and through experience that akhanada (indivisible) advaita Atman cannot be realised in a khanda (divided) state.

Om Namah Shivaya

If I have been harsh, it was not with malice or anger (I say so with God's name). I have been harsh intentionally, since sweet words and logical attempts of few of us have failed to bring you to logical arguments or show scriptural evidence for your remarks.

I have not listed many other statements such as "The divine light of unborn is the Void". It escaped me how the divine light is void. But it is futile, I suppose.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
26 September 2009, 02:03 PM
Namaste everyone:

lol ... at all this. I have very little knowledge of scripture, of voids, and such, and was merely trying, in my conversing with Atanu, to add a little humour into this debate. To have people not take themselves and all this quite so seriously, to lighten up a tad. Obviously I failed to put this across. So now I'll just say it directly. May peace be with all of you. I'll be aVOIDing this thread.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM,

With all regards, I appreciated your attempts to lighten, but unfortunately, for me, statements of bhakta, such as "Brahman is another name of Shunya" are not humorous.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
26 September 2009, 02:24 PM
Does Shri Krishna teach anywhere in Gita that Brahman is another name of Shunya?

He teaches:

Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah

Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute; Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate; Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam

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

Gita does not teach that Brahman is another name of Shunya. Lord teaches that Brahman is Paramam, which must be known as seated as Supreme light in every Heart. Neither there is any such meaning attributed to the sanskrit word Brahman.

Only after discarding ego self as void can Brahman be known as na asat, the Full -- literally, when the soul expands to encompass all.


1(mwd)brahmann. (lit. `" growth "' , `" expansion "' , `" evolution "' , `" development "' `" swelling of the spirit or soul "' , fr. 2. %{bRh}) pious effusion or utterance , outpouring of the heart in worshipping the gods , prayer RV. AV. VS. TS. ; the sacred word (as opp. to %{vAc} , the word of man) , the Veda , a sacred text , a text or Mantra used as a spell (forming a distinct class from the %{Rcas} , %{sAmAni} and %{yajUMSi} ; cf. %{brahma-veda}) RV. AV. Br. Mn. Pur. ; the Bra1hman2a portion of the Veda Mn. iv , 100 ; the sacred syllable Om Prab. , Sch , (cf. Mn. ii , 83) ; religious or spiritual knowledge (opp. to religious observances and bodily mortification such as %{tapas} &c.) AV. Br. Mn. R. ; holy life (esp. continence , chastity ; cf. %{brahma-carya}) S3ak.i , 24/25 S3am2k. Sarvad. ; (exceptionally treated as m.) the Brahma8 or one selfexistent impersonal Spirit , the one universal Soul (or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return) , the Self-existent , the Absolute , the Eternal (not generally an object of worship but rather of meditation and-knowledge [738,1] ; also with %{jye4STha} , %{prathama-ja4} , %{svayo4m-bhu} , %{a-mUrta} , %{para} , %{paratara} , %{parama} , %{mahat} , %{sanAtana} , %{zAzvata} ; and = %{paramA7tman} , %{Atman} , %{adhyAtma} , %{pradhAna} , %{kSetra-jJa} , %{tattva}) AV. S3Br. Mn. MBh. &c. (IW. 9 , 83 &c ,) ; n. the class of men who are the repositories and communicators of sacred knowledge , the Bra1hmanical caste as a body (rarely an individual Bra1hman) AV. TS. VS. S3Br. Mn. BhP. ; food Naigh. ii , 7 ; wealth ib. 10 ; final emancipation L. ; m. (%{brahma4n}) , one who Prays , a devot or religious man , a Bra1hman who is a knower of Vedic texts or spells , one versed in sacred knowledge RV. &c. &c. [cf. Lat. , {fla1men}] ; N. of Br2ihas-pati (as the priest of the gods) RV. x , 141 , 3 ; one of the 4 principal priests or R2itvijas (the other three being the Hotr2i , Adhvaryu and Udga1tr2i ; the Brahman was the most learned of them and was required to know the 3 Vedas , to supervise the , sacrifice and to set right mistakes ; at a later period his functions were based especially on the Atharva-veda) RV. &c. &c. ; Brahma1 or the one impersonal universal Spirit manifested as a personal Creator and as the first of the triad of personal gods (= %{prajA-pati} q.v. ; he never appears to have become an object of general worship , though he has two temples in India see RTL. 555 &c. ; his wife is Sarasvati1 ib. 48) TBr. &c. &c , ; = %{brahmaNa@AyuH} , a lifetime of Brahma1 Pan5car. ; an inhabitant of Brahma1's heaven Ja1takam. ; the sun L. ; N. of S3iva Prab. Sch. ; the Veda (?) Pa1rGr2. ; the intellect (= %{buddhi}) Tattvas. ; N. of a star , $ Aurigae , Su1ryat. ; a partic. astron. Yoga L. ; N. of the 9th Muhu1rta L. ; (with Jainas) a partic. Kalpa Dharmas3. ; N. of the servant of the 10th Arhat of the present Avasarpin2i L. ; of a magician Ra1jat.

2(cap)brahman1 n. devotion (lit. swelling, sc. of the soul), worship, piety, holy life, chastity; hymn of praise, prayer; sacred text, magic formula, incantation, the syllable Om, the Veda, i.g. divine science, theology or theosophy; the priestly or sacerdotal class; the supreme Being regarded as impersonal, the Absolute.3(cap)brahman2 m. one who prays, any devout person or a priest; a knower of sacred knowledge, a Brahman of caste or the priest so called; the supreme Being, personif. as the highest god or creator of the world.

bhaktajan
26 September 2009, 08:07 PM
Atanu, since you were a child somewhere along since then you have grown to appreciate the path of dharma that was thankfully made aware to you. You surrendered as per the standards set in the Gita:

Bg 17.16 "O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me—the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute."

The above parameters set the course that you are on within these postings.

The pursuit of ones own personal performance of Dharma starts when one has a life-crisis, or, alternatively, one performs dharma solely as a good and upstanding PUTRA/PUTRI.

The good PUTRA seeks to avoid OBLIVION and the good PUTRA earnestly protects his descendents from samsara's OBLIVION.

In the Begining there was the Void and God said let there be Light.

The Void and the Light are inseperable polar-opposites.

As a member of ISKCON ---aka The Hare Movement aka HareKrishna Mahamantra sankirtan yagya dasamya, I am obliged to develop my skills as a Propagator of the Name, Fame, Form, Personality, Paraphenelia & Entourage of none other than the Supreme Personality Of Godhead Bhagavan Svayam Shree Krishna ---I must tell people about who this Krishna bloke is.

That is my ulterior motive Atanu.

atanu
27 September 2009, 01:49 AM
In the Begining there was the Void and God said let there be Light.


Om. Only a couple of points Bhakta.

1.
I intuited that your faith is influenced by the above particular understanding of Bible, as if God is standing outside of the void.


But here the understanding begins as below (prostrations to the Seer of nasadiya sukta):




The Hymn of That which is not Untruth, from Rig Veda

नासदासीन् नो सदासीत् तदानीं नासीद् रजो नो व्योमापरो यत्
किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद् गहनं गभीरम्

Then was neither being nor non-being; there was no realm of air nor sky beyond. What covered it, and where? what sheltered it? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः
आनीदवातं स्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन् न परः किं चनास

Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal; no sign was there, nor day's and night's divider. That One being, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it there was nothing else.

There was the IT. IT was covered by unfathomable darkness. IT is within and does not stand out as God. This is the principal difference of understanding of esoteric (Hindu) and exoteric (Jewish) understanding. Void or no void, light or no light -- the Seer is always the SUBJECT.

(Added later: All may contrast and compare the knowledge of above two verses with the experience of deep sleep and examine as to what is meant by "There was It. There was nothing else apart from It." Knowing that IT, IMO, is knowing the dark all attractive.)

2.
When there is an interaction, the view here is not that two individuals are fighting or arguing. The interaction is seen as an event in an ocean full of joyfull waves. Two waves happen to meet and exchange notes, often scrapping each other, or often one destroying the other, or often both vanishing. Or rarely, swelling together with common knowledge.

Each wave is like a transistor. The voice is Vak Devi, propelled by Vachaspati. But the transistor or an onlooker may have the wrong notion that the transistor has a voice and an intelligence.

Thus, mostly, helped by the silent query: Who Am I?, here the sense is not fight of two individuals, but an ocean full of waves interacting. Of course sometimes the sense of ego comes up sneakingly.

You have claimed a lot of learning. That is certainly good. Yet if you query: Who is the knower? Who am I?, you may find no one. Thus there is no ego, no mAya, only ignorance.

Please do not reply in haste. Take time and chant.

Best Wishes and Regards.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
27 September 2009, 02:04 AM
And please remember that Krishna teaches;

Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

atanu
27 September 2009, 02:15 AM
Request to Admin:

The 'In the Begining there was the Void and God said let there be Light', may please be retained in my and Bhaktajan's posts, so as to obtain the correct perspective from both sides.

Om

atanu
27 September 2009, 02:20 AM
Namaskar,

As far as I know Bhaktajan is not a christian missionary but an ISKCON member. Bhaktajan you can correct me if I am wrong.

Bhaktajan is also not Datta.

Thanks,

Namaskar Satay,

Please examine the above in the light of the following and please accept the request made in it.



From atanu
Request to Admin:

The 'In the Begining there was the Void and God said let there be Light', may please be retained in my and Bhaktajan's posts, so as to obtain the correct perspective from both sides.

Om

devotee
27 September 2009, 03:52 AM
Namaste Bhaktajan,

I am still awaiting your response to my post # 34 on page 4 of this thread.

OM

bhaktajan
27 September 2009, 06:26 PM
====> Please quote definition of void from the Vedas?
I actually do not know "definition of void from the Vedas" nor a sholka that pertains to what I've been speaking of . . . I could look it up . . . {Hmm? akasha, ukta-pradhana(?), sunya-pura(?), Adi-pradhana, MahaVisnuTattvanidra-akasha(?)} . . . the Buddhist certainly have it at the tip of their tongues for sure . . . funny that I am speaking of The Void inregards to sunya-vadi tattva and you request the scriptural reference for my topic of that which is "eternally unchanging, timeless, omnipresent, untainted by kala, karma, 3-Guna-prakriti; and in sunyavadi tradition, untainted by jivas & Ishvara/Ishvaras". If you know the word in the sastra that defines the Void please tell me. I will never then forget from then onwards.

"The Void" is principality of its own accord! ---You do agree do you not???

Thus "The Void" is beyond all Prakriti.

But!--- "The Void" is enveloped by 'another'.
The Void exists within the precints of a Grander Provider of Space.

That Grander Provider of Space is the source of the room for The Void "to be" ----and, it is also the source of all 'potentiality' aka Pradhana aka Prakriti/Shakti.

Both The Void (Space) and the Prakriti/Shakti (all 'potentiality') evidently or 'actually IMO' are addressed with the same nomenclature, "Brahman".

So, Brahman, Paramatma & Bhagwan are all different. Right ? Please quote scriptures which say so.
Right! All Different ---like both sides of a Three-Sided Coin! ---You do agree do you not???

Gita Says so. Visnu exists in these three aspects ---that comprise all of the Cosmos entoto.

Bg 13.24:
One who understands this philosophy concerning material nature [The Void (Space) and the Prakriti/Shakti], the living entity [Paramatma] and the interaction of the modes of nature is sure to attain liberation. He will not take birth here again, regardless of his present position.

"Fame of Void" ? What do you mean by this term. Is Void famous ? Please elaborate what is fame of Brahman ?
Buddhist Philosophy; The basis for Calulus mathmathics; The basis of the Decimil System; The Goal of Theoretical Mathemathians; etc

I remember a math school teacher explain a math quandry (BTW, I have always disagreed with this teacher regarding this thesis):

1] Stand ten meters distance from a wall

--and then approach the Wall and,

2] stand 1/2 the distance (5 meters) to the wall
3] stand 1/2 the distance (2.5 meters) to the wall
4] stand 1/2 the distance (1.2 meters) to the wall
5] stand 1/2 the distance (.61 meters) to the wall
6] stand 1/2 the distance (.30 meters) to the wall
Repeat endlessly] stand 1/2 the distance to the wall each time . . .

My Teacher claimed is each time you moved only half the distant toward the wall ---you will never reach the wall! ---Do you agree with my school teacher??? I do not agree! I think that eventually there is absolute Zero.---Do you agree with me???

"Auspices of Brahman" ? What do you mean to say by use of this term ? Can you please elaborate by quoting scriptures ?

"Auspices of Brahman" IOW 'Under the sphere of Influence that is ascribed to Brahman as per the definition of Brahman.' No Need to quote sastra for this. "Auspices" simply means [as per my SpellCheck! LOL] help; sponsorship; patronage; backing; support].

Please describe Shunya. What is your understanding of this according to Vedanta ? Is Shunya just what we understand in Mathematics ?

Shunya (sunya) = Zed/Zeta/Zero/Nill/Nada/Nirvana/Zip.

Sunya is zero. And in regards to theology there are two schools that encompass the Vedic theology: God as a Person //or// God as a Non-person. Ergo, the two goals are different among these two schools.
One School aims at the soul's merging into a Non-state-of-existance-beyond-samsara-and-prakriti ---this for all intents and purposes equates to making ones soul achieve Zero-Ness aka The Void.

The other School aims at the soul's regaining their spiritural sva-rupa, eternal-form, beyond the material world we are in that is expanding from Mahavishnu's breathing

2] Shunya=Oblivion

No sunya is the Void. Oblivion = Samsara (Birth & re-birth since time-immemorial---when each time is simply occupied with eating/sleeping/mating/defending in varying grades of life as the whole-and-whole purpose of being, ad-infinitum)

So, you want to say that Brahman is oblivion ? In which scripture it is written ?
So Brahman is the Name of God for you! ---That is all!

Actually, it is written that Brahman Realisation is a milestone on the Moksha-marga-patha ---and that to leave behind or lose the chance to go beyond Brahman is the definition of Oblivion. But I do think that the scriptures use the term "Hellish" rather than Oblivion.

But I have advanced training that starts where Brahman leaves off ---that is why we are called vaishnavas.


Whatever you have written doesn't match with scriptures. Can you quote specific scriptures for whatever you have said in your post ?
Getting redundant here aren't we?


It is not a question of my knowledge or your knowledge. Vedas mean & are the knowledge. If you quote scriptures (not PurAnAs please) to support whatever you say otherwise it is just your speculation which has no strength to stand on its own.
"not PurAnAs please" ---My speculation is far above the capacities of the majority of world leaders counting over the past 5,102 years.

You may automatically differ with my ascertion ---but, you definitely can't count me among the Billions-of-souls that have filled the White-Pages of The Telephone Directory of All Those who have lived for the past 5 Centuries. Nope I am pursuing an absolute goal.

Don't tell anyone ---They might want to make an example of me.

That is my Opinion. BTW, I do know what I am talking about. It's on my resume. When I report for a job I inspect my boss ~not vice-versa. Like searching for a Guru, No?

You cannot simply give some opinion & assert that it is as per Vedanta without quoting Vedanta. Right ?
Yes, That is what is taught and I agree with the maxim. It is an absolute maxim.

It is the derth of good questions that is lamentable.

Anyway, School-Aptitude-Tests Scores are continually dropping among the general public. At least they may get first-rate health care for what ails them

OM
OM is the sound heard in the silence of The void.
That sound is the churning of Prakriti in the Field called Brahman.
The field is the space within the Brahmanda ---which eminates from Mahavishnu's breath.

...................

satay
27 September 2009, 07:50 PM
Admin Note

Namaskar,


Namaskar Satay,

Please examine the above in the light of the following and please accept the request made in it.

Om

Thank you. Please note that I only try to delete content or posts that are against the rules of the forum. For example, if a post has personal attacks instead of focusing on the topic or if it is a spam etc. I usually either delete the whole post or save some content that is relevant to the topic.

If members don't insult each other and focus on the topic instead, my job would be much easier, however, that doesn't seem to be case lately.

Thanks,

kd gupta
28 September 2009, 01:40 AM
Void, Avoid hijacking the word from scientific world to spiritual world.

A body of any material is made of molecules mass and the compacted body contains voids, smaller the void space , larger is density.

The percentage from boulders at 30% to manually compacted soil 15% and mechanically compacted soil the void ratio is 5% by volume.

Physics says that in scientific concrete work large quantity of voids gives more bleeding and in spiritual concrete work same principle applies.

devotee
28 September 2009, 10:17 AM
Namaste Bhaktajan,



"Originally Posted by devotee
====> Please quote definition of void from the Vedas?"

-----> I actually do not know "definition of void from the Vedas" nor a sholka that pertains to what I've been speaking of . . . I could look it up . . . {Hmm? akasha, ukta-pradhana(?), sunya-pura(?), Adi-pradhana, MahaVisnuTattvanidra-akasha(?)} . . . the Buddhist certainly have it at the tip of their tongues for sure . . . funny that I am speaking of The Void inregards to sunya-vadi tattva and you request the scriptural reference for my topic of that which is "eternally unchanging, timeless, omnipresent, untainted by kala, karma, 3-Guna-prakriti; and in sunyavadi tradition, untainted by jivas & Ishvara/Ishvaras". If you know the word in the sastra that defines the Void please tell me. I will never then forget from then onwards.

=====> Void means emptiness as per dictionary. But you said that Void means Brahman. So, it must have scriptural support. Now you say that there is nothing in scriptures to support this. I think you are mixing Buddhist's view with Vedanta.

Shall we deduce that your assertion that Brahman is Void has no scriptural support & it is only your opinion ?


"The Void" is principality of its own accord! ---You do agree do you not???

As there is no scriptural supoort for the above view, it is difficult to accept this.



Thus "The Void" is beyond all Prakriti.

Void can exist only within Prakriti. As emptiness can exist only where material existence is .... any concept of "nothingness" can exist only when there is a concept of "something".


But!--- "The Void" is enveloped by 'another'.

What is this another ? Which scripture talks about this & where ?


The Void exists within the precints of a Grander Provider of Space.

"Grander provider of space" ??? You mean Brahman or God ?


Both The Void (Space) and the Prakriti/Shakti (all 'potentiality') evidently or 'actually IMO' are addressed with the same nomenclature, "Brahman".

So in your parlance Void = Space = Prakriti = Shakti = Brahman ??

Where is it stated in scriptures ?


"So, Brahman, Paramatma & Bhagwan are all different. Right ? Please quote scriptures which say so."

-----> Right! All Different ---like both sides of a Three-Sided Coin! ---You do agree do you not???

Both sides of three-sided coin ? Great ! How is it possible ?


Gita Says so. Visnu exists in these three aspects ---that comprise all of the Cosmos entoto.

But you said they were different !


Bg 13.24:
One who understands this philosophy concerning material nature [The Void (Space) and the Prakriti/Shakti], the living entity [Paramatma] and the interaction of the modes of nature is sure to attain liberation. He will not take birth here again, regardless of his present position.

I think you are referring to :

Ya evam vetti purusham prakritim cha guNai saha l
sarvthA vartmAnopi na sa bhUyobhijAyate ll

This verse talks about Purush & the Prakriti. Where is void here ?


"Fame of Void" ? What do you mean by this term. Is Void famous ? Please elaborate what is fame of Brahman ?

---> Buddhist Philosophy; The basis for Calulus mathmathics; The basis of the Decimil System; The Goal of Theoretical Mathemathians; etc

I remember a math school teacher ........

===> You have evaded the question.


"Auspices of Brahman" ? What do you mean to say by use of this term ? Can you please elaborate by quoting scriptures ?

----> "Auspices of Brahman" IOW 'Under the sphere of Influence that is ascribed to Brahman as per the definition of Brahman.' No Need to quote sastra for this. "Auspices" simply means [as per my SpellCheck! LOL] help; sponsorship; patronage; backing; support].

This doesn't say anything clearly. What is definition of Brahman as per scriptures ?


Please describe Shunya. What is your understanding of this according to Vedanta ? Is Shunya just what we understand in Mathematics ?

----->Shunya (sunya) = Zed/Zeta/Zero/Nill/Nada/Nirvana/Zip.

Sunya is zero. And in regards to theology there are two schools that encompass the Vedic theology: God as a Person //or// God as a Non-person. Ergo, the two goals are different among these two schools.
One School aims at the soul's merging into a Non-state-of-existance-beyond-samsara-and-prakriti ---this for all intents and purposes equates to making ones soul achieve Zero-Ness aka The Void.

Non-person is ok. But where is it written that non-person = zero = shUnya ??



Actually, it is written that Brahman Realisation is a milestone on the Moksha-marga-patha ---

Is it just a milestone or is it the destination ? Where is it written that it is just a milestone ?


and that to leave behind or lose the chance to go beyond Brahman is the definition of Oblivion. But I do think that the scriptures use the term "Hellish" rather than Oblivion.

That means there is something beyond Brahman ? What is that ? Please do quote scriptures to buttress your point.



But I have advanced training that starts where Brahman leaves off ---that is why we are called vaishnavas.

Which Vaishnava scripture says that there is something beyond Brahman ?

It would immensely help if you please quote scripture & support whatever you say so that we can avoid going in circles without getting anything worthwhile in the process.

OM

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 10:23 AM
Good thing we are not talking about "standard accounting practices" ---if so we'd appear as unable to count.

"We must deduce that The Topic "Void" is beyond your understanding of Vedanta?"

That is the question!

"The Void is the empty space that the Universe exists in!"

Is this beyond your understanding of Vedanta?

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 10:29 AM
and that to leave behind or lose the chance to go beyond Brahman is the definition of Oblivion. But I do think that the scriptures use the term "Hellish" rather than Oblivion.
That means there is something beyond Brahman ? What is that ? Please do quote scriptures to buttress your point.

Oh my Dear Devotee, The above question is wonder full to ask!

Please know that I re-posted the Quote I made above after re-reading it ---and I assure you it is in sastra, it is Vaishnava, it is esoteric, and you will learn more about it, you must approach any vaishnava in the Guadiya-matha and you will be told all of that hellish path that every Vaishnava avoids**.

I must use this tactic to respond to your request above.

be seeing you,
Bhaktajan

**Not to confused with a devotee's desire to forsake moksha so as to continue to spread the Dharma within the world of samsara (Yes, that does sound similar to the Boddhisattva's sentiment but I am speaking of the bonefide Bhakti-yogi Vaishnava).

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 10:35 AM
Devotee,
I have re-read your post ---and your questions are superb.

I will answer them best I can asap.

The real world is knocking at my door and I must at least offer water to them . . . I'll be back soon.

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 11:42 AM
Devotee wrote:

Bhaktajan says, "Void means Brahman".---I do not say this.

I say, Brahman and the Void are the same thing.

Put on your 'Thinking Cap'.

There is aVoid out there prevading everything ---if I am saying that "Brahman and the Void are the same thing" ---then the Void shares the same fame as Brahman does.

One man's void is the Vedic Transcendentalist's Brahman. Therefore, Only the Vedic Transcendentalist knows the purport of the existance of the Void.

It must be this way ---or else the claim can be made that the Void is a seperate & different sphere.

But all "Prakriti is enveloped by Brahman". Similarly any layman can agree that "Prakriti is Enveloped by the Void".

What you all are stuck on is that the "All Creative Potentiality" . . . 'ALSO KNOWN AS' ('aka') . . . "Brahman" is NOT a Void BECAUSE "All Creative Potentiality" springs forth from ________.

This is where Vaishnavism enters the picture.

"All Creative Potentiality" is impregnated into Brahman then the Void is thrown into flux and the three-guinas then do their thing.

Visnu impregnates with his vision.

atanu
28 September 2009, 12:09 PM
Even Vaisnava Guru does not teach that there is something higher than Brahman. The following are the few verses of Brahma Sutra dealing with the subject along with the purport of Ramanuja. The sutra is in blue font and the purport in italics in black font.

30. (There is something) higher than that; on account of the designations of bridge, measure, connexion, and difference.

The Sûtras now proceed to refute an erroneous view based on some fallacious arguments, viz. that there is a being higher even than the highest Brahman, the supreme cause, material as well as operative, of the entire world--a refutation which will confirm the view of Brahman being free from all imperfections and a treasure as it were of countless transcendentally exalted qualities.--There is some entity higher than the Brahman described so far as being the cause of the world and possessing the twofold characteristics. For the text 'That Self is a bank (or bridge), a boundary' (Kh. Up. VIII, 4, 1) designates the Self as a bank or bridge (setu). And the term 'setu' means in ordinary language that which enables one to reach the other bank of a river; and from this we conclude that in the Vedic text also there must be meant something to be reached. The text further says that that bridge is to be crossed: 'He who has crossed that bridge, if blind,' &c.; this also indicates that there must be something to be reached by crossing. Other texts, again, speak of the highest Brahman as something measured, i.e. limited. 'Brahman has four feet (quarters), sixteen parts.' Such declarations of Brahman being something limited suggest the existence of something unlimited to be reached by that bridge. Further there are texts which declare a connexion of the bridge as that which is a means towards reaching, and a thing connected with the bridge as that to be reached: 'the highest bridge of the Immortal' (Svet. Up. VI, 19); 'he is the bridge of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). For this reason also there is something higher than the Highest.--And other texts again expressly state that being beyond the Highest to be something different: 'he goes to the divine Person who is higher than the Highest' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 8); ' by this Person this whole universe is filled; what is higher than that is without form and without suffering' (Svet. Up. III, 9-10). All this combined shows that there is something higher than the highest Brahman.--The next Sûtra disposes of this view.


31. But on account of resemblance.

The 'but' sets aside the pûrvapaksha. There is no truth in the assertion that from the designation of the Highest as a biidge (or bank) it follows that there is something beyond the Highest. For Brahman in that text is not called a bank with regard to something to be reached thereby; since the additional clause 'for the non-confounding of these worlds' declares that it is compared to a bridge or bank in so far as it binds to itself (setu being derived from si, to bind) the whole aggregate of sentient and non-sentient things without any confusion. And in the clause 'having passed beyond that bridge' the passing beyond means reaching; as we say, 'he passes beyond the VedAnta,' meaning 'he has fully mastered it.'

--------
36. The omnipresence (possessed) by that, (understood) from the declaration of extent.

That omnipresence which is possessed 'by that,' i.e. by Brahman, and which is known 'from declarations of extent,' and so on, i.e. from texts which declare Brahman to be all-pervading, is also known from texts such as 'higher than that there is nothing.' Declarations of extent are e.g. the following: 'By this Person this whole Universe is filled' (Svet. Up. III. 9); 'whatever is seen or heard in this world, is pervaded inside and outside by Nârâyana' (Mahânâr. Up.); 'The eternal, pervading, omnipresent, which the Wise consider as the source of all beings' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 6). The 'and the rest' in the Sâtra comprises passages such as 'Brahman indeed is all this,' 'The Self indeed is all this,' and the like. The conclusion is that the highest Brahman is absolutely supreme.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Highest.'


Om

atanu
28 September 2009, 12:24 PM
Shri Ramanuja, though differeing from Shankara on many interpretations, however, arrives at the identical understanding:

The conclusion is that the highest Brahman is absolutely supreme.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Highest.'
---------------------------------------

Shri Bhakta alludes that VOID exists on its own. Which means that void is self-existing. He also has the temerity to suggest that Brahman is a name of Void.

The following verse clarifies that Brahman is Self-Existence and all rest are products:

Topic-4: Causality

14. (Brahman is presented by all the Upanishads); for as the cause of space and the rest, Brahman is spoken of in all the Upanishads just as It is in any one of them.

15. (Non-existence does not mean void), because of its allusion (to Brahman).

--------------------------------------
Void is the ignorance, since:

Chapter I – Agama Prakarana (The Chapter based on Vedic Testimony)

I
Harih Aum!
AUM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. A clear explanation of it is as follows: All that is past, present and future is, indeed, AUM. And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is truly AUM.

II
All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters.

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

AUM or OM is all that is past, present, and future and also whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is truly AUM

Om

atanu
28 September 2009, 12:25 PM
Conclusions


1. The highest Brahman is absolutely supreme.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Highest.'

2. (Non-existence does not mean void), because of its allusion (to Brahman).

3.
AUM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. All that is past, present and future is, indeed, AUM. And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is AUM.

All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters.

Om
-----------------


There is no scope for void, as the being is full. To say that the void is self-existing is to say that the void is the source of Being.:rolleyes:

atanu
28 September 2009, 12:30 PM
In Samadhi when all names and forms dissolve, it is not non-existence. It is not void, as Shri Bhakta will like the world to believe. There remains the awareness of Existence; the awareness of "I am" as full, indivisible existence. This is OM.

Not Gita and not even Vaisnava acharya Ramanuja hold views that Bhaktajan holds. I wonder wherefrom Bhakta derives this knowledge that Brahman is not the highest goal and that Brahman is a name of void?

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 12:36 PM
Atanu, Thank you for quoting a Vaishnava Guru. I agree with him in his opening lines "there is a being higher even than the highest Brahman" I agree ---You ahve not realised that you posted something that SUPPORTS what I have been saying along about the nature of the void.
"There is some entity higher than the Brahman described so far as being the cause of the world"

That highest Brahman is called Param-Brahman (highest Brahman).

Krishna is the Param-Brahman (highest Brahman).

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Even though the Thread is "THE VOID" ---I too can't stop myself from posting things that are NOT RELEVANT TO THE THREAD TOPIC "THE VOID" . . . here is an essay that should satisfy all schools of Love-Of-God. It discusses God's "causless-mercy" ---which comes from beyond Brahman. {BTW, you cannot fall in love with the Void! Is that correct Atanu? Is that correct Devotee?}

God's "causless-mercy":

It is pointless to say that the purpose of God’s descension is limited to a specific reason. People have given various reasons based on what appeals to them. But, I would say that the most important reason for the descension of God is only His causeless Grace. God, Who is fully satisfied within Himself, and Who is atmaram-poornkam, has nothing to gain from anyone. He cannot have any kind of desire. Thus His each and every action is only for the benefit of others. God’s nature of causelessly showering His Grace upon the souls is also well-known in the world. It is this nature which causes His descension.


It is very simple to explain how He showered His causeless Grace upon the souls in His descension as Krishn. There are rigid qualifications to enter the path of gyan or non-dualistic devotion to the impersonal aspect of God (nirakar brahm). Such a person who fulfills these qualifications is so rare that he may be only one in millions.

Shankaracharya describes in his writings that without devotion to the supreme personality of God, Shree Krishn, heart can never be purified. Without purifying the heart, how could a person become qualified to enter the path of gyan?

Even if a person does become qualified, only a mere handful of such souls could actually attain liberation. Therefore, because of His nature of being causelessly Gracious, God descended in this world and, during that time, He revealed His innumerable names, virtues, and His leelas. Thus, by taking their help, uncountable sinful, mayic souls cross the ocean of maya and receive Divine love.



There are examples of souls like Valmiki. He could not even repeat the name of Bhagwan Ram. So, he repeated the name backwards. Even then, through the strength of the Divine name, he became a great brahmrishi. In this context Ved Vyasji says in the Bhagwatam (1/8/35),



[B]http://www.jkp.org/prem-ras-siddhant/images/hindi-gifs/bhave.gif




That because of our interaction from uncountable lifetimes with the material world, the natural inclination of the mind is towards the material world. God therefore descends in this world, and reveals the Divine environment and His Divine pastimes, which become the means of Divine attainment for uncountable souls.





Another reason for the descension of God that is even more dear to me is,



http://www.jkp.org/prem-ras-siddhant/images/hindi-gifs/tatha-param.gif




“Although the paramhansas were already absorbed in the Bliss of the impersonal aspect of Divinity, God appeared in this world in His eternal Divine form to immerse themin the Bliss of Divine love.”


There are examples of great paramhansas like Sanakadi, Janak, Shukdev and others, who abandoned their impersonal Bliss and became absorbed in the Bliss of the personal form of God. Just think, even after knowing this fact, some ignorant people still question about the eternity of the personal form of God. Had there been no descension (avatar), the followers of the path of impersonal Divinity would have loudly declared that the personal form of God does not exist.

Actually, the impersonal absolute and the personal form of God are not two separate existences. So, to give them the sweet experience of Divine love is also a reason of His descension. Along with this, it was also established that His impersonal and personal forms are one. This is the reason that the great paramhansas became zealously attracted to the Bliss of the personal form of God. It means detachment from the impersonal form and attachment to the personal form of the same God.

Apart from this, some other well known reasons for God’s descension include the establishment of dharm, destruction of the demons, protection of the Devoteesand, in addition to these, there could be innumerable other reasons. In the world, when we go somewhere normally we have several aims to fulfill. But, to count God’s actions and aims during His descension is absolutely impossible. By descending Himself among souls, God reveals His Gracious Divine qualities. Hearing about these, a soul becomes resolute and with his positive faith, he quickly proceeds towards God.

Another point that is necessary to know is that all descensions of God are Divine.

According to the Gita, God’s birth (janm) and all His actions are Divine. But for the material souls, God’s body and actions appear to be material. The main and most important point is that all the Divine bodies of all the descensions of God are Divine and therefore they are eternal.

Another point worth reflecting upon is that all the descensions are ‘perfect and complete.’ There are no greater or lesser descensions of God; nor does a particular descension represent half or a quarter of God’s complete Divinity. God cannot be divided into fractions. He remains complete and unchanged always, everywhere, and in all the circumstances.

So, Ved Vyas says, Generally, people have the habit of thinking that the particular descension of God they worshipis better than the other forms of God. This constitutes the greatest spiritual transgression, called namaparadh. One should, on no account, commit this mistake, even unconsciously. God is always God in all situations; if He could be divided or made into smaller fractions then He would not be God.

Generally speaking, the followers of Ram and Krishn are greater in number in the world. The cause for this is not that Their descensions were greater than the others. Rather, there was a greater revelation of the leelas during the descensionsof Ram and Krishn, and through the remembrance of these leelas, the devotees’ minds become quickly attached to God. Thus, from the point of view of attachment of the mind, these two descensions have been given a special significance. In reality, there is no deficiency or surplus of Divinity in any descension making it inferior or superior to others.

You must have seen sweets made of pure sugar that are prepared on occasions like Divali and other festivals. These are made for children in the shape of toys, just like a sugar-horse, a sugar-elephant, a sugar-man, a sugar-woman, and so on. Out of innocence, the children will fight over them, “I want the man!” Another says, “I will take the horse!” But mother and father know that whether their child takes the horse or the man, the sweetness of both is exactly the same. The only difference is in the shape of that particular sweet. In this way, regardless of which avatar one worships, all of them have unlimited powers, unlimited virtues and Their Divinity is equal.

If someone were to say, “The scriptures mention that God has 10 or 24 main descensions, but I would prefer a 25th descension. What should I do?” Such people should know that uncountable descensions of God are taking place every moment in uncountable brahmandas. Ved Vyas states,

There have been uncountable descensions. One can choose to worship whatever form one desires. If there could be such a form that has never appeared as a descension, you could also accept that form, and God will come to you in that worshipped form. What effort does God have to expend in taking a form? You are completely free to imagine Him in any form, with any kind of complexion, and so on. God is so compassionate that in this regard He has not created any fixed rules or restrictions to which a soul could object. This is why He is described as, “Anant-nam-rupaya.” He is said to have uncountable names and forms.

To restrict that unlimited power to a certain limit is just one’s ignorance. Therefore, with regard to conceiving God’s form, you have been given complete freedom.

No limit has been placed on God’s name either. You may take His name according to your own desire, based on whatever language you speak or country you are from. He has no objection to this. It is not that one name is greater or lesser than another. To think this, is an unforgivable spiritual transgression (akchamya namapradh). Shree Krishn’s childhood friends used to call him, “Kanhaiya.” Mother Yashoda called Krishn and Balram, “Kanua” and “Balua” or just “Lala.”

The Gopis would call Him a “stealer of Their hearts” (chor-jar) and Shyamsundar would be most eager to hear these loving taunts from them. In Dwarika, Krishn’s loving name is “ranchor,” which means the one who ran away from the battlefield. He received this title from His bhaktas, because, out of fear of Jarashandh, Shree Krishn left the fight and ran away to Dwarika.

All the names that are given to God based on His different leelas are a source of receiving great loving Bliss for both, the devotees and God, provided that there is an intimate loving relationship between them. Without love, all the names and forms are useless. One should not think that a certain name of God is superior to other names, or that only through a particular name he may attain God quickly.

Actually, any of His names, forms, or actions which emphasize His almightiness are not loving to the devotees. On seeing Shree Krishn’s awe-inspiring, fear-inducing universal form (virat roop) of almighty God, Arjun folded his hands and prayed Krishn to assume His original two-armed form, which was loving to him. So we know that only those names and forms that relate to His loving leelas and boundless compassion are truly sweet.

By remembering these, one has the opportunity to think, “See how compassionate God is and how much love He has for His bhaktas! An illiterate Gopi is reprimanding Shree Krishn by calling Him a stealer of Her heart (chor-jar), and Shree Krishn is absorbed in her love and adores her sweet taunts.” Thus, there should be no confusion regarding any of God’s names.

In the same way, let us think about the topic of the leelas. Whatever leelas of Ram, Krishn and other forms of God are written in the scriptures, are like a drop of water in a boundless ocean. The leelas of Ram and Krishn are happening every moment since eternity, and all of these leelas are ever-new. To regard them as having a limit is ignorance.

The descensions and leelas of God are unlimited. Whatever leela you could imagine, that has already happened. You should understand that seeing your pure love for Him, He can do everything for you. However, if your imagination is without devotional emotions, then the question does not even arise of His doing a leela or not.

Just like the leelas, the Divine virtues of God are also limitless. Take the help of any virtue which is loving to you for your devotional remembrance.

It is not necessary that you should pick only a certain virtue. Due to the influence of the past sanskars, one devotee finds a particular virtue of God to his liking, and another devotee feels attracted to another virtue. One should not make any distinction between them. Whatever virtue a person finds pleasing to him, he should choose that for his remembrance.

All the Divine abodes are also one. Choose the one that appeals to you. God can be found anywhere, because His abode is also omnipresent. Just as His form is Divine, you should also remember that His names, virtues, leelas, and abodes are also Divine.

The Ramayan says that God remains equally present everywhere. If someone wants to see Him in some special personal form, even that personal form is omnipresent everywhere.

In the same way, whichever abode is to one’s liking, one should remember that abode and not make any differentiation between the abodes.

One should understand that all the descended Saints (acharyas) are one. We may accept a particular acharya, but we should not have any ill-feeling towards other acharyas.

It is important to remember that God’s uncountable names, uncountable forms, uncountable virtues, uncountable leelas, uncountable abodes and uncountable Saints are all one. They all reside within each other, and one can attain God by dedicating to any one of them. To criticize them in any way is a spiritual transgression. A person should devote himself according to where his interest lies, and beyond this he shouldn’t use his intellect.

Normally we see in the world that worshippers of a particular form, name or virtue of God criticize and condemn the worshippers of other names, forms or virtues of God. This is a great mistake. If a person were to say that even in the Puranas this kind of contradiction is seen, one should carefully note that such statements are only simulations.

They are written with a specific intention of enhancing devotion to one’s worshipped form of God; it is not criticism. The scriptures say, The intent of such comments is only to praise one’s own side.

Once Surdas humorously asked Tulsidas, “When Shree Krishn is the descension of all the sixteen aspects of Divinity (solah kala), then why do you worship Shree Ram, Who has manifested only twelve Divine aspects?”

Tulsidas could have given a proper answer, but he also amusingly said: “Until now I only knew that Ram was my beloved prince; upon learning today that He is an avatar who is the manifestation of twelve Divine aspects, my devotion to Him has increased twelve times more!” It is the language of the rasik Saints who being internally one, sometimes joked with each other, just as you do with others in the world.

One may say that the scriptures speak of partial descension (anshavatar), complete descension (purnavatar), descension with specific purpose or descension manifesting specific qualities (aveshavatar, kalavatar), and so on. This seems to be making distinctions between the different kinds of descensions.

The fact is that a particular descension of God only manifests that much power which is needed at a particular time. Thus, according to the limit of the manifestation of the Divine power, a particular descension is categorized accordingly.

This can be clarified by a simple example. A university professor teaches his young child, ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ ‘D.’ This doesn’t mean that his intellectual ability is limited to this. According to the need that arises in different situations, his abilities are manifested. He may speak to his little child in the broken language of young children, he may speak to his wife in her mother tongue, he may speak to his servant in the servant’s native dialect, but when he gives a lecture in the university, he reveals his full intellectual abilities. Similar is the situation of the Divine powers that are revealed by a descension of God.

We should understand that all the descensions of God are indivisible, Divine and complete. Then what is worth reflecting upon is which avatar’s form is most pleasing for a devotee to meditate upon. It is the experience of all of you that the mind does not desire merely a form. It wants a form that is beautiful and attractive. Taking this into consideration, meditation on the forms of Ram and Krishn is the easiest. If a person wanted to meditate upon another descension like Varah, when God descended as a Divine boar, he would conceive in his meditation a material boar, which the mind would not find very pleasing.

Now think of the descensions of Bhagwan Ram and Krishn. We can easily understand that Krishn’s avatar was the sweetest and that the leelas manifested during this descension were numerous. Initially, a devotee will not be able to continuously meditate on God’s form. For establishing his mind in Divine subjects, he will have to take the help of the leelas, and the leelas of Shree Krishn are so sweet that the devotees’ mind will be naturally attracted to them.

Thus, meditating on the leelas is very easy. During Shree Krishn’s avatar, the leelas of all the five kinds of loving emotions (bhao) were revealed. They are: shant bhao (the feelings a subject has for a king), dasya bhao (the love a servant has for his master), sakhya bhao (the love a friend has for his friend), vatsalya bhao (the love a mother has for her child), and madhurya bhao (the love that Gopis have for Krishn). According to his personal liking, a devotee can think about any kind of leela.

In this way, sadhana becomes easy.

Another point is that, even though Ram and Krishn are one, the sweetest leela Bliss that was revealed during Shree Krishn’s descension was not revealed in Shree Ram’s descension. This is the reason why the Saints who became God realized during Ram’s descension, chose to come as Gopis during Shree Krishn’s descension so that they could experience the sweetest Bliss of Divine love.

Therefore, from the point of view of experiencing the highest Bliss of Divine love and the ease of practice, devotion to Krishn Who is all-loving and all-beautiful, Who is the stealer of the hearts of the Gopis and Who is the crown-jewel of all the rasik Saints, is most appropriate.

You must understand that same absolute supreme Personality of God (poornatam purushottam brahm) is in two forms, Radha and Krishn. The Upnishad says, Radha and Krishn are one, but, for the sake of leela, They are in two forms. Leelas are eternal, thus the forms of Radha and Krishn are also eternal. According to Ved Vyas, Radha is the Soul of Krishn. The Upanishads also describe Radha as the Swamini of Shree Krishn; She is the life and soul of Shree Krishn.

Now the devotee can meditate upon both, Vrishbhanu-nandini Radhikaji and Nandnandan Shyam Sundar who did maharas in Vrindaban, together or individually, according to his personal choice. http://www.jkp.org/prem-ras-siddhant/index-english.html

atanu
28 September 2009, 12:43 PM
Atanu, Thank you for quoting a Vaishnava Guru. I agree with him in his opening lines "there is a being higher even than the highest Brahman" I agree ---You ahve not realised that you posted something that SUPPORTS what I have been saying along about the nature of the void.


:D

Bhakta,

Are you naive or has too much reading numbed you? Please read full and know that what made you elated is the view of Purvapakshin (one like you) whose view is over-ruled:

The conclusion is that the highest Brahman is absolutely supreme.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the Highest.'

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

Do you not have some patience and read in full?

Pity.

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 12:48 PM
Atanu wrote: "There is no scope for void, as the being is full."

Bhaktajan responds: "The above is equal to saying, ''There is no scope for the SKY, as the BLOCK is full".

The problem with Atanu's dissertations is that there is Real Reality that really exists and there is Ideas of What is Reality. And therefore getting everything in perspective requires refined descrimination between what is this and what is that.

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 12:54 PM
Stick your "adhikarana" back in your Thesarus and inject a proper annotation in there, please. The use of a Cryptic word as the climax of an Argument is so sophmoric.

Your style of argument is always presented like swiss-cheese, filled with holes (which of course is caused by a build up of ).

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 01:05 PM
I say, Brahman and the Void are the same thing.

If I am saying that "Brahman and the Void are the same thing."

Why do you not simply ascribe the Reputation of Brahman to that of the Void?

I say, Brahman and the Void are the same thing.

So, what ever you Atanu show that is injoined in sastra about Brahman is the same that I am say is what the Void is in Reality.

The Void is not de-void ---the Void is that same resting place and source of Prakriti & The Jivatmas known as Brahman.

You may be scared of the Void ---but to me the Void is Owned Lock, stock & Barrel by ParamBrahman.

You Atanu, I consider to be my Junior. But, that does not relieve me of my responsibilities to steward you.

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 01:16 PM
In regards to Post 62 by Atanu,

He ascribed to me:
Shri Bhakta alludes that VOID exists on its own.

Attention Satay & to whom it may concern,
This is what constitutes slander---or shall we say a bereftment of honesty.

I have said that Atanu et al, cannot see how the Concept of Brahman is the same as the Void ---when understood by Vedic Metaphysic.

And to deny this is to consider that the VOID exists on its own.

Atanu, for the sake of intellectual discussion, I repeat, The Void is the Western Nomenclature of the Concept of the Void. What the west mind does not know about the "Nature-of the-Void" is that it is Brahman.

Therefore the Void is a required & innately aestethic part of the Construction Plans that comrise the Cosmos.

It is sooooo elementary.

Building ingrediants + empty bowl + overseerer = the Total Cosmos.
Prakriti + Brahman + Bhagavan = The Total Picture.

Ganeshprasad
28 September 2009, 04:47 PM
Pranam all

This thread is full of verbal d---------, a lot of hot air

I find the whole Void issue a misnomer there is not a shred of evidence provided, as requested by devotee and others, bhakta ji has tried to equate ‘Void to Brahman’ without any scripture evidence.

When ever hard question has been posed by Atanu ji and others Bhakt ji cleverly deflect them or ignores them. It is very hard to follow a debate where there is no vivek.

A viveki, a person endowed with a discerning intellect, and who in other words has a sattvic disposition, should discover by analysis, by vichAra, that and he should get the knowledge of that Brahman.

Athato Brahma Jijnasa

Therafter(now) Therefore an enquiry into Brahman.
Hence alone “therefore” “therafter” – athato – may there be an enuiry into Brahman - brahmajijnasa –with the help of the pramana which is the Shruti. Let the adhikari mumukshu do vichara. Hence let us begin our study –

What Wiseman would want to inquire in to Void?

Jai Shree Krishna

bhaktajan
28 September 2009, 09:01 PM
The Vedänta-sütra explains that one should inquire about the Supreme Soul. Such inquiry about the Supreme is called brahma jijïäsä. The Absolute Truth, tattva, is explained in Vedavyasa’s Bhägavata-purana 1.2.11:


vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvaà yaj jïänam advayam

brahmeti paramätmeti

bhagavän iti çabdyate
“Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramätmä or Bhagavän.”
The Absolute Truth appears to neophytes as impersonal Brahman and to advanced mystic yogés as Paramätmä, the Supersoul, but devotees, who are further advanced, understand the Absolute Truth as the Supreme Lord, Viñëu.

devotee
28 September 2009, 09:59 PM
Devotee wrote:

Bhaktajan says, "Void means Brahman".---I do not say this.

Thanks, this is what I wanted to hear. :)


I say, Brahman and the Void are the same thing.

Put on your 'Thinking Cap'.

There is aVoid out there prevading everything ---if I am saying that "Brahman and the Void are the same thing" ---then the Void shares the same fame as Brahman does.

Here we are back to square one !

"Logic" was one of the subjects I took in my secondary classes. By what logic you say that :

Brahman & Void are same thing but Void doesn't mean Brahman ?

It doesn't make any sense.


One man's void is the Vedic Transcendentalist's Brahman. Therefore, Only the Vedic Transcendentalist knows the purport of the existance of the Void.

I must consider that it is all your opinion & nothing else unless you provide scriptural support.


It must be this way ---or else the claim can be made that the Void is a seperate & different sphere.

I find that here even more confusion is added without clearing the earlier cobweb.



What you all are stuck on is that the "All Creative Potentiality" . . . 'ALSO KNOWN AS' ('aka') . . . "Brahman" is NOT a Void BECAUSE "All Creative Potentiality" springs forth from ________.

"All Creative Potentiality" is impregnated into Brahman then the Void is thrown into flux and the three-guinas then do their thing.

Visnu impregnates with his vision.

Now I understand what you have been saying all along. You have confused Brahma with Brahman or "Mahat-Brahma" with Brahman. I will quote here the exact verses from Bhagwad Gita (what you may be looking for support) :

Mam yonirmahadbrahma tasmingarbham dadhamyaham l
sambhavah sarvabhUtanAm tato bhavati bhArat ll (B.G. 14.3)

Sarvyonishu kaunteya mUrtyah sambhavanti yAh l
tAsAm brahma mahdyonirham beejpradah pitA ll (B.G. 14.4)

However, these verses don't speak about Brahman but Mahat-Brahma which is equated with Prakriti by Lord Krishna.

Brahman is God. Brahman is Vishnu. Brahman is Krishna. Brahman is AtmA. This is what scriptures say.

Please read these verses yourself or seek authentic translation of these verses from Bhagwad Gita which would make it clear that what is stated above is true :

"Akhsharam Brahma Paramam" ----> This indestructible Brahman is the Supreme/Ultimate (essence). (B.G. 8.3)

Bhagwad Gita 6.28 : Krishna says to meditate on AtmA & by doing this one attains the Brahman & the infinite bliss.

B.G. 6.29 : At that stage (as said in 6.28 above, i.e. on attainment of Brahman), the yogi sees the same AtmA in all beings & all beings in the same AtmA.

B.G. 6.30 : "He who sess me everywhere & in all beings" when read together with 6.28 & 6.29 leaves no doubt that VAsudeva is the AtmA & the Brahman He was talking about in the previous verses.

You may also like to refer these verses from BG wherein Lord Krishna talks about Brahman & how it is attained or wherever it is referred to:

B.G. 5.6, 5.10, 5.19 to 5.26, 2.72, 10.12, 13.12 to 13.16.

B.G. 13.16 (read in continuation from 13.12) declares in no uncertain terms that this Brahman is the Vishnu the sustainer, BrahmA the creator & also the Shankara, the destroyer.

Let's confine our discussion on these verses which makes everything clear.

OM

yajvan
28 September 2009, 10:27 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



Here we are back to square one !

_____________________yikes!

kd gupta
28 September 2009, 10:40 PM
A short story from Vrindavan India,

Krsn and Radha both planning to marry were thinking , lying on a bed. Radha said ..is there a Void where our first child will sleep bet. Us ? Krsn asked ..think about the second, third and make a space first , both were happy making the space and sliding to end . Suddenly both were down to floor and are unmarried to date….

May I know the actors in this thread, of course TWO dominating ?

atanu
29 September 2009, 03:09 AM
Shri Bhaktajan

But I have advanced training that starts where Brahman leaves off ---that is why we are called vaishnavas.





Shri Krishna

Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.



Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
29 September 2009, 07:26 AM
Bhakta

But I have advanced training that starts where Brahman leaves off ---that is why we are called vaishnavas.

Namaste friends,

Isn't that bit in excess? Brahman, the imperishable Supreme leaves off?

Devotee has probably correctly pointed out that shri bhakta may be confused of brahmA and brahman. For benefit of bhakta (which he is most likely to refuse), i record the following:

There is no doubt whatsover regarding the following verse from Gita, wherein Lord Krishna says that there is nothing higher than Him.

7. 7 Mattah parataram naanyat kinchidasti dhananjaya;
Mayi sarvamidam protam sootre maniganaa iva.

7. 7 There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string.

Yet, Lord also says:

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate;
Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge; the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.

And

8.20 Parastasmaat tu bhaavo’nyo’vyakto’vyaktaatsanaatanah;
Yah sa sarveshu bhooteshu nashyatsu na vinashyati.

8.20 But verily there exists, higher than the unmanifested, another unmanifested Eternal who is not destroyed when all beings are destroyed.

8.21 Avyakto’kshara ityuktastamaahuh paramaam gatim;
Yam praapya na nivartante taddhaama paramam mama.

8.21. What is called the Unmanifested and the Imperishable, That they say is the highest goal (path). They who reach It do not return (to this cycle of births and deaths). That is My highest abode (place or state).
---------------------

So, there indeed is none higher that Shri Krishna, who is Paramn Atman and Param Brahman. Yet, Shri Krishna says the unmanifest and imperishable is his highest dhama (home).

So, we need to know Lord in His highest Dhama also -- as identical with Aksharam brahma paramam.


Atanu dresses up to go to office, travels through crowded road. Acts like an officer in office and cows down to his superiors. But atanu's real dhama is his sweet home. Knowing atanu acting like an officer or buttering his bosses may not be knowing the real atanu (This is an example only).

Knowing Shri Krishna in waking sate alone is not the ultimate. So, Shri Krishna also guides emphatically:

13.12 Adyaatma jnaana nityatwam tattwa jnaanaartha darshanam;
Etajjnaanamiti proktam ajnaanam yadato’nyathaa.

13. 12. Constancy in Atman-knowledge, perception of the end of true knowledge—this is declared to be knowledge, and what is opposed to it is ignorance.

And

13.13 Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

13. 13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

It is the most emphatic Upadesha I have seen and IMO, herein, Sanatana Dharma differs from the christian creed, which discourages knowledge of Adi Atman, and that imbibed value seems to tint Bhaka's reluctance to even agree to Shri Krishna's upadesha.



Om Namah Shivaya

(And I am inclined to say that my prostrations to every one by the 'namah shivaya' is not comprehended as such but possibly only irks bhakta).

Best wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 09:46 AM
Devotee asks:
Brahman & Void are same thing but Void doesn't mean Brahman? It doesn't make any sense.


Yes, "Brahman & Void are same thing"---Yes! "Brahman possesses the Void"

Yes. "Void doesn't mean Brahman" "Void doesn't indicate Brahman"

Yes, "Void & Brahman" are not synonyms. The void is what it purports to say. The void by definition is the same as the discription of the Void.
If there more definitions of Brahman that WE KNOW IS NOT CHARAcTERISTIC OF A VOID, IE: SHAKTI/PRAKRITI/PARAMATMA/JIVATMAN ---then we know more about the Primordial Void then the Materialist scientist would ever know.

What is wrong with the Void that prevades the cosmos & the Vaikunthas and all Matter & energy both spiritual & material & marginal Energies?

The concept of The VOID is all that is being denied. The Void exists for real and intellectually & even emotionally ---if you know of something beyond the VOID, well, you can thank your lucky stars you learnt it from the vedas.

Which is it?:
A] "That Void belongs to someone exclusively"
or
B] "That Void is an imagined concept---that there is no such thing as the Void"

BTW, I am a theist. I am a Devotee of Sri Krishna as per the Brahma-Madhva-Caitanya-Sampradaya . . . soooo, God possesses ALL . . . soooo, I know that already.

My motivation in this Thread was to get insight from others as to the Nature of the Void.

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 09:51 AM
Attention Devotee:

A typographical Correction required here [shown in bold]:

Bhaktajan said: One man's void is Another Man's Vedic Transcendentalist's Brahman.
Therefore, Only the Vedic Transcendentalist knows the purport of the existance of the Void.

---So, now it should read correctly that the Vedic Transcendentalist is the one well read in "scriptural support".

satay
29 September 2009, 09:57 AM
Namaskar Bhaktajan,

Could you please provide a reference or quote from a guru in Caitanya sampradaya that claims the following:



Yes, "Brahman & Void are same thing"---Yes! "Brahman possesses the Void"




Thanks,

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 10:11 AM
From Post #77:

So, there indeed is none higher that Shri Krishna, who is Paramn Atman and Param Brahman.
Yet, Shri Krishna says the unmanifest and imperishable is his highest dhama (home).

So, we need to know Lord in His highest Dhama also -- as identical with Aksharam brahma paramam.

Knowing Shri Krishna in waking sate alone is not the ultimate.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ATTENTION WORLD!

This is an example of atheist and impersonalist propaganda.

It declares that "God in the Highest" is a Void beyond Personal existance.

God is ALL. All is derived from a Personal God. Only "Love of a Person" is the definition of Krishna-prema.

Post 77 denies the Void and then purports that the same thing is sought out above God in the hIghest. God in the hIghest is Bhagavan Shree Krishna ---That is the Conclusion of Vedanta.

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 10:30 AM
Namaskar Bhaktajan,

Could you please provide a reference or quote from a guru in Caitanya sampradaya that claims the following:

"Brahman & Void are same thing"---Yes! "Brahman possesses the Void"



Yes. ASAP.

BTW, Why?

Is the Void beyond the Veda?

If I can provide it ... what will come of your reputation?

More importantly, will everyone then "embrace" the Void?

If I cannot provide it . . . you have succefully overcome the void and risen to the unmanifest Vaikunthas?

You intellect overcomes all actions?

This is the strangest discussion I have ever been in.

I am not defending the nuetral sate of THE VOID.

I am presenting the Void, as it is, without speculation ---we all know what is the Void ---yet we then defend against the Void for its offensiveness.

This is absurd! Have I uncovered a hugh gap in the intellectural cpacity of HDF posters to concieve of a state of physics that is simply the Void that is occupied by all creation.

The Creation springs forth from Sri Krishna's Body and it fills the Void. That is the whole story. Any other discussion is the Analysis of these and that is what fills the pages of the Vedas. That is the whole picture.

Actually, upon this writting, as I have express above ---there must be a strange phenomena that the Immpersonalist faces when confronted with the entity VOID.

The Void has all potentiality to create, why? Because the ancient scriptures of India explian that the Void is actually Brahman.

You all have been saying, apparently, unknowingly, "No, Bhaktajan, There is God(Brahman), Paramatma(Brahman), Brahman(Brahman), Prakiti(Brahman), Shakti(Brahman) ---and existance is a fleeting falsehood of samsara ---just see that *space is already filled"

*Note: The Space = The Void.

The Void is Sri Krishna's shining Glow (Bhamajyoti).

devotee
29 September 2009, 10:40 AM
Dear Bhaktajan,

Please read the verses I told you & then you understand that whatever you have been writing here in your posts after posts is only in your mind & it has nothing to do with what the reality is & what is written in scriptures.

In fact, it is futile to discuss with you anything when you have not read even Bhagwad Gita properly, not to say anything of Upanishads.

You have simply assumed something which is non-existent. And to prove all those assumptions which has no leg to stand on, you keep writing something whatever comes into your mind.

I again strongly suggest you to read the verses I mentioned & try to understand them properly.

OM

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 10:47 AM
If I find the Sastric reference for the Nature of the Void . . . I will not share it with you all.

I surrender to you all!

Please disregard the Nature of the Void!

Renounce the Nature of the Void!

Leave the Void behind!

Abandon these thread all about the Void.

Turn your backs to the Void.

Run from the Void.

Avoid the Void!

Never look back at the Void!

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 10:58 AM
PS:
Dear Devotee, regarding Post 83, thank you for your wellwishes on my spiritual quest.

Are you not an impersonalist mayavadi/sunyavadi?

From your previous posting you have presented yourself as an impersonalist mayavadi/sunyavadi?

Albeit your Avatara Icon is Sri Sri Radha and Krishna and also, your Name is Devotee ----From your previous posting you have presented yourself as an impersonalist mayavadi/sunyavadi?

Am I in error on this account.

I have read the Bhagavad-gita as it is by Bhaktivedanta Swami since 1979

So I would think that you must have too. I am confused as to your status to tell me I do not know Gita in from the Chaitanya parampara.

But the Topic is about the VOID. You say "it does not exist"---???

But that is the Topic.

Either one talks about the Topic ---or one is talking "off-topic".

Devotee, earlier you ask me to answer your questions ---I did so ---you avoided my answers by never referring back to what I said. There is something askew in this picture?

READ POST #81 to see what I have been fighting over via this thread.

devotee
29 September 2009, 11:45 AM
Dear Bhakatjan,

I never said that you have not read Bhagwad Gita. I said that you have not read it properly ... that appears from your posts. Please don't think that I am writing this to belittle you. I am sorry if it gives any picture like this. But that is what I gather from your posts.

Reading & understanding are two different things. If you have read Gita properly & understood it well then why are writing pages after pages without any support from verses from Bhagwad Gita ? You see my posts & also other's posts which are well supported with appropriate verses. You have been :

i) talking about void & claiming that Void is Brahman without giving any scriptural proof
ii) Claiming that there is something beyond Brahman & from that point Vaishnavism starts ... does it show that you have read BG properly ? I don't think so. You can verify what I say from any independent person who knows Gita
iii) First of all, Vaishnavism, Shaivism & Shaktism etc. are not exclusive to Adavaita. Those are all Bhakti Paths & they all reach the same final destination i.e. Advaita. If you have any doubts, please read about Ramkrishna Paramhansa.

I am not Shunyavadi as you say. I am a Krishna devotee & I have read Bhagwad Gita originally in samskrit. I have studied almost all important Upanishads & based on their knowledge, I have written in all those posts above. I believe in Advait Vedanta.

There are a lot of distortions in the translation done by Srila Prabhupad in his book. This is not an accusation. Please read the original Samskrit version & try matching it with the meaning suggested by Sri Prabhupad ... you yourself will know the differences.

If you still want to discuss, let us confine ourselves only to scriptural quotes .... no personal opinion without scriptural references.. If scriptures support whatever you say then I must agree with you, otherwise if scriptures support whatever I say, you should accept what I say.

There cannot be argument on empty, baseless & meaningless opinions using self-created terms & words. The discussion must be solely based on scriptures.

Remember what Lord Krishna says, "The ShAstras are the touchstone for deciding what is right or wrong (duties)". (BG 16.24)

OM

atanu
29 September 2009, 11:54 AM
From Post #77:

ATTENTION WORLD!

This is an example of atheist and impersonalist propaganda.

It declares that "God in the Highest" is a Void beyond Personal existance.



Howsoever much you shout "attention world", the fact remains, as taught by Lord Himself, that God in the highest is pure awareness of bliss and existence and not void. Can you read below as to what is Brahman's essential nature?

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge; ------


8.21. What is called the Unmanifested and the Imperishable, That they say is the highest goal (path).They who reach It do not return (to this cycle of births and deaths). That is My highest abode (place or state).

Om

Read and digest. As I had indicated before, you are neither capable of following the teaching of Krishna that Brahman must be known. You are also not capable of surrender except to your self-will.

You have no care about what Shri Krishna teaches in 8.3 and 8.31.

atanu
29 September 2009, 12:13 PM
Bhakta, I have just one question for you. Lord teaches Brahman as the Supreme goal and declares its nature.

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge; ------


8.21. What is called the Unmanifested and the Imperishable, That they say is the highest goal (path).They who reach It do not return (to this cycle of births and deaths). That is My highest abode (place or state).

He also stipulates that Brahman, must be known, as below:

13. 13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

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

I request to answer only with YES or NO, whether you follow this teaching of Lord or not?

Or do you follow Lord's teaching "Surrender to Me"?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
29 September 2009, 12:34 PM
In the Begining there was the Void and God said let there be Light.

Is this from Bible?



As a member of ISKCON ---aka The Hare Movement aka HareKrishna Mahamantra sankirtan yagya dasamya, I am obliged to develop my skills as a Propagator of the Name, Fame, Form, Personality, Paraphenelia & Entourage of none other than the Supreme Personality Of Godhead Bhagavan Svayam Shree Krishna ---I must tell people about who this Krishna bloke is.

That is my ulterior motive Atanu.


This is a work given to you by ISKCON or is the christain propensity driving you insane? God does not require your mis-guided recommendations. First know Lord. Your praise would be like a Lilliputian, who has not seen Gulliver but yet wants to praise Gulliver.

And it is worse, in this case. Lord is infinite, which you have not experienced. Not only you are devoid of experience but you have not even read Gita.You are actually insulting Him. Have you read about the yadus?

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 12:41 PM
Atanu, this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you:

In regards to Post #91 by Atanu

1st Shloka Bg 8.3 as translated by a wise Old Indian Maha-Bhagavata named Bhaktivedanta Swami:



Bhagavad-gita 8.3

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: "The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called adhyätma, the self. Action pertaining to the development of the material bodies of the living entities is called karma, or fruitive activities."


PURPORT

Brahman is indestructible and eternally existing, and its constitution is not changed at any time. But beyond Brahman there is Parabrahman. Brahman refers to the living entity, and Parabrahman refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The constitutional position of the living entity is different from the position he takes in the material world.

In material consciousness his nature is to try to be the lord of matter, but in spiritual consciousness, Kåñëa consciousness, his position is to serve the Supreme. When the living entity is in material consciousness, he has to take on various bodies in the material world. That is called karma, or varied creation by the force of material consciousness.

In Vedic literature the living entity is called jévätmä and Brahman, but he is never called Parabrahman. The living entity (jévätmä) takes different positions—sometimes he merges into the dark material nature and identifies himself with matter, and sometimes he identifies himself with the superior, spiritual nature. Therefore he is called the Supreme Lord’s marginal energy.

According to his identification with material or spiritual nature, he receives a material or spiritual body. In material nature he may take a body from any of the 8,400,000 species of life, but in spiritual nature he has only one body. In material nature he is manifested sometimes as a man, demigod, animal, beast, bird, etc., according to his karma. To attain material heavenly planets and enjoy their facilities, he sometimes performs sacrifices (yajïa), but when his merit is exhausted he returns to earth again in the form of a man. This process is called karma.

The Chändogya Upaniñad describes the Vedic sacrificial process. On the sacrificial altar, five kinds of offerings are made into five kinds of fire. The five kinds of fire are conceived of as the heavenly planets, clouds, the earth, man and woman, and the five kinds of sacrificial offerings are faith, the enjoyer on the moon, rain, grains and semen.

In the process of sacrifice, the living entity makes specific sacrifices to attain specific heavenly planets and consequently reaches them. When the merit of sacrifice is exhausted, the living entity descends to earth in the form of rain, then takes on the form of grains, and the grains are eaten by man and transformed into semen, which impregnates a woman, and thus the living entity once again attains the human form to perform sacrifice and so repeat the same cycle.

In this way, the living entity perpetually comes and goes on the material path. The Kåñëa conscious person, however, avoids such sacrifices. He takes directly to Kåñëa consciousness and thereby prepares himself to return to Godhead.

Impersonalist commentators on the Bhagavad-gétä unreasonably assume that Brahman takes the form of jéva in the material world, and to substantiate this they refer to Chapter Fifteen, verse 7, of the Gétä. But in this verse the Lord also speaks of the living entity as “an eternal fragment of Myself.”

The fragment of God, the living entity, may fall down into the material world, but the Supreme Lord (Acyuta) never falls down. Therefore this assumption that the Supreme Brahman assumes the form of jéva is not acceptable. It is important to remember that in Vedic literature Brahman (the living entity) is distinguished from Parabrahman (the Supreme Lord).

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 12:41 PM
Atanu, this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you:

In regards to Post #91 by Atanu

2nd Shloka Bg 8.21 as translated by a wise Old Indian Maha-Bhagavata named Bhaktivedanta Swami:

That which the Vedäntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns—that is My supreme abode.


PURPORT
In the Bhagavad-gétä Lord Kåñëa gives only a small hint of His personal abode,

Vedic literatures (Kaöha Upaniñad 1.3.11) state that there is nothing superior to the abode of the Supreme Godhead, and that that abode is the ultimate destination (puruñän na paraà kiïcit sä käñöhä paramä gatiù). When one attains to it, he never returns to the material world. Kåñëa’s supreme abode and Kåñëa Himself are nondifferent, being of the same quality.

atanu
29 September 2009, 12:42 PM
But the Topic is about the VOID. You say "it does not exist"---???



Just answer my questions in the post below.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=33067&postcount=91

Om

atanu
29 September 2009, 12:48 PM
Atanu, this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you:

In regards to Post #91 by Atanu

1st Shloka Bg 8.3 as translated by a wise Old Indian Maha-Bhagavata named Bhaktivedanta Swami:



Bhagavad-gita 8.3

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: "The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called adhyätma, the self. Action pertaining to the development of the material bodies of the living entities is called karma, or fruitive activities."





Bhakta,

Everything will hurt you, not only this.


The sanskrit verse is;

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate;
Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge; the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.

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

Your swami ate the word "Paramam"

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 12:49 PM
Atanu, this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you:

In regards to Post #91 by Atanu

3rd Shloka Bg 13.13 as translated by a wise Old Indian Maha-Bhagavata named Bhaktivedanta Swami:


"I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world."


PURPORT

The Lord has explained the field of activities and the knower of the field. He has also explained the process of knowing the knower of the field of activities.

Now He begins to explain the knowable, first the soul and then the Supersoul. By knowledge of the knower, both the soul and the Supersoul, one can relish the nectar of life. As explained in the Second Chapter, the living entity is eternal. This is also confirmed here.

There is no specific date at which the jéva was born. Nor can anyone trace out the history of the jévätmä’s manifestation from the Supreme Lord. Therefore it is beginningless.

The Vedic literature confirms this: na jäyate mriyate vä vipaçcit (Kaöha Upaniñad 1.2.18). The knower of the body is never born and never dies, and he is full of knowledge.

The Supreme Lord as the Supersoul is also stated in the Vedic literature (Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad 6.16) to be pradhäna-kñetrajïa-patir guëeçaù, the chief knower of the body and the master of the three modes of material nature.

In the småti it is said, däsa-bhüto harer eva nänyasvaiva kadäcana. The living entities are eternally in the service of the Supreme Lord. This is also confirmed by Lord Caitanya in His teachings.

Therefore the description of Brahman mentioned in this verse is in relation to the individual soul, and when the word Brahman is applied to the living entity, it is to be understood that he is vijïäna-brahma as opposed to änanda-brahma. Änanda-brahma is the Supreme Brahman Personality of Godhead.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now, it can be seen how Atanu & my differences are glaringly obvious, Yes?

atanu
29 September 2009, 12:49 PM
Bhakta,

Just answer the questions in the post below.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7&postcount=91 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...7&postcount=91)

Om

atanu
29 September 2009, 12:52 PM
Bhakta,

First clarify to yourself the verse 8.3, which is:

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate;
Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge; the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.
----------------

Your swami ate the word "Paramam". First resolve this and then we will go to other verses.

Om

See, how Lord exposes the liars and destroys yadus?

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 12:56 PM
Satay,
Read what Atanu says at the end of Post 98.

That Is why in the past [you deleted it ---cause in those early days of my first started posting here, it appeared to be sarcasm. I will repeat to sentiment again here ---it should seem more atropo now. Maybe?]:

Atanu, I still would arrange for the best prasadam you've ever witnessed.
I can get the best maha-prasadam Burfi in the fourteen planetary systems, The Best, I tell you, the best in the three worlds.

atanu
29 September 2009, 12:59 PM
3rd Shloka Bg 13.13 as translated by a wise Old Indian Maha-Bhagavata named Bhaktivedanta "I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world."


----
Now, it can be seen how Atanu & my differences are glaringly obvious, Yes?



Exactly. Your premise is built on quicksand of lies.


Going against all upanishads and Brahma Sutra, the above translator first ate the word "PARAMAM" from verse 8.3.

Just like the false translation of Svet. Upanishad created by ISKCON.


Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 12:59 PM
Atanu asks Bhaktajan:

Q. I request to answer only with YES or NO, whether you follow this teaching of Lord or not?
A. Yes

Q. Or do you follow Lord's teaching "Surrender to Me"?
A. Yes, I follow Lord's teaching "Surrender to Me"

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 01:02 PM
"quicksand of lies."

Satay, Am I to be flaccid here?

Satay, Is it appropriate to ask for a public apology from Atanu, for his indiscretion?

There may be no void ---but that still does not allow a jiva to place himself above the heads of others without karmic obligations.

atanu
29 September 2009, 01:05 PM
"quicksand of lies."


Satay, Am I to be flaccid here?

Satay, Is it appropriate to ask for a public apology from Atanu, for his indescretion?

Oh No. I am correct in saying 'quicksand of lies'. It has also been shown in this forum how ISCKON version of Svet. Upanishad translation is a joke.

Please check the sanskrit verse of Gita 8.3

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate;
Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

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

And examples of such wrong translations are there from every chapter. You are surely flaccid, since an upright man only adheres to truth and nothing but truth.

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 01:15 PM
BTW, ATANU.

Atanu, you are 'opening your mouth'.

The Verse 8.3 begins with words that you consistantly delete "Sri Bhagavan Uvaca" ['Lord God Said']. Coincidence?




çré-bhagavän uväca

akñaraà brahma paramaà

svabhävo ’dhyätmam ucyate

bhüta-bhävodbhava-karo

visargaù karma-saàjïitaù

SYNONYMS
çré-bhagavän uväca—the Supreme Personality of Godhead said; akñaram—indestructible; brahma—Brahman; paramam—transcendental; svabhävaù—eternal nature; adhyätmam—the self; ucyate—is called; bhüta-bhäva-udbhava-karaù—producing the material bodies of the living entities; visargaù—creation; karma—fruitive activities; saàjïitaù—is called.


TRANSLATION
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called adhyätma, the self. Action pertaining to the development of the material bodies of the living entities is called karma, or fruitive activities.

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 01:23 PM
I do not want to be re-miss and neglect to inform everyone:

These postings are some of the most fun I have ever had.

Yee Haa!

~I'm an Old Cow Hand . . . from Vrindavan Land~
~He's an Old Cow Hand . . . from Vrindavan Land~

Thanks for one of the best preaching engagement unsought,
bhaktajan

atanu
29 September 2009, 01:31 PM
The Svet. Upanishad says in the 4th Chapter, Verse 4:

niilaH pataN^go harito lohitaaxa\-
staDidgarbha R^itavaH samudraaH .
anaadimat.h tva.n vibhutvena vartase
yato jaataani bhuvanaani vishvaa .. 4..


4. Thou art the dark-blue bee, thou art the green parrot with red eyes, thou art the thunder-cloud, the seasons, the seas. Thou art without beginning, because thou art infinite, thou from whom all worlds are born.

Please see the translation of anaadimat as without beginning.

Now, check Gita 13.13,

Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

Here the IsKCON translators parse anaadimatparam as 'anaadi' and 'matparam', thereby changing the meaning from 'Beginningless Param Brahman' to 'Brahman under my control'.

:D

And to do that the translator had to first eat away the word 'Paramam' from the verse, Gita 8.3 as below:

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate;
Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

or
bhagavän uväca (Bhagwan said)

akñaraà brahma paramaà
svabhävo ’dhyätmam ucyate
bhüta-bhävodbhava-karo
visargaù karma-saàjïitaù
------------------------------

Om

atanu
29 September 2009, 01:36 PM
Lies Lies Lies.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4505

Om

satay
29 September 2009, 02:39 PM
Hari bol prabhu,


Yes. ASAP.



I am waiting...where is the quote/reference?

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 02:55 PM
Satay,
You will continue to wait.


"Brahman & Void are same thing"---Yes! "Brahman possesses the Void"

May be this will satisfy you:

"Brahman & Void are NOT the same thing"
---Yes! "Brahman and the Void are distinct seperate items"

Brahman is what the Vedas say and The Void is what the science Books say.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::;
It is new to me that atheists now pose as theists by claiming that the impersonal non-manifest is God.

If I find the Sastric reference for the Nature of the Void . . . I will not share it with you all.

I surrender to you all!

Please disregard the Nature of the Void!

Renounce the Nature of the Void!

Leave the Void behind!

Abandon these thread all about the Void.

Turn your backs to the Void.

Run from the Void.

Avoid the Void!

Never look back at the Void!

----My withholding is my stratergy to conquer the mayavadi's Heart.

I have been waiting since post #1 for someone to post the scriptural reference that the Void is a False Idea.

Instead you challenge me to prove something YOU CANNOT EVEN CONCEIVE OF.

Accept that it is beyond your intellectual capacity.

Just ready Gita eat prasadam & chant Hare Krishna,
Bhaktajan

If you'd like to request that I remove myself & leave HDF because of any reason ---just ask me to do so ---I would be obliged to do so.

satay
29 September 2009, 03:03 PM
pranam prabhu,


Satay,
You will continue to wait



If I find the Sastric reference for the Nature of the Void . . . I will not share it with you all.


Is that because you are having difficulty finding the exact reference? As a student of sanatana dharma, I am keen to learn of the reference.

It is our culture here on HDF that we try to support our statements by providing scriptural references. If there is no reference, then it is just the poster's opinion. of course, there is nothing wrong with posting your opinions as long as it is stated that those are your own personal opinions.

ps:Off topic, you have correctly judged me as an atheist. I was a atheist in a previous life, vasana of that life still lingers. On the other hand, asking for a reference doesn't make one an atheist.

satay
29 September 2009, 03:05 PM
best advice I have received in months...


Just ready Gita eat prasadam & chant Hare Krishna,
Bhaktajan

satay
29 September 2009, 03:08 PM
Admin Note

As this thread is going on an on without any value to HDF members I think it is best to close it. However, if discussion relating to 'void' still shows up elsewhere on HDF, I would like to bring that discussion over here, purely from a 'keeping it together' point of view.

if any member feels that we should keep this thread open, please let me know.

Thanks,

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 03:09 PM
BTW, ASAP to Revati's father meant 27 Mahayugas.

I start slowly slowly.

For the impersonalist and voidist philosophers, the next world is a world of senseless eternity and bliss. The voidist philosophers want to establish that ultimately everything is senseless, and the impersonalists want to establish that in the next world there is simply knowledge devoid of activity. Thus less intelligent salvationists try to carry imperfect knowledge into the sphere of perfect spiritual activity. Because the impersonalist experiences material activity as miserable, he wants to establish spiritual life without activity. He has no understanding of the activities of devotional service. Indeed, spiritual activity in devotional service is unintelligible to the voidist philosophers and impersonalists. The Vaiñëava philosophers know perfectly well that the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can never be impersonal or void because He possesses innumerable potencies.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bhaktajan: The Above is not the Void.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In the Padma Puräëa, where Lord Çiva states:


mäyävädam asac-chästraà

pracchannaà bauddham ucyate

mayaiva kalpitaà devi

kalau brähmaëa-rüpiëä


“The Mäyävädé philosophy is veiled Buddhism.” In other words, the voidist philosophy of Buddha is more or less repeated in the Mäyävädé philosophy of impersonalism, although the Mäyävädé philosophy claims to be directed by the Vedic conclusions. Lord Çiva, however, admits that this philosophy is manufactured by him in the age of Kali in order to mislead the atheists. “Actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His transcendental body,”

Lord Çiva states. “But I describe the Supreme as impersonal. I also explain the Vedänta-sütra according to the same principles of Mäyävädé philosophy.”
In the Çiva Puräëa the Supreme Lord says:


dväparädau yuge bhütvä

kalayä mänuñädiñu

svägamaiù kalpitais tvaà ca

janän mad-vimukhän kuru
“In the beginning of the Dväpara-yuga, directed by My orders, many sages will bewilder the people in general by Mäyävädé philosophy.” In the Padma Puräëa Lord Çiva personally tells Bhägavatédevé:




çåëu devi parakñyämi

tämasäni yathä-kramam

yeñäà çravaëa-mätreëa

pätityaà jïäninäm api

apärthaà çruti-väkyänäà

darçayaû loka-garhitam

karma-svarüpa-tyäjyatvam

atra ca pratipädyate

sarva-karma-paribhraàçän

naiskarmyaà tatra cocyate

parätma jévayor aikyaà

mayätra pratipädyate
“My dear Devé, sometimes I teach Mäyävädé philosophy for those who are engrossed in the mode of ignorance. But if a person in the mode of goodness happens to hear this Mäyävädé philosophy, he falls down, for when teaching Mäyävädé philosophy, I say that the living entity and the Supreme Lord are one and the same.”

Sadänanda-yogé, one of the greatest Mäyävädé äcäryas, has written in his book, Vedänta-sära:
“The Absolute Truth of eternity, knowledge and bliss is Brahman. Ignorance and all products of ignorance are non-Brahman. All products of the three modes of material nature are covered by ignorance, and all are different from the supreme cause and effect.

This ignorance is manifested in a collective and individual sense. Collective ignorance is called viçuddha-sattva-pradhäna. When that viçuddha-sattva-pradhäna is manifest within the ignorance of material nature, it is called the Lord, and the Lord manifests all kinds of ignorance. Therefore He is known as sarvajïa.”

Thus according to Mäyävädé philosophy, the Lord is a product of this material nature, and the living entity is in the lowest stage of ignorance. That is the sum and substance of Mäyävädé philosophy.

satay
29 September 2009, 03:11 PM
Bhaktajan: The Above is not the Void.

And thus it is completely off topic and will be removed shortly.

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 03:21 PM
Unintelligent persons who cannot understand this doctrine of by
products cannot grasp how the cosmic manifestation and the living entity
are simultaneously one and different from the Absolute Truth. Not
understanding this, one concludes, out of fear, tha t this cosmic
manifestation and the living entity are false.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I have not recieved any Good input from the posters to this thread.




Originally Posted by bhaktajan http://hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=33096#post33096)
Bhaktajan: The Above is not the Void.

YES, It is the opposite of the Void. The Void is "Non-Brahman".

"Sadänanda-yogé, one of the greatest Mäyävädé äcäryas, has written in his book, Vedänta-sära:
“The Absolute Truth of eternity, knowledge and bliss is Brahman. Ignorance and all products of ignorance are non-Brahman."

---
For the impersonalist and voidist philosophers, the next world is a world of senseless eternity and bliss. The voidist philosophers want to establish that ultimately everything is senseless.

The Void is an empty Space.
Brahman is also that same space.


The material world is composed of the principle of Opposites(duality) ergo, the Void and the Energy.

By any other name it is the same.

It should close this thread now.

bhaktajan
29 September 2009, 03:52 PM
Hey!
Please send help. Immediately. I am surrounded.

devotee
29 September 2009, 09:27 PM
Namaste Bhaktajan,

The topic of this thread is related to Void & Brahman ONLY. You have asserted that Brahman is Void & you have not given any scriptural support till now in the entire thread.

So, there is no option but to accept that whatever you wrote using your own coined words & theories are just your opinions.

Is there anything wrong to have an opinion which is in contradiction to what scriptures say ? Certainly Not ! You have every right to have your opinion ... but that is your opinion only & not the Truth.

Srila PrabhupAd's translation of BG is heavily mixed with his own opinion & therefore it is really not BG what was preached by Lord Krishna. If you don't believe me, see the translation of this verse done by him :

"Akshara Brahma Paramam"

Here we have only three words. So, let's not add anything extra & try to understand what it says :

Akshara ---> This means imperishable or indestructible
Brahma ---> Brahman
Paramam ----> Supreme, Ultimate, the highest

So, if we don't add anything from outside .... the above translates to ====> imperishable Brahman, the Supreme =====> there is no word as transcendental here which has been added by Sri PrabhuPAd in his translation.

Can you see where the confusion is coming from ?

What shall we believe, the original sanskrit version of Bhagwad Gita without any unnecessary mixing of personal opinions or "Bhagwad Gita as it is" which is mixed with personal opinion of Srila PrabhupAd ?

I think I must agree with Lord Krishna's version of BG whenever there is confrontation between the Lord Krishna's version & PrabhupAd's version.

Do you agree ?

OM

kd gupta
29 September 2009, 11:19 PM
Namaste Devoteeji
It is Aksharam and not akshara, Brahma and not brahman, see…

Aksharam brahma paramam…..

So avoid all translations by Swamijis and I say….

The Param akshar [ AUM ] is Brahma. See…

Trayah suparna striyavrata yadanyekaksharmbhisambhuya shakrah,

Pratyohanmrityumamraten sakmantardadhana duritanivishva.

[ 8/28/dirghayusukta/5kandam/atharvaveda ]

My great honour to both members for the role of King Videh and Enthusiast Laxman.

Now the play is declared OVER .

Happy Vizaidashami and JAI sriRama….

1. Follow….Vedastra: Vedastras (http://vedastra.blogspot.com/2009/08/vedastras.html)

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 12:10 AM
I have done some searches to satisfy everyone earnest curiosity:
{BTW, I never realised how many times Srila Prabhupada uses the word Void in regards to impersonalists & mayavadis, until I started looking}



If one advances further from the brahma-nirväëa platform
[Thus the word brahma-nirväëa-sukham indicates that when one is in touch with the Absolute Truth, material sense gratification is completely voided.]

Below is a sastric reference to the equivalency of Brahman & Void, followed by the explainations of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami regarding the Nature of The Void and its relationship to Brahman:

Çrémad-Bhägavatam 9.9.49:


yat tad brahma paraà sükñmam


açünyaà çünya-kalpitam


bhagavän väsudeveti

yaà gåëanti hi sätvatäù

SYNONYMS
yat—that which; tat—such; brahma param—Parabrahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kåñëa; sükñmam—spiritual, beyond all material conceptions; açünyam—not impersonal or void; çünya-kalpitam—imagined to be void by less intelligent men; bhagavän—the Supreme Personality of Godhead; väsudeva—Kåñëa; iti—thus; yam—whom; gåëanti—sing about; hi—indeed; sätvatäù—pure devotees.



TRANSLATION
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Väsudeva, Kåñëa, is extremely difficult to understand for unintelligent men who accept Him as impersonal or void, which He is not. The Lord is therefore understood and sung about by pure devotees.”


PURPORT
As stated in Çrémad-Bhägavatam (1.2.11):


vadanti tat tattva-vidas


tattvaà yaj jïänam advayam


brahmeti paramätmeti

bhagavän iti çabdyate

The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases—as Brahman, Paramätmä and Bhagavän. Bhagavän is the origin of everything. Brahman is a partial representation of Bhagavän, and Väsudeva, the Supersoul living everywhere and in everyone’s heart, is also an advanced realization of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.


But when one comes to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead (väsudevaù samam iti), when one realizes that Väsudeva is both Paramätmä and the impersonal Brahman, he is then in perfect knowledge. Kåñëa is therefore described by Arjuna as paraà brahma paraà dhäma pavitraà paramaà bhavän .

The words paraà brahma refer to the shelter of the impersonal Brahman and also of the all-pervading Supersoul. When Kåñëa says tyaktvä dehaà punar janma naiti mäm eti [Bg. 4.9], this means that the perfect devotee, after perfect realization, returns home, back to Godhead.

Mahäräja Khaöväìga accepted the shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and because of his full surrender he achieved perfection.

. . . Thus end the Bhaktivedanta purports of the Ninth Canto, Ninth Chapter, of the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, entitled “The Dynasty of Aàçumän.”

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Atanu look [but remember, Bhaktajan is not an impersonalist]:
. . . The impersonalists, theory that Brahman is [B]void of all variegatedness is false because the shadow-tree described in Bhagavad-gétä cannot exist without being the reflection of a real tree. The real tree is situated in the eternal existence of spiritual nature, full of transcendental varieties, and Lord Viñëu is the root of that tree. –[excerpt of Bhaktivedanta Swami purport to Bhagavata-purana 3.9.16].

. . . Sometimes they deny that there is such a being as God. They say, “Everything is void.” And sometimes they deny Him in a different way: “There may be a God, but He has no form.” Both these conceptions arise from the rebellious condition of the living entity. –[excerpt of Bhaktivedanta Swami purport to Bhagavata-purana 3.15.33].

. . . Some of them try to meditate on something impersonal or void, but that is not approved by the great yogés who follow the standard method. The real yoga-märga process is to control the senses, sit in a solitary and sanctified place and meditate on the four-handed form of Näräyaëa. –[excerpt of Bhaktivedanta Swami purport to Bhagavata-purana 3.15.45].




:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bhagavata purana 3.15.46:


kumärä ücuù

yo ’ntarhito hådi gato ’pi durätmanäà tvaà


so ’dyaiva no nayana-mülam ananta räddhaù

yarhy eva karëa-vivareëa guhäà gato naù

pitränuvarëita-rahä bhavad-udbhavena





“The Kumäras said: Our dear Lord, You are not manifested to rascals, even though You are seated within the heart of everyone. But as far as we are concerned, we see You face to face, although You are unlimited. The statements we have heard about You from our father, Brahmä, through the ears have now been actually realized by Your kind appearance.”


PURPORT

The so-called yogés who concentrate their mind or meditate upon the impersonal or void are described here. This verse of Çrémad-Bhägavatam describes persons who are expected to be very expert yogés engaged in meditation but who do not find the Supreme Personality of Godhead seated within the heart. These persons are described here as durätmä, which means a person who has a very crooked heart, or a less intelligent person, just opposite to a mahätmä, . . .
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


adhokñajälambham ihäçubhätmanaù

çarériëaù saàsåti-cakra-çätanam


tad brahma-nirväëa-sukhaà vidur budhäs

tato bhajadhvaà hådaye håd-éçvaram


SYNONYMS

adhokñaja—with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is beyond the reach of the materialistic mind or experimental knowledge; älambham—being constantly in contact; iha—in this material world; açubha-ätmanaù—whose mind is materially contaminated; çarériëaù—of a living entity who has accepted a material body; saàsåti—of material existence; cakra—the cycle; çätanam—completely stopping; tat—that; brahma-nirväëa—connected with the Supreme Brahman, the Absolute Truth; sukham—transcendental happiness; viduù—understand; budhäù—those who are spiritually advanced; tataù—therefore; bhajadhvam—engage in devotional service; hådaye—within the core of the heart; håt-éçvaram—to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul within the heart.


TRANSLATION

“The real problem of life is the repetition of birth and death, which is like a wheel rolling repeatedly up and down. This wheel, however, completely stops when one is in touch with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In other words, by the transcendental bliss realized from constant engagement in devotional service, one is completely liberated from material existence. All learned men know this. Therefore, my dear friends, O sons of the asuras, immediately begin meditating upon and worshiping the Supersoul within everyone’s heart.”


PURPORT

Generally it is understood that by merging into the existence of Brahman, the impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth, one becomes completely happy. The words brahma-nirväëa refer to connecting with the Absolute Truth, who is realized in three features: brahmeti paramätmeti bhagavän iti çabdyate. One feels brahma-sukha, spiritual happiness, by merging into the impersonal Brahman because the brahmajyoti is the effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Yasya prabhä prabhavato jagad-aëòa-koöi [Bs. 5.40]. Yasya prabhä, the impersonal Brahman, consists of the rays of Kåñëa’s transcendental body. Therefore whatever transcendental bliss one feels from merging in Brahman is due to contact with Kåñëa. Contact with Kåñëa is perfect brahma-sukha.

When the mind is in touch with the impersonal Brahman one becomes satisfied, but one must advance further to render service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for one’s remaining merged in the Brahman effulgence is not always assured. As it is said, äruhya kåcchreëa paraà padaà tataù patanty adho ’nädåta-yuñmad-aìghrayaù: [SB 10.2.32] one may merge in the Brahman feature of the Absolute Truth, but there is a chance that one may fall because of not being acquainted with Adhokñaja, or Väsudeva.

Of course, such brahma-sukha undoubtedly eliminates material happiness, but when one advances through impersonal Brahman and localized Paramätmä to approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead in relationship with Him as a servant, friend, parent or conjugal lover, one’s happiness becomes all-pervading.

Then one automatically feels transcendental bliss, just as one becomes happy seeing the shining of the moon. One acquires natural happiness upon seeing the moon, but when one can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one’s transcendental happiness increases hundreds and thousands of times.

As soon as one is very intimately connected with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one surely becomes free from all material contamination. Yä nirvåtis tanu-bhåtäm. This cessation of all material happiness is called nirvåti or nirväëa. Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé says in Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu (1.1.38):


brahmänando bhaved eña

cet parärdha-guëé-kåtaù


naiti bhakti-sukhämbhodheù

paramäëu-tuläm api





“If brahmänanda, the bliss of merging in the Brahman effulgence, were multiplied one hundred trillion times, it would still not equal even an atomic fragment of the ocean of transcendental bliss felt in devotional service.”


brahma-bhütaù prasannätmä

na çocati na käìkñati


samaù sarveñu bhüteñu

mad-bhaktià labhate paräm





“One who is transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments nor desires to have anything; he is equally disposed toward all living entities. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto the Lord.” (Bg. 18.54) If one advances further from the brahma-nirväëa platform, one enters the stage of devotional service (mad-bhaktià labhate paräm [Bg. 18.54]).

The word adhokñajälambham refers to keeping the mind always engaged in the Absolute Truth, who is beyond the mind and material speculation. Sa vai manaù kåñëa-padäravindayoù. This is the result of Deity worship. By constantly engaging in the service of the Lord and thinking of His lotus feet, one is automatically freed from all material contamination. Thus the word brahma-nirväëa-sukham indicates that when one is in touch with the Absolute Truth, material sense gratification is completely nullified.

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 12:15 AM
Evidently so many statements about the Nature of the Voidist Philosphers ---is something I learnt from Srila Prabhupada. That is were I learnt what I posted in all earlier postings.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Excerpt from Chapter 87 ‘Prayers by the Personified Vedas’ of “Krishna Book” [The Summary Study of the 10th Canto of Bhagavata-purana]
plus addition citations of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami:

One may argue that because this material world is created by the Lord, He is therefore responsible for its condition. Certainly He is indirectly responsible for the creation and maintenance of this material world, but He is never responsible for the different conditions of the living entities.

The Lord creates this material world simply by glancing over the material energy. This is confirmed in the Vedas: “He threw His glance over the material nature, and thus there was creation.” In the Bhagavad-gétä it is also confirmed that simply by His transcendental glance over the material nature, He creates different varieties of entities, both movable and immovable, living and dead.

The creation of the material world can therefore be taken as one of the pastimes of the Lord; it is called one of the Lord’s pastimes because He creates this material world whenever He desires. This desire of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is also extreme mercy on His part because it gives the conditioned souls another chance to develop their original consciousness and thus go back to Godhead. Therefore no one can blame the Supreme Lord for creating this material world.

From the subject matter under discussion, we can gain a clear understanding of the difference between the impersonalists and the personalists. The impersonal conception recommends merging into the existence of the Supreme, and the
voidist philosophy recommends making all material varieties void.

Both these philosophies are known as Mäyäväda. Certainly the cosmic manifestation comes to a close and becomes void when the living entities merge into the body of Näräyaëa to rest until another creation, and this may be called an impersonal condition, but these conditions are never eternal.

The cessation of the variegatedness of the material world and the merging of the living entities into the body of the Supreme are not permanent because the creation will take place again, and the living entities who merged into the body of the Supreme without having developed their Kåñëa consciousness will again appear in this material world when there is another creation. The Bhagavad-gétä confirms the fact that this material world is created and annihilated perpetually and that conditioned souls without Kåñëa consciousness come back again and again, whenever the material creation is manifest.

If such conditioned souls take advantage of this opportunity and develop Kåñëa consciousness under the direct instruction of the Lord, then they are transferred to the spiritual world and do not have to come back to the material creation. It is said, therefore, that the voidists and the impersonalists are not very intelligent because they do not take shelter under the lotus feet of the Lord.

Because they are less intelligent, these voidists and impersonalists take to different types of austerities, either to attain the stage of nirväëa, which means finishing the material conditions of life, or to attain oneness by merging into the body of the Lord. All of them again fall down because they neglect the lotus feet of the Lord.

The personified Vedas continued, “The cosmic manifestation, because of the flickering nature of its impermanent existence, appears to less intelligent men to be false.” The Mäyävädé philosophers take advantage of the flickering nature of this cosmic manifestation to try to prove their thesis that this world is false.

According to the Vedic version, before the creation this world had no existence, and after dissolution the world will no longer be manifested. Voidists also take advantage of this Vedic version and conclude that the cause of this material world is void. But the Vedic injunctions do not say that it is void. The Vedic injunctions define the source of creation and dissolution as yato vä imäni bhütäni jäyante, “He from whom this cosmic manifestation has emanated and in whom, after annihilation, everything will merge.”

The same is explained in the Vedänta-sütra and in the first verse of the First Chapter of Çrémad-Bhägavatam by the words janmädy asya yataù [SB 1.1.1], “He from whom all things emanate.” All these Vedic injunctions indicate that the cosmic manifestation is due to the Supreme Absolute Personality of Godhead, and that when it is dissolved it merges into Him. The same principle is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gétä: “The cosmic manifestation comes into existence and again dissolves, and after dissolution it merges into the existence of the Supreme Lord.”

This is not simply dry speculation. This Kåñëa consciousness philosophy includes spiritual variety. People sometimes misunderstand this variety to be material, and they hanker for nirviçeña, niräkära, void. However, our philosophy is not void; it is full of variety and transcendental bliss.

Çaìkara, as an incarnation of Lord Çiva, knows all these spiritual existences, but he did not disclose them to his then Buddhist followers because it was impossible for them to know about the spiritual world. Lord Buddha preached that void is the ultimate goal, so how could his followers understand spiritual variegatedness?

Therefore Çaìkara said, brahma satyaà jagan mithyä, or, material variegatedness is false but spiritual variegatedness is fact.

In the Padma Puräëa Lord Çiva has admitted that he had to preach the philosophy of mäyä, or illusion, in the Kali-yuga as another edition of the “void” philosophy of Buddha. He had to do this by the order of the Lord for specific reasons. He disclosed his real mind, however, by recommending that people worship Kåñëa, for no one can be saved simply by mental speculations composed of word jugglery and grammatical maneuvers. Çaìkara further instructs:


bhaja govindaà bhaja govindaà

bhaja govindam müòha-mate
sampräpte sannihite käle
na hi na hi rakñati òukåï-karaëe


“You intellectual fools, just worship Govinda, just worship Govinda, just worship Govinda. Your grammatical knowledge and word jugglery will not save you at the time of death.”

[During the 16th century in Bengal, India, during Lord Caitanya’s Incarnation and pastimes] Haridäsa Öhäkura, did not enter the Jagannätha temple at Puré, for he was born in a Muhammadan family, and the Hindus opposed the Muhammadans’ entering the temple. Haridäsa Öhäkura did not let this disturb him, however. He thought, “Oh, why should I go and disturb them? I shall chant here.” Consequently Lord Caitanya, who is Lord Jagannätha Himself, came daily to see Haridäsa.

This is the power of a pure devotee: he doesn’t have to go to Jagannätha; Jagannätha comes to him. Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu used to go see Haridäsa Öhäkura daily when the Lord was going to bathe in the sea.

The Lord would enter Haridäsa’s cottage and ask, “Haridäsa, what are you doing?” and Haridäsa would reply, “Please come in, my Lord.” This then is the actual position of a devotee.

Therefore Kåñëa says that worship of His devotee is even more valuable than worship of Himself. The devotee is actually able to deliver Kåñëa, for he knows the science of Kåñëa consciousness, the science of hearing Kåñëa’s words, eating kåñëa-prasädam, and enjoying Kåñëa.

The impersonalists and voidists may preach dry philosophical treatises on ahaà brahmäsmi— “I am spirit”—but ultimately who will be attracted? What is the difference between someone who thinks, “I am a stone,” and someone who thinks, “I am void”? Why should we become stone, wood, or void? Our actual position should be in reciprocating loving affairs with Kåñëa.

yoga practice without mental control is a waste of time. I may sit down to meditate and focus my mind on Kåñëa, and that is very commendable, but there are many yoga societies that teach their students to concentrate on the void or on some color. That is, they do not recommend concentration on the form of Viñëu. Trying to concentrate the mind on the impersonal or the void is very difficult and troublesome. It is stated by Çré Kåñëa in the Twelfth Chapter of Bhagavad-gétä (12.5),


kleço ’dhikataras teñäm

avyaktäsakta-cetasäm
avyaktä hi gatir duùkhaà
dehavadbhir aväpyate


“For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.”

In the temple, the devotee tries to concentrate on the form of Kåñëa. Concentrating on nothingness, on void, is very difficult, and naturally the mind is very flickering. Therefore instead of concentrating on the void, the mind searches out something else. The mind must be engaged in thinking of something, and if it is not thinking of Kåñëa, it must be thinking of mäyä.

Therefore, pseudomeditation on the impersonal void is simply a waste of time. Such a show of yoga practice may be materially lucrative, but useless as far as spiritual realization is concerned. I may open a class in yogic meditation and charge people money for sitting down and pressing their nose this way and that, but if my students do not attain the real goal of yoga practice, they have wasted their time and money, and I have cheated them.

Therefore one has to concentrate his mind steadily and constantly on the form of Viñëu, and that is called samädhi. In Kåñëa consciousness, the mind is controlled by engaging it constantly in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. Unless one is engaged in Kåñëa consciousness, he cannot steadily control the mind. A Kåñëa conscious person easily achieves the result of yoga practice without separate endeavor, but a yoga practitioner cannot achieve success without becoming Kåñëa conscious.

It is generally thought, at least in the Western world, that the yoga system involves meditating on the void. But the Vedic literatures do not recommend meditating on any void. Rather, the Vedas maintain that yoga means meditation on Viñëu, and this is also maintained in Bhagavad-gétä.

The Çaìkarites and Buddhists claim that the world beyond is void, but Bhagavad-gétä does not disappoint us like this. The philosophy of voidness has simply created atheists. We are spiritual beings, and we want enjoyment, but as soon as our future is void, we will become inclined to enjoy this material life. In this way, the impersonalists discuss the philosophy of voidism while trying as much as possible to enjoy this material life. One may enjoy speculation in this way, but there is no spiritual benefit.

Some philosophies propound that there is no nature other than the one we are presently experiencing and that the only solution to this is to nullify it and become void. But we cannot be void because we are living entities. It does not mean that we are finished just because we change our bodies. Before we can get out from the influence of material nature, we have to understand where our place actually is, where we are to go. If we do not know where to go, then we will simply say, “Oh, we do not know what is superior and inferior. All we know is this, so let us stay here and rot.” Bhagavad-gétä however, gives us information of the superior energy, the superior nature.

What Kåñëa speaks, He speaks for all eternity; it does not change. It does not matter what our present occupation is or what Arjuna’s occupation was—we only have to change our consciousness. At present we are guided by the consciousness of self-interest. but we do not know what our real self-interest is. Actually we do not have self-interest, but sense interest. Whatever we are doing, we are doing to satisfy the senses. It is this consciousness that has to be changed. In its place we must implant our real self-interest—Kåñëa consciousness.

How is this done? How is it possible to become Kåñëa conscious in every step of our life? Actually Kåñëa makes it very easy for us:


raso ’ham apsu kaunteya

prabhäsmi çaçi-süryayoù
praëavaù sarva-vedeñu
çabdaù khe pauruñaà nåñu


“O son of Kunté [Arjuna], I am the taste of water. the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable oà in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man.” (Bg. 7.8)

In this verse Çré Kåñëa is describing how we can become Kåñëa conscious fully, in all stages of life. All living entities must drink water. The taste of water is so nice that when we are thirsty nothing but water seems to do. No manufacturer can create the pure taste of water. We can thus remember Kåñëa or God when we drink water. No one can avoid drinking water every day of his life, so God consciousness is there—how can we forget?

Similarly, when there is some illumination, that is also Kåñëa. The original effulgence in the spiritual sky, the brahmajyoti, emanates from the body of Kåñëa. This material sky is covered. The very nature of the material universe is darkness, which we experience at night. It is being artificially illuminated by the sun, by the reflected light of the moon, and by electricity. Where is this illumination coming from? The sun is being illumined by the brahmajyoti, or the bright effulgence of the spiritual world. In the spiritual world there is no need for sun, moon or electricity because there everything is illuminated by the brahmajyoti. On this earth, however, we can remember Kåñëa whenever we see some illumination from the sun.

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 12:16 AM
The origin of Bhaktajan's rationale comes from thorough study of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's presentation of the bonefide Vaishnava revelations of the Vedas.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::

Kåñëa, is also an address to God, and oà is also Kåñëa. Çabdaù means sound, and whenever we hear any sound we should know that it is a vibration of the original sound, the pure spiritual sound oà or Hare Kåñëa. Whatever sound we hear in the material world is but a reflection of that original spiritual sound oà. In this way when we hear sound, when we drink water, when we see some illumination, we can remember God. If we can do this, then when will we not remember God? This is the process of Kåñëa consciousness. In this way we can remember Kåñëa twenty-four hours a day, and in this way Kåñëa is with us. Of course Kåñëa is always with us, but as soon as we remember this, His presence is factual and is felt.

The Lord expands Himself by innumerable parts and parcels as sväàça and vibhinnäàça. Paramätmä is the sväàça part of the Lord, whereas the vibhinnäàça parts are the living beings. As the living being is the important factor in the material body, for without the living being the material body has no value, similarly without Paramätmä the living being has no status quo.

Similarly, Brahman or Paramätmä has no locus standi without the Supreme Lord Kåñëa. This is thoroughly explained in the Bhagavad-gétä. They are all interlinked with one another, or interdependent factors; thus in the ultimate issue the Lord is the summum bonum and therefore the vital principle of everything.

Spiritual activity in devotional service is unintelligible to the voidist philosophers and impersonalists.

Two kinds of propensities arise in the living entity. One propensity is icchä, which means desire to lord it over material nature or to be as great as the Supreme Lord. Everyone desires to be the greatest personality in this material world. Dveña means “envy.”

When one becomes envious of Kåñëa, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one thinks, “Why should Kåñëa be the all and all? I’m as good as Kåñëa.”

These two items, desire to be the Lord and envy of the Lord, are the beginning cause of material bondage. As long as a philosopher, salvationist or voidist has some desire to be supreme, to be everything, or to deny the existence of God, the cause remains, and there is no question of his liberation.

In his Meditations on the Bhagavad-gétä, (expcerpted here) the renowned sixth-century philosopher Çaìkara glorifies the Gétä and its divine author, Çré Kåñëa.

Although universally celebrated as an impersonalist, here Çaìkara reveals his devotion to the original personal form of God, Lord Çré Kåñëa.

Verse 9


Salutations to that supreme shining one

Whom the creator Brahmä, Varuëa,

Indra, Rudra, Marut, and all divine beings
Praise with hymns,
Whose glories are sung
By the verses of the Vedas,
Of whom the singers of Säma sing
And of whose glories the Upaniñads
Proclaim in full choir,
Whom the yogés see
With their minds absorbed
In perfect meditation,
And of whom all the hosts
Of gods and demons
Know not the limitations.
To Him, the Supreme God, Kåñëa, be all salutations—
Him we salute! Him we salute! Him we salute!

Purport by Çréla Prabhupäda:
By recitation of the ninth verse of his meditation, quoted from the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, Çaìkara has indicated that Lord Kåñëa is worshipable by one and all, including himself.


He gives hints to materialists, impersonalists, mental speculators, “void” philosophers, and all other candidates subjected to the punishment of material miseries—just offer salutations to Lord Kåñëa, who is worshiped by Brahmä, Çiva, Varuëa, Indra, and all other demigods. He has not mentioned, however, the name of Viñëu, because Viñëu is identical with Kåñëa. . . .

atanu
30 September 2009, 12:55 AM
I have done some searches to satisfy everyone earnest curiosity:
{BTW, I never realised how many times Srila Prabhupada uses the word Void in regards to impersonalists & mayavadis, until I started looking}



If one advances further from the brahma-nirväëa platform
[Thus the word brahma-nirväëa-sukham indicates that when one is in touch with the Absolute Truth, material sense gratification is completely voided.]



Namaste,

Exactly. When everthing which can be metered out is voided, then what remains is Brahman in full.

This was reminded to you several times. But you started with Brahman and Void as equivalent terms, just to impose your opinion that Brahman-Self Realisation is equal to realising a void.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
30 September 2009, 12:59 AM
Dear Bhaktajan,

Advait Vedantists are not voidists. This is a concept within Buddhism. Whatever you have quoted pertains to that philosophy. Buddhism doesn't talk about Brahman at all. So, in Buddhist's scriptures too there is nothing which equates Brahman = Void.

We were discussing whether any scripture says that Brahman = Void ? In all your posts above, it doesn't say so.



Çrémad-Bhägavatam 9.9.49:

yat tad brahma paraà sükñmam

açünyaà çünya-kalpitam

bhagavän väsudeveti

yaà gåëanti hi sätvatäù
SYNONYMS
yat—that which; tat—such; brahma param—Parabrahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kåñëa; sükñmam—spiritual, beyond all material conceptions; açünyam—not impersonal or void; çünya-kalpitam—imagined to be void by less intelligent men; bhagavän—the Supreme Personality of Godhead; väsudeva—Kåñëa; iti—thus; yam—whom; gåëanti—sing about; hi—indeed; sätvatäù—pure devotees.

====> Please mark above in your post :

Brahma Param = the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna

So, if we equate Brahman with void, Krishna will be equated with void.


And the above also underlines the fact that the Brahman is AshUnyam i.e. not void. And that is what we have been telling you.

I don't know what you want to prove by quoting this ?

OM

atanu
30 September 2009, 01:06 AM
In his Meditations on the Bhagavad-gétä, (expcerpted here) the renowned sixth-century philosopher Çaìkara glorifies the Gétä and its divine author, Çré Kåñëa.
Although universally celebrated as an impersonalist, here Çaìkara reveals his devotion to the original personal form of God, Lord Çré Kåñëa.

Verse 9
Salutations to that supreme shining one
Whom the creator Brahmä, Varuëa,
Indra, Rudra, Marut, and all divine beingsPraise with hymns,




Purport by Çréla Prabhupäda:
By recitation of the ninth verse of his meditation, quoted from the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, Çaìkara has indicated that Lord Kåñëa is worshipable by one and all, including himself.


He gives hints to materialists, impersonalists, mental speculators, “void” philosophers, and all other candidates subjected to the punishment of material miseries—just offer salutations to Lord Kåñëa, who is worshiped by Brahmä, Çiva, Varuëa, Indra, and all other demigods. He has not mentioned, however, the name of Viñëu, because Viñëu is identical with Kåñëa. . . .

Namaste,

It is always this: Mayavadis are voidists. And Krishna-Vishu are the Supreme personalities and all others are servants. ISKCONITES have only these two themes.

If you are really contended with your faith then why this doubt and need to continously harp on only these two themes? Actually, it is love of ego with an imagined hero.

Srila Prabhupada dishes out his own views for his devotees. There is no problem with that. But do not impose those teachings, as those have been shown to be false and lies --mere opinions, without scriptural basis.

Similarly, the meditator Çaìkara (I do not know who Çaìkara is) may say anything. It is not supported by shruti.

Gita says 'Rudras' and not Rudra.

Om

devotee
30 September 2009, 01:34 AM
Namaste Devoteeji
It is Aksharam and not akshara, Brahma and not brahman, see…

Aksharam brahma paramam…..

So avoid all translations by Swamijis and I say….

The Param akshar [ AUM ] is Brahma. See…

Trayah suparna striyavrata yadanyekaksharmbhisambhuya shakrah,

Pratyohanmrityumamraten sakmantardadhana duritanivishva.

[ 8/28/dirghayusukta/5kandam/atharvaveda ]

My great honour to both members for the role of King Videh and Enthusiast Laxman.

Now the play is declared OVER .

Happy Vizaidashami and JAI sriRama….

1. Follow….Vedastra: Vedastras (http://vedastra.blogspot.com/2009/08/vedastras.html)


Namaste Guptaji,

You have rightly pointed out that it is Aksharam & not Akshara. Thanks for that. :)

However, imho, that doesn't change the meaning the way you have proposed.

Aksharam Brahma Paramam ===> In this part there is only one noun i.e. Brahma i.e Brahman. So, both the adjectives i.e. Akshara & Param must refer to the same noun i.e. Brahman. So, it should be read as "Brahman which is Akshara & Brahman which is Param i.e. Supreme" and not "Param Akshar is Brahman" because in that case Param an adjective qualifies Akshar which is an adjective.

Moreover, what is the meaning of "Param Akshar" .... IMO, it doesn't make things better to understand what Lord Krishna wants to say. Param in that case becomes almost redundant.


OM

kd gupta
30 September 2009, 09:22 AM
Namaste Atanuji
A correction…not posted by Bhaktajan, but pasted by Bhaktajan
And An admiration to your sentence…your swami ate the word Paramam



kd gupta wrote: ‹ Select (javascript:void(0)) › By praying to remove difficulties you are disturbing God
So sridattaji, what usually god is doing ?




http://www.psychecommunity.com/e107_images/emotes/default/30.gif</SPAN></SPAN>

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 09:36 AM
Exactly. When everthing which can be metered out = [is voided] = then what remains is Brahman in full.

It's OK Atanu. Everyone loves you. But "God is in the Details"


But you [bhaktajan] started with Brahman and Void as equivalent terms,

No. I started by speaking of the Void as a topic of its own accord in the Thread The Supreme Personality.
I mention the void as an example of "that which is Absolute" [The Void = "that which is Absolute"] ---a) it then 'took on a life all its own from there' & b) I had no idea that there would be an viseral repulsion for what I thought was 'purely' a 'borrowing of terminology from science /metaphysic /astronomy /calculus /physics /theorethical{theo=God! I never realised this ~LOL}'/etc.

Only after there was an unexpected "resistance" from you all did I realise that I had hit a 'node' in the melodic line ---so I paused and thought that this was my entre to show that the VOID IS VERY EASY TO CONCEPTUALISE INTELLECTUALLY.

IE: In the thread "Sanatana Dharma and seperation from State Goverment":

I propose that the teacher [the religous ones] say,
"The Void is the space that the Universe fills ---in eastern Philosophy this Void is considered as the Spirit of God the Created the Universe; on the other side of the Coin: also in eastern Philosophy there is the teaching that beyond the "Void-Along-with-the-physical-Cosmic-Creation ---there is a transcendent realm where a Supreme Personality of **Godhead Exists beyond Physical Time"

{**Dio la Persona Suprema/La Suprema Personalida de Dios/The Summom Bonum Incarnata/Jesus's Dad/Allah's Abba/Buddha's Papa/ etc etc}

just to impose your opinion that Brahman-Self Realisation is equal to realising a void.

This is incorrect. I have the opinion that Brahman envelopes the Void ---yet the Void is the same as Brahman.

ATTENTION WHOMEVER HAS POSTED:
STOP REFERRING TO THE ENGLISH DICTIONARY WHEN I REFERENCE THE WORD 'VOID' ---I am saying: Whatever you have ascribed to the word Brahman is the same for the Void.

Matter and Energy cannot be seperated from the Void that it is occuping ---Eintein's *Theory of Relativity [with thanks to Doctor Bose et al].

"The Empty Void is the primodial source of all Creative Potential" -Lao Tsu

"That Darkness within Darkness that cannot be named . . . " -Lao Tsu.

This Tao of Ying and Yang is Famous ---but one must consult the original sankrit texts to know the whole story.



Jai Radhe-Syama

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 09:47 AM
Bhaktajan wrote:
For the impersonalist and voidist philosophers, the next world is a world of senseless eternity and bliss. The voidist philosophers want to establish that ultimately everything is senseless, and the impersonalists want to establish that in the next world there is simply knowledge devoid of activity. Thus less intelligent salvationists try to carry imperfect knowledge into the sphere of perfect spiritual activity. Because the impersonalist experiences material activity as miserable, he wants to establish spiritual life without activity. He has no understanding of the activities of devotional service. Indeed, spiritual activity in devotional service is unintelligible to the voidist philosophers and impersonalists. The Vaiñëava philosophers know perfectly well that the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can never be impersonal or void because He possesses innumerable potencies.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bhaktajan: The Above is not the Void. YES, It is the opposite of the Void. The Void is "Non-Brahman".

"Sadänanda-yogé, one of the greatest Mäyävädé äcäryas, has written in his book, Vedänta-sära:
“The Absolute Truth of eternity, knowledge and bliss is Brahman. Ignorance and all products of ignorance are non-Brahman."

The Void is "Non-Brahman" and the Void is without Material Tinge —simultaneously same and different!

HOW IS THE ABOVE IS A QUANDRY TO BE RESOLVED BY A DISCRIMINATING INTELLECT?


The material world is composed of the principle of Opposites(duality) ergo, the Void and the Energy.

We are spirit-souls in the material world.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I have 'bent-over-backwars' for you yet you abuse me like I am a disobedient dog. Why is that?
Bhaktajan

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 10:00 AM
Advait Vedantists are not voidists.
Yes they are my dear.
This is a concept within Buddhism. Whatever you have quoted pertains to that philosophy. Buddhism doesn't talk about Brahman at all. So, in Buddhist's scriptures too there is nothing which equates Brahman = Void.
I am taliking about a Topic Titled "VOID VOID VOID"
"The Nature of the Void."

Please stop and define the Void as best your breath of knowledge can ---and then present that here on these Threads ... you will be definin that which is classically known to be called Brahman in the Vedas of India.

Please stop and define the Void anyway YOU know of . . . see what happens.


We were discussing whether any scripture says that Brahman = Void ? In all your posts above, it doesn't say so.
It repeatedly say that the Mayavadis/sunyavadis regard Brahman
as a world of senseless eternity and bliss; to establish that ultimately everything is senseless; to establish that in the next world there is simply knowledge devoid of activity.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So, if we equate Brahman with void, Krishna will be equated with void.
Yes. That is a Voidist statment made by the Mayavadi & sunyavadi & Buddhist doctrines, Yes.
You apply elementry mathmatics to arrive at the topmost sublime mystical truths?

Did it occur to you that as a Hare Krishna ---this is all I am good for.
If the store does not sell the variety of stuffs you perfer why are you making a fuss?

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 10:42 AM
Satay wrote:
You have correctly judged me as an atheist. I was a atheist in a previous life . . .

I shall formally speculate about something that I cannot be 100&#37; sure of by just speculating: There is no way that Satay is an Atheist.
[Yeah, I was an atheist in many past lives too. Been there done it got the T-shirt and I wore it out long ago. It always was a cool T-Shirt]


But the only way is to approach the authority on the subject and submissively inquire etc etc etc.

BTW, again I shall formally speculate about something that I cannot be 100% sure of by just speculating:

Every poster in this thread to-date has been lying to me and You all have been pretending to not understand my discussion of the Void ---so as to . . . hmm? . . . Get me to prove myself as a Vaishnava. Am I correct in this formal speculation? Are you all actually Vaishnavas incognito?

Have You all been playing a group joke on me while consulting via PMs to prod me into admitting that maybe I was a impersonalist Voidist Buddhist Jesuit Christian Theology Professor writing a new Thesis about Cult Brainwashing medthods?

But now I am in the clear because the 'thrill-of-the-hunt' for the Voidists has turned out to be 'just another Hare Krsna Hare Rama Airport FlowerChild'?

Hari Bol everyone!

devotee
30 September 2009, 10:56 AM
Advait Vedantists are not voidists.
Yes they are my dear.

Proof ? Scriptural quote please !



This is a concept within Buddhism. Whatever you have quoted pertains to that philosophy. Buddhism doesn't talk about Brahman at all. So, in Buddhist's scriptures too there is nothing which equates Brahman = Void.
I am taliking about a Topic Titled "VOID VOID VOID"
"The Nature of the Void."

Please stop and define the Void as best your breath of knowledge can ---and then present that here on these Threads ... you will be definin that which is classically known to be called Brahman in the Vedas of India.

Please stop and define the Void anyway YOU know of . . . see what happens.

This is your statement that Void is Brahman. So, onus of proving this lies on you. What is the basis of your this assertion ? I have already given you all possible meanings of Void & none of them represent Brahman.



We were discussing whether any scripture says that Brahman = Void ? In all your posts above, it doesn't say so.
It repeatedly say that the Mayavadis/sunyavadis regard Brahman as a world of senseless eternity and bliss; to establish that ultimately everything is senseless; to establish that in the next world there is simply knowledge devoid of activity.


Let us hear from you what you understand from MayaVad & ShUnyavad. While you do this things will automatically be clear.

What you say is not correct. Brahman is not a world of senseless eternity. I have quoted both B. Gita & MAndukya Upanishad & nowhere it is written what you say.



So, if we equate Brahman with void, Krishna will be equated with void.
Yes. That is a Voidist statment made by the Mayavadi & sunyavadi & Buddhist doctrines, Yes.

MayavAd & SUnyaVAd are not same. If you think they are not different please tell us what you understand by these two terms.


You apply elementry mathmatics to arrive at the topmost sublime mystical truths?

Did it occur to you that as a Hare Krishna ---this is all I am good for.
If the store does not sell the variety of stuffs you perfer why are you making a fuss?


Irrelevant for the discussion in progress & hence ignored.

OM

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 11:19 AM
Proof ? Scriptural quote please !
Quoting Paramahansa MahaBhagavatas are good enough.

This is your statement that Void is Brahman.
Quoting Paramahansa MahaBhagavatas are good enough.

Let us hear from you what you understand from MayaVad & ShUnyavad.
Quoting Paramahansa MahaBhagavatas are good enough.

Brahman is not a world of senseless eternity. I have quoted both B. Gita & MAndukya Upanishad & nowhere it is written what you say.
OM is a world of senseless eternity. Its not your nor My Senses that eminate OM. Krishna's Body eminates OM.
No, both B. Gita & MAndukya Upanishad explain it just as I have posted --Your Translation is simply & surely replete with the best of the best 'Flowery Words' --'Flowery Words of the Vedas'.

MayavAd & SUnyaVAd are not same.
No, They are exactly the same ---any difference is neglegible.

There are three paths mentioned in the Vedas.

One involves fruitive activities to gain promotion to better planets.

Another involves worshiping different demigods for promotion to the planets of the demigods, and another involves realizing the Absolute Truth and His impersonal feature and becoming one with Him.

The impersonal aspect of the Absolute Truth is not the highest.

Above the impersonal feature is the Paramatma feature,
and above this is the
personal feature of the Absolute Truth, or Bhagavan.

Bhagavata-purana gives information about the Absolute Truth in His personal feature.

It is higher than impersonalist literatures
and higher than the gyana-kanda division of the Vedas.

It is even higher than the karma-kanda division,
and even higher than the upasana-kanda division,
because it recommends the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
Lord Sri Krishna.


Did it occur to you that as a Hare Krishna ---this is all I am good for.
If the store does not sell the variety of stuffs you perfer why are you making a fuss?

Apparently, You do not even pretent to know what the Void is.

Define Void ---see Brahman at the end of the Tunnel.

The above was Relevant for the discussion in progress & hence responed to.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PS: I said, "You apply elementry mathmatics to arrive at the topmost sublime mystical truths?"
You responded [in Post Post 129]: "Irrelevant for the discussion in progress & hence ignored."

But I was referring to your tactics in your Post #121. Sometimes it is difficult to keep facts in order. Just Remember "God is in the details" and that yes, that refers to Paramatma too.

yajvan
30 September 2009, 07:41 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


I have tried to keep abreast of the posts above but must admit
I have lost the logic of these posts :headscratch: ...

The Truth which is sweet to the ear has become for some curious reason a rubic's cube of twists and turns.

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."
William Blake

Should we not find finer and finer Truths unfold from this conversation?
Yet me thinks, this is not occuring. This leads me to believe the path that is being traveled is ill-defined, or the wrong road has been selected.


My intent is not finding fault...who am I to do this? Yet if another with 'fresh eyes' read the audit trail of posts above, what would be extracted from above that would lead him/her closer to the understanding of Brahman let alone the connection of Being to this notion of void ( if there is in fact one to ferret out )?


For me, the Brahma Sūtra-s are clear on this matter, as are the Upaniṣad-s. Yet for some reason this knowledge is not knocking down the barriers. Perhaps it is not the right time or place.



praṇām

devotee
30 September 2009, 10:51 PM
Should we not find finer and finer Truths unfold from this conversation?
Yet me thinks, this is not occuring. This leads me to believe the path that is being traveled is ill-defined, or the wrong road has been selected.


Namaste Yajvan ji,

I think it pays to avoid this "VOID"-centric thread !

Now I understand correctly: Why "Avoid" contains a void in it ? .... because you create a void somewhere by avoiding that place. That is what EM has done !

MAndukya Upanishad :

Like Brahman, AUM also has four parts, called letters. The first three are A, U, and M, corresponding to the first three quarters of Brahman and Atman. In addition to these there is an undifferentiated sound of AUM, which comes after the first three letters are pronounced. Devoid of all characteristics, it is not any particular sound, but the substratum of all sounds. It is the same as the unconditioned Brahman, or Turiya. Turiya is here figuratively called a quarter. In reality it does not denote any part. It is Brahman Itself, which does not admit of any differentiation. The knowledge of the fourth quarter is realised by merging in it the previous three. That is to say, the waking state is merged in the dream state, the dream state in dreamless sleep, and finally, dreamless sleep in Turiya, or Pure Consciousness. Thus through meditation on AUM one can realise Brahman both in its cosmic and in its acosmic aspect.

I have nothing more to contribute, I think. I shall close here by quoting invocations to Brahman, the Supreme from some Upanishads :

Svetasvatara Upanishad :

Om ! May Brahman protect us both together. May He nourish us both together. May we both work together, with great energy. May our study be vigorous and effective. May we not hate each other. Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !

Chandogya Upanishad :

Om ! Let my limbs and speech, Prana, eyes, ears, vitality And all the senses grow in strength. All existence is the Brahman of the Upanishads. May I never deny Brahman, nor Brahman deny me. Let there be no denial at all: Let there be no denial at least from me. May the virtues that are proclaimed in the Upanishads be in me, Who am devoted to the Atman; may they reside in me. Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !

Yanjnavalkya Upanishad :

Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.

Om ! Let there be Peace in me ! Let there be Peace in my environment ! Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me !

Taittriya Upanishad :

May Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Indra, Brihaspati, and the all pervading Vishnu bless us with welfare and happiness. I prostrate to Brahman with love and adoration. O Vayu ! I prostrate before thee in adoration..Thou art the Omnipresent Brahman, Thee, indeed I shall proclaim as the visible Brahman. I shall declare Thou art the right, the true and the good. May that Supreme Being preserve and protect me and the Teacher. Om, Peace, Peace, Peace.

OM

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 11:43 PM
Everyone is in Agreement, that there is no such thing as the VOID?

What does Srila Prabhupada explain here about the misconception of voidness in Brahman?:

Srila Prabhupada has written [SB 2.9.13P]:
It appears that in the Vaiku&#235;&#246;ha planets . . . everything is of the same nature of eternity, bliss and knowledge --of the same quality as Brahman. Although there is nothing except Brahman, one should not mistakenly think that there is only void and no variegatedness. Thinking like that is due to a poor fund of knowledge; otherwise no one would have such a misconception of voidness in Brahman.

..........................................................................................
Everyone is in Agreement, that Moksha is not related to the VOID?

I found some excerpt of Srila Prabhupada discussing the destination of the soul:

There are five different kinds of liberation. One who merges into the spiritual auras of K&#229;&#241;&#235;a, known as the impersonal Brahman effulgence, does not fully develop his spiritual body.

There are five kinds of mukti—s&#228;yujya, s&#228;r&#252;pya, s&#228;lokya, s&#228;m&#233;pya and s&#228;r&#241;&#246;i. Out of these five muktis, which can be achieved by any person engaged in devotional service to the Lord, the one which is known as s&#228;yujya is generally demanded by M&#228;y&#228;v&#228;d&#233; philosophers; they demand to become one with the impersonal Brahman effulgence of the Lord.

In the opinion of many scholars, this s&#228;yujya-mukti, although counted among the five kinds of mukti, is not actually mukti because from s&#228;yujya-mukti one may again fall down to this material world. This information we have from &#199;r&#233;mad-Bh&#228;gavatam (10.2.32), wherein it is said, patanty adha&#249;, which means “they again fall down.”

The monist philosopher, after executing severe austerity, merges into the impersonal effulgence of the Lord, but the living entity always wants reciprocation in loving affairs.

Therefore, although the monist philosopher is elevated to the status of being one with the effulgence of the Lord, because there is no facility for associating with the Lord and rendering service unto Him, he again falls into this material world, and his service propensity is satisfied by materialistic welfare activities like humanitarianism, altruism and philanthropy. There are many instances of such falldowns, even for great sanny&#228;s&#233;s in the M&#228;y&#228;v&#228;da school.
..........................................................................................
Everyone is in Agreement, that Brahman is not VOID?

Here Prabhupada discusses Brahman's expansions:

The Lord says that Brahman, although one without a second, has various manifestations and features. Especially for the impersonalists, the ak&#241;ara, or o&#224;k&#228;ra—the syllable o&#224;—is identical with Brahman.

Without variety, we cannot enjoy. Variety is the mother of enjoyment, and Brahman realization or Param&#228;tm&#228; realization does not give us steady &#228;nanda, bliss. We want &#228;nanda. &#196;nandamayo ’bhy&#228;s&#228;t. The living entities are Brahman; K&#229;&#241;&#235;a is Parabrahman. K&#229;&#241;&#235;a is enjoying perpetual &#228;nanda, and, being part and parcel of K&#229;&#241;&#235;a, we also want &#228;nanda. &#196;nanda cannot be impersonal or void; &#228;nanda entails variety. No one is simply interested in drinking milk and eating sugar, but with milk and sugar we can make a variety of foods—per&#228;, barf&#233;, k&#241;&#233;ra, rabr&#233;, dah&#233;, and so on. There are hundreds of preparations. In any case, variety is required for enjoyment.

........................................................................................
Here is a verse translated by Srila Prabhupada using the Term Void to clarifiy the meaning of the verse:


Bhagavata-purana SB 3.15.46



kum&#228;r&#228; &#252;cu&#249;

yo ’ntarhito h&#229;di gato ’pi dur&#228;tman&#228;&#224; tva&#224;

so ’dyaiva no nayana-m&#252;lam ananta r&#228;ddha&#249;

yarhy eva kar&#235;a-vivare&#235;a guh&#228;&#224; gato na&#249;

pitr&#228;nuvar&#235;ita-rah&#228; bhavad-udbhavena

TRANSLATION
The Kum&#228;ras said: “Our dear Lord, You are not manifested to rascals, even though You are seated within the heart of everyone. But as far as we are concerned, we see You face to face, although You are unlimited. The statements we have heard about You from our father, Brahm&#228;, through the ears have now been actually realized by Your kind appearance.”


PURPORT
The so-called yog&#233;s who concentrate their mind or meditate upon the impersonal or void are described here. This verse of &#199;r&#233;mad-Bh&#228;gavatam describes persons who are expected to be very expert yog&#233;s engaged in meditation but who do not find the Supreme Personality of Godhead seated within the heart. These persons are described here as dur&#228;tm&#228;,

The ultimate perception of the Nature of Brahman is farther away then the individual self "becoming Brahman", as Srila Prabhupada explains:

The mah&#228;tm&#228;s also become great through identifying with the superior energy: (aha&#224; brahm&#228;smi) “I am Brahman—spirit.” It is not that they become puffed up and think that they are God. Rather, if one becomes Brahman, he must show his activities in Brahman.

Spirit is active, and to become Brahman is not to become inactive. Brahman is spirit, and these material bodies are active only because Brahman is within them.

If we are active despite our contact with material nature, do we cease to be active when we purify ourselves of the material contamination and establish ourselves in our proper identity as pure Brahman?

Realizing “I am Brahman” means engagement in spiritual activity because we are spirit, and our activities are exhibited even though we are contaminated by matter.

To become Brahman does not mean to become void but to establish ourselves in the superior nature, which means superior energy and superior activities.

To become Brahman means to be completely engaged in rendering devotional service to the Lord. Thus the mah&#228;tm&#228; understands that if service is to be rendered, it is to be to K&#229;&#241;&#235;a and no one else. We have so long served our senses; now we should serve K&#229;&#241;&#235;a.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So is this correct to say?:
If one could collect everything Created [everything encompased by the maxim, 'neti neti'] and put it all behind himself, the Space that remains in front of him would be Brahman? Yes? Agreed?

bhaktajan
30 September 2009, 11:46 PM
Yajvan,
Maybe you could consult the 'OED' and inform us as to a well-rounded Definition of the Void?

So that no one can possibly mis-construe it meaning among man.

kd gupta
01 October 2009, 05:58 AM
Advait Vedantists are not voidists.

Yes they are my dear.

If this is your answer, Bhaktajan then tell me ,gita is full of word AHAM.

Is Krsn a Voidist OR Brahma .

If Krsn is a voidist then gita is wrong .

If gita is right then Krsn is a Brahma and Advait Vedantists are not voidists .


I think this ends the thread .

satay
01 October 2009, 11:37 AM
namaskar Bhaktajan!

If I may make a request...HDF has a fully dedicated forum for Hare Krishna.

Would you be interested in posting Hare Krishna philosophy/world view in that forum so that readers of this forum can get a better understanding of the Hare Krishna movement in particular and of Dharma in general?

bhaktajan
01 October 2009, 12:29 PM
Yes Yes Yes

I presume this Thread should be left fallow. The Topic seems to be anathema to spiritual matters.

I guess it must be left alone to the auspices of Physists, Superconductor researchers, and other similar scientists.

I am leaving this thread for other horizons.

Lights Cameras Actions,
Bhaktajan

PS: Satay, sorry for any 'prajalpa' I have caused to that was a botheration & Thank you for any chasticements you & all posters here have bestowed upon my insignificant self ---all divergent Posters here are none-the-less in the catagory Vedic transcendentalists.

PPS: Please somebody else, please have the last word on this thread other than me.

Ganeshprasad
01 October 2009, 01:08 PM
Pranam all


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


I have tried to keep abreast of the posts above but must admit
I have lost the logic of these posts :headscratch: ...

You are not the only.



The Truth which is sweet to the ear has become for some curious reason a rubic's cube of twists and turns.

The sweet truth that Purna Purshotam Lord Krishna, is being monopolised, repackaged mixed with hate and aversion to equally sweet truth that Brahman in whom Bhakta of Shakta or Shiva rejoice or an advaita seeker sees the final emancipation.

This is what happens in children’s school playground mentality, where one is trying to assert his/her authority.

I am not least bit surprised, when one goes on a mission to change the world, rightly or wrongly, in their narrow way of thinking, just like Abrahamic religions, many times the truth becomes a victim. This has never been a Hindu practice.

That is why lot of us find to argue like this is like cutting the nose to spite the face.

Who does not love that sweet face Makhan chor?



"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."
William Blake

How very profound, Vedas seers have realised the truth in their various ways, yet each very profound.
Budha, Sankracharya, Madhva, Ramnuj saw the truth in their own unique way, who is to say one is more right then the other?



Should we not find finer and finer Truths unfold from this conversation?
Yet me thinks, this is not occuring. This leads me to believe the path that is being traveled is ill-defined, or the wrong road has been selected.

And I agree whole heartedly, only one winning is the hatred.
 
 
 


For me, the Brahma Sūtra-s are clear on this matter, as are the Upaniṣad-s. Yet for some reason this knowledge is not knocking down the barriers. Perhaps it is not the right time or place.

No need to reconcile, to each their own yet a Hindu knows the unity in diversity.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
02 October 2009, 12:25 AM
Bhaktajan wrote:
For the impersonalist and voidist philosophers, -------

I have ony one request for bhaktajan: to be happy with his own way.

I also request Satay to close this thread, else the garbage will expand infinitely.

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
09 November 2009, 12:02 PM
I had asked Yajvan to research the OED ---yet no response. Why Not?
The reason for not backing up my argument is because they know what my argument is and they are obsficating the Absolute Truth & Absolute Revelation of the Vedas for which I stand under God, Bhagavan Shree Krishna.

All sinners think they are saints, All saints know they are sinners,
Bhaktajan the Hare Krishna fidelis emeretus.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scroll down to "Concept of Sunya (zero)"

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Mathematics_of_the_Vedas (http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Mathematics_of_the_Vedas)

Excerpt:
The concept of Shunya, or zero void, was originally conceived as the symbol of Brahman, expressing the sum of all distinct forms.

The symbol of zero and the decimal system of notation is described in the Atharvaveda (http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Atharvaveda) (5.15, 1-11). it describes how the number increases by 10 by writing zero in front of it. While there is no explicit mention of zero, it must have been common knowledge based on how it is used.

In fact, the concept of shunya was not just mathematical or scientific, but is deeply rooted in all branches of Hindu (http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Hindu) thought - especially metaphysics and cosmology (http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Cosmology). Shunya is the transition point between oposites, it symboliss the real balance between divergent tendencies.

Most of the ancient Hindu (http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Hindu) mathematicians defined zero as the sum of two equal and opposite quantities. Zero produces all figures, but is itself not limited to a certain value. Zero is the primary or final reservoir of all single numbers.

The symbol of zero and the decimal system of notation is described in the Atharvaveda (14.1.1). It describes how the number increases by 10 by writing zero in front of it.

atanu
14 November 2009, 11:31 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scroll down to "Concept of Sunya (zero)"

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Mathematics_of_the_Vedas (http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Mathematics_of_the_Vedas)

Excerpt:
The concept of Shunya, or zero void, was originally conceived as the symbol of Brahman, expressing the sum of all distinct forms.



Namaste,

Why not? All is Brahman. Yet Brahman is attained through Net-Neti or through the enquiry of "Who perceives the Shunya?" and not through perception of Shunya.

Om Namah Shivaya