Is Brahman God ? or Brahman + Maya combined is God ?

[kallol]

Where is the TRUTH ?

Should we understand both or only Brahman ?


love and best wishes:)

[Onkara]

Namasté Kallol
I would say that Brahman includes Maya. Maya is a creation of Brahman and in Vedanta, creation and creator are not separable.

The Truth is that there is nothing really separate from Brahman. All is Brahman. This Truth can be known when maya is “put in to its place” by our understanding. When one knows oneself as Brahman, then everything, including maya, is understood clearly and is powerless to veil the Truth.

A post thought is that I am not comfortable using the world "God" to describe Brahman. "God" normally implies a supreme being who exists seperately from His creation. This idea of God can result in negative misunderstanding if we confirm that we are Brahman (or God) in accordance to the Upanishads. In other words to say Brahman is God isn't wrong, but the concept that God has no limitations cannot be applied easily if we say "Aham Brahmanasi" as we also know ourselves to be limited as human beings. Brahman is beyond any idea of God. The idea of God helps us to understand Brahman, but falls short of Self-realisation.

I look forward to reading your and others ideas and replies to your questions :)

[sanjaya]

Yeah, I'm not sure how this works either. On the one hand I tend to think of Brahman as Supreme Reality, and different from what we would call Bhagavan, or God. But I do vaguely recall reading stories of Hindu Gods talking to Brahman as though he were God. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? If not, perhaps I'll try to dig these stories up.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Here is one view you may wish to entertain:

yatsattatparamārthohi paramārthastataḥ śivaḥ
That which is Existence (sattā) is the highest (param) Reality, the Universe is of the nature of that Reality, therefore everything is śivaḥ

This is from abhinavagupta's work parā-trīśikā vivaraṇa. It is a śloka where he gives praise to anuttara ( the Supreme, unsurpassable).

He recognizes yatsaḥ sarvam- from whom proceeds all, and yasmin sarvam - in whom resides all - this is anuttara and this is śiva
says abhinavagupta-ji.

If we look at śiva's name śi शि means auspiciousness, good fortune; peace composure, calm. Now this word śiva has its root in śī which means
'in whom all things lie' as śī is also to lie down, rest, repose. Within śiva all resides - every thing is contained therein ( even this māyā) . Within śiva is also
this notion of śvi meaning to swell much, to expand, grow.

Consider the connection to or with brahman as the following: brahman is rooted in bṛh¹ ( some may write brih) meaning to grow, expand.
We ( I ) can then make the connection that śvi = bṛh = brahman = śiva.

Many take the liberty of saying śiva is the quality of destruction. When all creation ends it is destroyed by śiva. This I see differently.
When all of creation ( all tattva, all essential matter and non-matter) has finished its purpose, then saṃhāra¹ (withdrawal) occurs. Some call this saṃhṛti -
conclusion, end, finish. Yet what occurs is the universe once again is drawn back into śiva. Then it occurs again there is sṛṣṭi - letting go, expansion bṛh and
śvi once more take place.


Some say śiva is cideva bhagavatī or divine consciousness alone. I can see this . Yet this consciousness still has this Self-referral property - it knows of itSelf.
From this knowing there is spanda, this vibration within itSelf that brings forth creation. Not the creation of a potter and making a pot, but that of emission
from within Himself say the wise. Nothing is to be ~assembled~ :) .

Why do I mention this? There are some that think brahman is śānta-brahman. This means tranquil, undisturbed, and implies there is no vibration within (spanda)
and that other forces must be present to bring about the manifestation of the universe. In this case ( of this definition) then brahman does not = śiva.

Within śiva 36 tattva ( That-ness) is recognized. This explains sṛṣṭi - letting go, manifestation (~creation~) in its Fullness. This māyā is there also. In ignorance
this māyā is a constraint. In clarity of mind and being possessed of the Self, this māyā is then the play and display of śakti.

praṇām

words

bṛh can also be written bṛṃh or vṛh or vṛṃh; I offer the 2nd derivation of bṛh in my post above - to expand, increase, grow strong.
saṃhāra - bringing back in; contraction.

[viprava]

There are many explaniations from different authorities and communities for the question put forward. However I would like to explain the meaning in my own words of understanding.

The word Brahman is made of two words Brah and man which means direction and mind. To make it more straight it stands for direction of mind, and direction of mind is maya with no clue on how mind gets its thought and ideas and from where hence it is illusion or maya which cannot be seen by us.

Even person is requested to understand and focus on the direction of mind for better living and this is why vedas came to existence to discribed the science on how to read the direction of minds.

[kallol]

Thanks Snip and Yajvanji for thowing some light on this.

Before I put my views, I would like to ensure my understanding of Brahman and Maya.

Is Brahman the same as Paraprakriti or Purusha or Chit (consciousness) ?

Is Maya the same as Aparaprakriti or Prakriti or achit (inert) ?

I understand that these describes the same and are different names of the same "entity". (entity is only a pointer and a definition).

These names are used in different upanishads, Gita and vedas.

Is my understanding correct ?

Love and best wishes

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Where is the TRUTH ?

Should we understand both or only Brahman ?


love and best wishes:)

'Where is the truth?'
I searched and searched, but could not find.
'Where is everlasting stable peace and happiness?'
I searched and searched, but could not find.
'Where am I?'
I searched and searched, but got more lost.

The problem is, I've searched blindfolded the wrong place, without a stick.
Now I know where to look for. I must now look within this intellect, deep down within this outer me. But I need a stick, a guru.... Where o' where is the guru. He too is within me. The Lord is my guru. He will guide me. I should worry no more.

You asked, is only Purusha or Shiva God, or Shiva+Maya or Purusha+Prakriti is god. I ask you,
Do you think Maya and the Pashupathi are completely 2 different entitites? How is it that you can make a differential mark between Shiva and Shive and say they are completely 2 different entities? I do not understand the question.... Will someone explain it to me? I always thought they were 'one.' Unified with true love and undifferentiable. Please make me understand how they are 2 beings and not 1 being seeming 2. Understanding both or one was the question. I never knew there was '2' in the first place. :rolleyes: Nope, my dumb brain fails to get that point. First we need to know whether they are 1 or 2, only then can we say whether Shiva is god or Shiva+Shakti = God.
Oh ShivaShaktyaikya roopini,
Oh Shivaa,
Oh Parameshwari,
Ambaa, Mother!
Tell me! Tell me, Are you and father 2 different beings? Or did you lie to me.
Did you lie to your innocent child? Did you? Well, did you mother?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Some say śiva is cideva bhagavatī or divine consciousness alone.

With this view, there also is the understanding that the Lord, the Supreme is bhagavān viśvaśarira . That is, He, śiva (bhagavān) is universe-bodied (viśvaśarira). That is why in the last post I mentioned that the manifestation of the universe comes from Him - sṛṣṭi - letting go, the manifestation from Himself. He needn't go to some pantry for ingredients to create the universe , it is He already.


So, with this notion as the truth ( as it appears in the āgama-s) the portion that is māyā is His māyā-śakti that makes us ( the human being) apprear as contracted, as limited Being. Constrained
by time-space-cause. Every thing in this creation, this emmision (sṛṣṭi) is none other then bhagavān viśvaśarira. How can it be otherwise? Hence coming to the realization of this in mind-body-understanding-intellect and spirit is mokśa. It is the re-recognition of who one really is.

This is samāveśa - entering into one's own nature. Some call this yoga, union with one owns Being. It is coming home (as my teacher has put it).

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté viprava



The word Brahman is made of two words Brah and man which means direction and mind. To make it more straight it stands for direction of mind, and direction of mind is maya with no clue on how mind gets its thought and ideas and from where hence it is illusion or maya which cannot be seen by us.

Thank you for your posts and ideas...

If we consider brah + man I can see how man¹ can perhaps be manas, mind. To get to brah = direction I have to do some transposing to get there and work with the roots of this word:

If I consider the phoneme brah I am lead to bhrū ; this is rooted in bhram which is to move round , circulate , revolve ; to drive through.

If you are of the opinion that this motion 'to move round , circulate , revolve ; to drive through' is equal to 'direction', then I see how
you can come to the conclusion to 'drive the mind'.

Now here is the part I'd like your opinion on. You mention the following:

with no clue on how mind gets its thought and ideas and from where hence it is illusion or maya which cannot be seen by us.

If we have no clue, and all is illusion, then how do we even know this māyā even exists?


praṇām

words

man is a from of 'mad' which is to gladden , exhilarate , intoxicate , animate , inspire ;
Yet if 'man' is used then we have a definiton of
'to think of ' as in prayer or ' to remember , meditate on' , and one can make an assumption this is done by manas.

[kallol]

Dear Yajvanji,

I cannot agree more on your view and this is what it is. The purpose of starting this thread is slightly different.

The popular notion of getting aligned to God or Brahman for permanent settlement has been proposed in all scriptures. On one side we say maya is out of Brahman and then we say maya is not the one which we can align with. Again we say Brahman is permanent attributeless, beyond percepption, etc, etc. Then we say maya is out of brahman, which is ever changing, full of attributes, etc.

People get confused and I am sure there will be many in this forum also. The purpse is to bring clarity through the knowledgeable contributors.

How is maya and brahman related to each other ? Krishna has said of higher and lower nature. How do we relate these ?

Which part of brahman I should align with (if maya is out of brahman) ?

love and best wishes

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,

thank you for your post. IMHO i think my question to viprava is quite germane to the conversation at hand. If you ask if we should understand both ( alluding to māyā ) or just brahman?
That begs the question of discussing both and hence my question to viprava seems quite reasonable.

That is, if māyā cannot be seen by us, then it cannot be entertained as an idea and hence your question, 'understanding both or just brahman' cannot be addressed or answered properly.

In my earlier posts I have offered my position - really not my position ( as the originator ) but that of kaśmir śaivism. I mentioned,

Within śiva 36 tattva ( That-ness) is recognized. This explains sṛṣṭi - letting go, manifestation (~creation~) in its Fullness. This māyā is there also. In ignorance this māyā is a constraint. In clarity of mind and being possessed of the Self, this māyā is then the play and display of śakti.
This is why this is germane to the conversation: by understanding śiva , sṛṣṭi and the 36 tattva , māyā too is understood. It is not an accessory . This then addresses the question you have posed.

To advance the conversation just a bit more, as we are in uttara folder (and that is the nature of this folder to advance, expand) this māyā tends to be a big deal.
Many look to ādi śaṅkara's (some spell śaṃkara) and spend more time on this one area then on others. The enchantment with ~illusion~ as māyā for some reason seems attractive.
This is not the case in kaśmir śaivism.

Ādi śaṅkara-ji's knowledge and brillance regarding advatia ( not-two) is supurb and brings the Supreme to a level that it deserves. Yet the same wholeness, fullness of advitia
found in kaśmir śaivism looks at the same brilliance but with different facets . That is , māyiyamala as a limiting condition is both limiting and cosmic at the same time.

From within kaśmir śaivism, some could even call it īśvarādvaya darśana , no other principle other then śiva is needed as He is the whole of Reality, there is no second (adavya).
This is a key point as I see it to the overall conversation. To answer your question in a meaningful manner depends on which school (darśana) one chooses to respond from.

praṇām

[Ekanta]

http://mootzman.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/red-pill-or-blue-pill.jpg

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Since God is understood to be personal and human in almost all religions, I think the right equation would be: God + mAyA = Brahman. Shankara's Advaita also says that Brahman first becomes Ishvara (SaguNa Brahman) and then merges with the mAyA-shakti born of himself and creates the world.

• There is a beautiful word for God in Tamizh, which is also the most popular one: kaDavuL; that is, kaDa--transcend + uL--be immanent inside, so kaDavuL is that which is transcendentally immanent; transcend also suggests infinite expansion.

• I think Viprava has a point to derive the term brahman from brah + man, where brah is to expand and man is mind. Let us also note that the Sanskrit term for a human being is manuShya, that is, man + uShya; man here means mind and uShya is from the root uSh, to burn, thus manuShya is an exact reference to the human who always has a mind 'burning' with thoughts and emotions. The wise use this capacity of the mind to burn in tapas--asterity/meditation, and enter the path of Atma-jnAnam.

• Thus, Brahman first acquired a man--mind, when he decided to brah--multiply/expand, with a view to know itself better. A human mind is a complex antaHkaraNa--inner organ, comprising the lower manas--mind, ahaMkAra--the I-sense, buddhi--intellect/wisdom part, prakRti/chitta--subtle matter colored with vAsanas, and puruSha--the transcendentally immanent Self. The Cosmic antaHkaraNa of Brahman, in the same way, comprises cosmic aggregations of these faculties.

• In the Shakti and mAyA thread, we discussed how scriptures view mAyA as an inherent part of parAshakti who is immanent in Brahman/Shiva. Since the shakti--power, of mind is to think without cessation, the mAyA-shakti (of Brahman's mind) creates the virtual reality of this world which entices the mind--and the man--into the advidyA--nescience, of associating his inner puruSha--Self, with its emanations.

• No wonder then that this universe is described, even by some scientists, to be a great cosmic thought or dream of God. The difference is that Brahman knows it as such, whereas we are yet to attain that knowledge.

• We are taught, right from our early life, to differentiate between the 'I' from the 'my/mine'. Thus, using the Self-inquiry of 'who am I' given by RamaNa MaharShi, one can intellectually know with ease, that the 'I' in us is really the Self that is Brahman.

• If we apply this teaching, then we can say that anything that Brahman emanates from himself, such as the world and mAyA-shakti, is not actually Brahman, but Brahman's. At length, however, since Brahman is prajnAnam--Cosmic Consciousness, it knows about and rejects its emanations (as neti-neti) at every point of its presence, which makes the samsAra--world process, go on. Brahman's individual selves--jIvas, however, only gradually and progressively become aware of this knowledge of I and mine--or rather Brahman and Brahman's,--which entails the guNa-karma existence of our individual selves and this world.

We align with our Self, every night, in suShupti--deep sleep. BrahmA, the creator has his own suShupti when the world gets merged in him. Brahman, in turn, has his own suShupti after the mahApraLaya, when all worlds and gods lie dormant and merged in him. Unlike Brahman and the Gods, however, only a minuscule number of jIvas have attained the state of turIya where the Self is known in conscious awareness.

[Onkara]

To advance the conversation just a bit more, as we are in uttara folder (and that is the nature of this folder to advance, expand) this māyā tends to be a big deal.
Many look to ādi śaṅkara's (some spell śaṃkara) and spend more time on this one area then on others. The enchantment with ~illusion~ as māyā for some reason seems attractive.
This is not the case in kaśmir śaivism.

Ādi śaṅkara-ji's knowledge and brillance regarding advatia ( not-two) is supurb and brings the Supreme to a level that it deserves. Yet the same wholeness, fullness of advitia
found in kaśmir śaivism looks at the same brilliance but with different facets . That is , māyiyamala as a limiting condition is both limiting and cosmic at the same time.

From within kaśmir śaivism, some could even call it īśvarādvaya darśana , no other principle other then śiva is needed as He is the whole of Reality, there is no second (adavya).
This is a key point as I see it to the overall conversation. To answer your question in a meaningful manner depends on which school (darśana) one chooses to respond from.

praṇām
Namasté Yajvan
This is good to read. mAyA can be overcome. That overcoming is marked by the knowing that "śiva... is the whole of Reality, there is no second (adavya)." Your good words :)

The reason that mAyA continues to arise and to be a big deal is its place in scriptures, which cannot be played down (not suggesting anyone here does). For this reason I feel Adi Sankara's position is founded, but does not limit further progress, as you point out. This is why I look to kaśmir śaivism for stimulation.

In my observation, Adi Shankara leads us up to that point of Self-realisation, using the wedge of the maya-concept to crack the shell of body-mind ignorance and expose the Self in all its glory. Nothing else is then needed, for the Truth is revealed.

For example of maya in scritpure:

Brihadaranyaka Up. II-v-19 (http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/brihadaranyaka.html?page=2): ... Perceiving this the Rishi said, ‘(He) transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known. The Lord on account of Maya (notions superimposed by ignorance) is perceived as manifold, for to Him are yoked ten organs, nay, hundreds of them. He is the organs; He is ten and thousands – many and infinite. That Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior. This self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman. This is the teaching.


Bhagavad Gita 7.14
daivi hy esa guna-mayi
mama maya duratyaya
mam eva ye prapadyante
mayam etam taranti te

This divine illusion of Mine
Is difficult to go beyond.
Only those devoted to Me
Shall pass beyond this illusion. (7.14)

[kallol]

The TRUTH is so apparent but still eludes most. How can we bring it down to the maases and that to in present day context without going through the nitty gritty of the scriptures ?

The initial interest and knowledge might propel many towards knowing Him more through the scriptures.

Let me put it as like this.

The endless brahmand is filled up with energy and consciousness.

Consciousness pervades all and is permanent and attributeless. It is the life enabler and the enabler of knowing. Without it there will be no life and no knowing.

The energy is in constant motion, constant changing (why ?). The knowing of the energy is because of the consciousnes. No consciousness leads to not enabling the energy, not knowing the energy.

It is like a dead man. With no life the man does not sense or do anything. For him nothing is there.

The consciousness is the enabler and the energy is the doer. This combination get manifested at different levels. But for all manifestations there is a consciousness part and an energy part. Without the first part the second part becomes useless and is consumed.

So we understand that the consciousness is the independent part and the energy is the dependent part. The second part's existence is out of the first part.

Now these first part and the second part are also called the higher nature and the lower nature. Again a different places in the scripture the higher nature is also called the Paraprakriti, Purusha, Chit or Brahman. The second part is aparaprakriti, prakriti, achit or maya.

As all manifestations will constitute the initial ingredients consciousness and energy, we can say the manifested energy is enabled by consciouness to become human, animals, trees / plants, etc. Slowly we will know that even the so called non living entities have these two ingredients.

It is like clay / gold. With clay/ gold, we make so many types of articles/ ornaments. Now however different the articles / ornaments will have the same cosntituents as the clay or gold. If the gold is 95% pure, the ornaments will be same. Again if the clay contains silicon and oxygen the articles will also have the same.

This leads to the fact that the highest supreme being also has the higher and the lower nature. We all have a part of that higher nature and a part of the lower nature.

There will be some questions coming out of this. We will take up on later posts

Love and best wishes

[saidevo]

namaste Kallol and others.



The TRUTH is so apparent but still eludes most. How can we bring it down to the maases and that to in present day context without going through the nitty gritty of the scriptures?


KRShNa ParamAtman in his Bhagavad GItA, brings out the relationship and differences between prakRti--matter/material energy, puruSha--jIva/individual soul and paramAtmA--Supreme Self thus:

kArya-kAraNa-karRtve hetuH prakRtiruchyate |
puruShaH sukha-duHkhAnAM bhoktRtve heturchyate ||13.21||

"With regard to the source of body and organs, prakRti--Nature is said to be the cause.
The individual soul--puruSha, is the cause so far as enjoyership of happiness and sorrow is concerned."

puruShaH prakRtistho hi bhungkte prakRtijAn-guNAn |
kAraNaM guNa-sanggo-&sya sad-asad-yoni janmasu ||13.22||

"Since the soul is seated in Nature, therefore it experiences the qualities born of Nature.
Contact with the qualities is the cause of its births in good and evil wombs."

upa-dRShTa-anumantA cha bhartA bhoktA maheshvaraH |
paramAtmeti cha-api-ukto dehe-asmin-puruShaH paraH ||13.23||

"He who is the Witness, the Permitter, the Sustainer, the Experiencer, the great Lord,
and who is also spoken of as the transcendental Self is the supreme Person in this body."

ya evaM vetti puruShaM prakRtiM cha guNauH saha |
sarvathA vartamAno&pi na sa bhUyo-&bhijAyate ||13.24||

"He who knows thus the Person and Nature along with the qualities
will not be born again, in whatever way he may live."

The above translations are from the Shankara-bhAShya presented in English by SvAmi GambhIrAnanda. The subtleties of the Sanskrit terms and their meanings that shrI KRShNa uses in the text are beautifully explained by Shankara in his BhAShya, which can be downloaded from:
http://www.archive.org/details/bhagavadgitawith00maharich

*****

shrI KRShNa springs a surprise in the last verse:

"He who knows thus the Person and Nature along with the qualities
will not be born again, in whatever way he may live."

• Just the knowledge of the truths expounded in the three foregoing verses promises liberation! From the word api in 'sarvathA vartamAno&pi', Shankara says, that it is understood that it goes without saying that one who is firm in his own duty is not reborn.

• "Being firm in one's duty" is nothing but being true to one's svadharma. This means conscious selection of such life and occupation as suits the svadharma.

• What about the karmic balance in the previous births? Shankara, quoting various UpaniShads, answers this question thus: The Knowledge of the Self, and its Realization will, like a blazing fire, destroy all actions and karmic seeds no matter where and when they were picked up.

Shankara also quotes a verse from the MahAbhArata:

"As seeds burnt by fire do not germinate, so also the Self does not acquire another body due to evils that have been burnt by Knowledge (cf. Mbh. Va.199.107)".

• shrI KRShNa prescribes the paths of meditation, SAmKhya yoga, Karma yoga, and Bhakti yoga, in the following two verses, as alternative means (which are long-winded) only to those who cannot stick to their svadharma and dedicate its actions to Him.

[viprava]

Dear All,

Can one see the mind. can one describe the thoughts of mind.However one cannot ignore or claim that mind or no thoughts are present in the Brain. This unknow part of know and one with out form and one which we can feel form is maya and this maya is what is termed as sakthi and it associate with soul.

To explain in little modern thoughts, please look at below points.

1. Magnetic Force is Vishnu- he is responsible for field, attractive force and direction.
2. Particles is Lakshmi - this is material aspect of god and the vishnu binds the particles which in takes forms.

The lakshm and narayana does represent attractive force of particle in getting to forms from formless.

now taking one more steps down

3. Light is Soul or Siva and Heat is Sakthi. Light and heat cannot be separated, if you have light,then it will also have heat. and this soul and heat is the cause of action of mind or when the light and heat with in body is in with contact with field and particle the maya is felt by us and maya is seen by us.

4. From Field comes the direction, because field is one which has the force to move, then from field came the direction which represent bramha and direction is need for sound which is caused due to particles. In the sense, the water flow as per the direction laid by the land(bhumi-laksmi -particles) which we know as sarswathi and partner of bharama.

Now, looking at above equation, can anyone tell who is god - well it is not possible to pinpoint, you need all the above to see and feel bhraman hence bhraman was identified as sutiable word to represent all the gods.

These have been represent in purans many times. Rama is vishnu and hanuman is siva. Rama prays siva, the soul and hanuman soul prays Rama. It simple states the formless thanks form and form thanks formless. It is this whole relation is what is called bhraman, the reason, they all are responsible for direction of mind which results in action if living and non living forms, hence it is important to understand this difference, once this is understood it will be easy to understand why we have so many gods in our society and culture and when combined to one we called it as purushya as termed by vedas, the ones which one cannot measure and from one which every thing came up.

Well, we can go further deep and start looking at things and relate to the Veda and gods as stated and why veda acts as fundmentals and authority to know and understand the devas and bhraman.

Hopefully, the above explination helps us to understand in layman words.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté snip,

herein lies the pickle. For ādi śaṅkara-ji to help us discern real from unreal , the notion of pāramārthika ( Absolute) and vyāvahārika (relative) fields of existence are brought into the conversation. That is the notion of mithyā ( meaning to turn out to be false, incorrect) began to play a bigger role in explaining what is not real.

Hence many of those with a critical eye towards the darśana of advatia (not two) came to call the followers¹ as māyā-vādins. This term is a critical/disparaging term. It suggests more time is given to how brahman appears as differentiated ( the multitude of things) then to its robustness of being full/whole.

No doubt this is important to ferret out, but for some reason over time this has seemed to become more to the forefront , then the overall unity of brahman.

So, as I see it we live in the distinctions, in vyāvahārika¹ and this must be explained - enter māyā to explain this experience. So we are taught accordingly.
In śāntabrahmavāda ( another name for advaita vedānta) māyā is neither real or unreal ( this can be explained on a future post). In kaśmir śaivism the universe is perfectly real and māyā is the play and display of śakti. In ignorance this māyā is limiting and a nuisance (IMHO) . In liberation it is cinmayī.

The teacher (guru) is the first letter (a) ; the student (śiṣya) is the last letter (ha) ; knowledge is the meeting place (ṁ) ahaṁ
- instruction is the link.

praṇām

words

vyāvahārika व्यावहारिक - relating to common life or practice or action ; the relative field
Followers can be called brahmavādin-s or advaitavādin-s

[Onkara]

Namasté Yajvan
This is a sound explanation. What attracts me is the potential that śakti offers. There appears to be no requirement to reject the world and retire to the forest or cave until the body dies, but rather one's actions and life continues to be the play of śakti. This for me offers much more expansion and value. I may derail, friend Kallol's topic and original post by investigating this tangent further here, but wanted to acknowledge your points. :)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté snip,


Namasté Yajvan
There appears to be no requirement to reject the world and retire to the forest or cave until the body dies, but rather one's actions and life continues to be the play of śakti. This for me offers much more expansion and value.

Perhaps starting a new post will be prudent. For me the following from the vijñāna bhairava¹ is most delightful to consider:

… śaivī-mukhaṃ ichocyate || 20
śakti ( which is śaivī) is the mouth (mukhaṃ) or entrance ichocyate (it is explained , ucyate or explained)

This sūtra informs us śakti is the entrance…. but to what?

The 21st sūtra informs us completely¹.
yathālokena dīpasya kiraṇair-bhāskarasya ca |
jñāyate dig-vibhāgāadi tadvac chatyā śivaḥ priye ||21

Just as parts of space are known by the light of a lamp
or the rays of the sun, in the same way O Dear One
Śiva is known through Śakti.

praṇām
words and references

Vijñāna Bhairava - the conversation between śakti and śiva. This is from the Rudrayāmala Tantra.
Vijñāna is vi+jñāna: vi is to discern, distinction + jñāna is wisdom, knowledge.
Bhairava - more in-depth explaination of bhairava can be found at this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=17892&postcount=52

[kd gupta]

Where is the TRUTH ?

Should we understand both or only Brahman ?


love and best wishes:)
Namaste kallolji
To my understanding Brahman is Advaita , therefore maya or jeeva or prakriti is the base for advaita . For simple explanation , if we take the natural gas it can be compressed to liquid form CNG , similarly if air can be compressed to solid form , it shall give the idea of dvaita . Brahman being the sole source of live energy as chetan prakriti gives birth to solid earthen form as jada prakriti . This jada prakriti as receptor gives birth to maya with chetan prakriti as donor or say purusha[ brahman] .

[kallol]

Thanks to all. This had been a beautiful and enlightening discussion.

Love and best wishes

[Adhvagat]

Last month I had a dream that I was explaining to my mother the concept of Brahman and Prakrti.

At one point I turned to her and emphasized that Brahman is penetrating us right now and it's the very basis of our existence... At this point I saw a huge matrix of energetic lines that interconnected in energy spheres, the glow was a deep white with a very very subtle green tint (The Matrix? :p), but it wasn't standing still, it was moving at an amazing speed, in an non-stopping rush.

While this sight was disturbing to witness with my material senses, something made me at peace, I knew that everything had a purpose to sit on it and while it looked chaotic judging by my inherited sense of order, intuition pointed to the understanding that the non-apparent order just wasn't perceivable yet.

[anirvan]

God is something relative,it varies from religion to religion.more importantly it is different to different individual according to their spiritual growth and spiritual aspiration.

vedantik sannyasi idolize nirguna brahma, ordinary devotees idolizes saguna brahma,highest form of devotees idolizes para-abara brahma etc.its all changes with spiritual progress and deeper understanding of truth.

maya is a term used only by vedantik to define the illusion. a illusion hold by,nurtured by advita brahma. according mayavada or neo-vedanta,....maya has no independent existance,but a dream or imagination of advita brahma.and entire creation has no spiritual existence.

but never mix the mahashakti(mahamaya) of tantra and the shakti (shibani) of saiva with maya of vedanta.

in saiva or tantra way....mahashakti is saguna brahma.the manifested one part(feet) of entire param-brahma.

paramabrahman(4 part or 4 feet) = nirguna brahman or para-brahman(3 feet) plus saguna brahman or apara-brahman(1 feet).

in neo-vedantic thought there is no concept of god or bhagaban. so never be confused god with neo-vedanta.

so ordinarily when speak about God,we speak about tantra/purana/saiva view of original vedas.

and for ordinary devotee,they worship saguna brahman as god.but gradually they ascend upto nirguna brahma.

little evolved souls,sannyasi worship nirguna brahma.

but true sadhaka/true jnani worship the para-abara brahman,the combined one and only brahman.....the highest god.as they see one in all and all in one.

brahmopalabdhi or nirbikalpa samadhi and bhaba-sidhi brings this realization.

even the worship of Radha-krishna in ragamarga is the worship of para-abara brahman.

jayaguru

[anirvan]

Dear Kallolji,because different school of philosophies,different nomenclature are used to define different concepts,so you are confused with words.

just like para,apara prakriti.these are terms used in sankhya yoga. sankhya teaches about single soul only that is tatastha(byasti tatva). atman = prakriti plus purush.
Vdanta refers to entire entire manifest and un-manifest.the samasti tatva.

the concept of brahma,bishnu,maheswar said in purana are referred to only single brahmanda.they are the supreme deitis of a single brahmanda(universe).

mahashakti is reffered to saguna brahman....the mother of all brahmandas,the entire creation.mahashakti give birth to billions of brahmand and billions of brahma,bishnu,maheswar.thats why tantra called her maha-yoni.

saiva school says her as nada-bindu. nada( pranava...om) is again saguna brahma or maha shakti.bindu is shiva.

you can see always brahma or god is referred as twin.that means brahman is the unified form.thats why gita says him as EKAM-EBA-ADVITIYAM.

actually i am not good in explaining.so if any doubt,i will be more that happy to try to make you understand this concept clearly.

jayaguru

[jasdir]

Where is the TRUTH ?
Should we understand both or only Brahman ?
"Brahman" is known by three types.

Brahman is also known as Regions.
Brahman is also known as Deitie, to which some says "God".
Brahman is also known as Brahmand or Universe or The Triple Worlds.The "Brahman" which is known as Regions, has three parts.

Sagun Brahm.
Nirgun Brahm.
Puran Brahm.The power which is residing only in "Puran Brahm" is only "Supreame God", the powers of Sagun or Nirgun brahm are also known as "God" but in the true sence they are not "God", in these lower regions there is combination of "Time" and "Maya" with pure brahm.

_/\_ Jasdir.

[anirvan]

Dear jasdir,
nirguna and saguna brahman are lower region?and combined with maya and time?

there is nothing like purana brahman,only saguna and nirguna brahman. baishnavitis gives a form to the brahman to describe the general peoples.and call them bishnu,mahabishnu etc.but brahman is formless.when it takes a form by his wish,he is called saguna brahman.and we call this saguna brahman as god.

and is there any difference between maya and time?

[jasdir]

and is there any difference between maya and time?
"Maya" is "Net" created by "Time" for Man, rest everything which is created or total creation, other than "Man" is part of "Maya" for "Man" or in other language we can say, "Maya" is the wepon of "Time" for "Man."

"Maya" further has many shapes and weapons, You have been noticed the statues of "Mata" means "Maha Maya" in temples having so many weapons in many hands.

Anirvan ji, Truely saying if "Maya" (illusion), is the thing which could be understandable, than why somebody has given to this thing the name; "Maya" (illusion) ? :)

So, "Maya" is weapon created by "Time" for "Man",
But, If there would be no "Man", than "Maya" alone do not have any importance.

Only "God" or the power who is residing in "Puran Brahm" can only help to overcome this "illusion".

Yes! the powers in the below regions have thier own importances, yes they can bless wordly things to "Man" but no "Salvation".

In the case of "Salvation" any power which is residing other than "Puran Brahm" is Nagitive power for "Man".



_/\_Jasdir.

[anirvan]

Dear Jasdir ji,i can understand the points you want to emphasize, same time understand your philosophical way of thinking. your principal thought is vaishnavites. if you would study vedanta,then only you can properly simplify such discussion as nothing has more liberal and simplified view as vedanta.

see when you are talking about maya...it means its maya of vedanta which is illusion.there is no discussion of maya shakti or maata or any concept of god.
in vedanta there is one and only Brahman.nothing else. when the wish to create arise ...that wish is called maya. and then brahman became saguna brahman.the part of brahman which still remains unmanifested is called nirguna brahman. maya is just a illusion or wish of saguna brahman. so there is no mention of puranabrahman or any shakti etc..in vedanta.

the things you have written is the view of sakar-vadi and visisthadvita and daitva vadi (like bhaktas and purana and vaisnavites) . that there is puranabrahman...the supreme god-head(mahabishnu,srikrishna etc).nirgunabrahman is the ang-jyoti of this god.sagunabrahman is still inferior to nirgunabrahman which comprises the creation.

Time doesn"t depend wheather man"s existence. nirgunabrahman is timeless as there is no action.it is unmanifested.the moment creation started...that means action started...time comes into view. as time is the difference between past and present.

purana is written in dwapara time for lesser developed peoples who can"t understand deeper meaning of vedanta.so many rupakas( metaphores) are given with pictures,stories to explain the higher tattva in simple manner.so plz don"t stress too much into the WEAPONS given to mayadevi etc. its simply metaphores.

hope you can understand what i mean to say.

jayaguru

[iamfact]

Where is the TRUTH ?

Should we understand both or only Brahman ?


love and best wishes:)

Brahman reflected upon the mirror of Maya is God, while many Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins would surely disagree with me.

There is no right or wrong thing to do. Some people project their egos in the cosmos and see it as God, and worship Him/Her, and this may work for some people, but personally I would choose Gyana (knowledge) over Bhakti (devotion). I think it would be good to know about your traditions, and learn the examples set by the deities in our pantheon. However, at the end of it all, want neither this nor that, because the knowledge of Brahman is never attainable when you want Its knowledge.

[smaranam]

Brahman reflected upon the mirror of Maya is God, while many Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins would surely disagree with me.

Some people project their egos in the cosmos and see it as God, and worship Him/Her, and this may work for some people, but personally I would choose Gyana (knowledge) over Bhakti (devotion).

Namaste

This may be the case with a follower of monism, not with a bhakta of BhagvAn.

A bhakta comes face to face with God, not their own ego. The Supreme God Himself gives Darshan, association, gives Himself to the devotee.
If you don't want to know that is fine, but please don't speculate.

Hare KRshNa

[smaranam]

P.S. : Just wondering. Why can't people with an advaita mindset (like the OP) who are only interested in advaita, ask such questions in Advaita folders ?

What is the purpose of a common folder called "Uttara" ? Is kevala-advaita uttara ?

praNAm

[NayaSurya]

Brahman reflected upon the mirror of Maya is God, while many Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins would surely disagree with me.

There is no right or wrong thing to do. Some people project their egos in the cosmos and see it as God, and worship Him/Her, and this may work for some people, but personally I would choose Gyana (knowledge) over Bhakti (devotion). I think it would be good to know about your traditions, and learn the examples set by the deities in our pantheon. However, at the end of it all, want neither this nor that, because the knowledge of Brahman is never attainable when you want Its knowledge.



Well also count fools such as myself, a dog... into the list in disagreement with this generalization and personal judgment you have made above.

It is also foolish to think devotion/bhakti comes without having knowledge...

That it is just some ignorant one who would choose such a thing...why must one choose between devotion and being intelligent with knowledge?

At the end of the day both of these groups you speak of above are longing for the very same thing.

Beloved.

The orange is sweet...the orange is round...the orange is a fruit...the orange is food. The orange is best, the orange is worst!

The orange is an orange! and everything else too!

For the Love of God, is it only the fool who recognizes the lack of a difference here?

Bhakti is service in the light of Truth. Even typing out this right now is service. A simple one, but a service none the less.

Some people project their egos onto others and try to make the truths they have found the concrete "truth" for all.

...and if anyone disagrees...they lable them as "full of ego"...or "ignorant" (lack of knowledge).

We are here...there has to be a reason for this...it can not just be a drama to be played...some of us here suffer...really suffer. I don't want to hear that suffering is just a point of perspective and if you take the magic pill, all suffering goes away.

Because I got that pill...swallowed it whole...and have moved beyond suffering...yet from this hill I see a vast ocean of suffering is still occuring.

and there is a big reason for that...some of us have many miles to travel before we are clean and clear enough of this karma to realize what we truly are.

Beloved gave each of us a life, a personality and a task. I do not believe He will one day just take that away and suck us back into the abyss of Bliss. Unless we request it.

Some say we are made of Beloved...and some say we are made by Beloved.

and I say...Both are correct.

Both both...say it again...both!

But, I am here to say, whatever Truth you have found in this realm is yours to hold, as I hold these Truths I wrote above as my own...and I will not come to try to yank yours out of your hand and replace them with my own. However, I will come as I did tonight to make sure when a young one, new to SD come to read here that they do not get a wrong idea and think bhakti is a path without knowledge.

There's a reason we have different perspectives, we are the many voices...and we must allow each of them to sing in their own way.

[devotee]

Namaste iamfact,


Brahman reflected upon the mirror of Maya is God,

That is correct as per Advaita.


Some people project their egos in the cosmos and see it as God, and worship Him/Her

I don't agree with it. Any scriptural support for this assertion which can hurt the sentiments of many here ? How can you call God as projection of one's ego ??

Namaste NayaSurya,

Thanks for a very good post ! :)

OM

[devotee]

P.S. : Just wondering. Why can't people with an advaita mindset (like the OP) who are only interested in advaita, ask such questions in Advaita folders ?

What is the purpose of a common folder called "Uttara" ? Is kevala-advaita uttara ?


Namaste Smaranam,

It was decided that one should not write anything in Vaishnava forum anything hurting Vaishnavas' sentiments even if that may be correct from Advaita or any other point of view. Similarly, it was also agreed that in Advaita forum, anything hurting the sentiments of Advaitin will not be posted even though it may be correct from the point of view of some other paths.

However, "Uttara" doesn't come into any of such categories. It is for higher level discussion on Dharma & scriptural references which was started by Yajvan. Now, discussions in Uttara somehow converge towards Advaitic thinking ... but it is certainly not necessary. There can be many types of DhArmic debates in that folder which would fall into that non-Advaitic category.

I am slightly perplexed by sudden changed stance in your posts here. Why are you becoming so intolerant of Advaita ? Why should so-called Advaitins be forced to write only in Advaita section and forbidden to write in any other forums ... when, it appears from your post that, you don't recommend any such binding on the Vaishnavas, Shaivas, ShAktas etc. ? Why this sudden animosity towards Advaita ? What have you discovered so obnoxious about Advaita recently which has changed your way of thinking ... I am curious to know.

OM

[kallol]

Dear Nayasurya,

Thanks for your beautiful post.

This thread is enough saturated with so much of knowledge. One has to only go through all posts.

@smaranam

Please allow us also to tread this beatiful path.

As the nature is diverse from micro PoV but highly aligned from macro PoV, same are we. It is the different way we perceive the Supreme towards the same objective of eternal bliss.

@iamfact

Bhakti is the base for right karma and jnana. The bhakti only increases as we move along.

[smaranam]

Namaste Smaranam,

However, "Uttara" doesn't come into any of such categories. It is for higher level discussion on Dharma & scriptural references

Namaste Devoteeji

Then there should be an Uttara under each philosophy. Because, this very existence of ONE Uttara assumes that all SD paths converge into the same thinking. Classic example is this thread - the OP assumed that the God with infinite transcendental qualities (NirguN as in beyond material guNas) being a projection of Maya in impersonal attributeless Brahman is unanimous to all SD paths. It may be unanimous with keval-advaita, Kashmiri Shaiva and all other monistic Shaiva, Shakta paths. That is not the complete list.

Let us face it. We cannot have a common Uttara technically.

VaishNavs discuss their esoteric things in VaishNav, although not all of it can be discussed in forums.


Now, discussions in Uttara somehow converge towards Advaitic thinking ...

hmm..

praNAm

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[smaranam]

@smaranam

Please allow us also to tread this beatiful path.

As the nature is diverse from micro PoV but highly aligned from macro PoV, same are we. It is the different way we perceive the Supreme towards the same objective of eternal bliss.

Namaste Kallolji

I request you to not assume that the ultimate is how kevala advaita describes it.

All i am saying is this thread should have been under Advaita or Uttara of Advaita. You can certainly tread it there ?

praNAm

[kallol]

Namaste Kallolji

I request you to follow what you just said (in blue), and not assume that the ultimate is how kevala advaita describes it.

All i am saying is this thread should have been under Advaita or Uttara of Advaita. You can certainly tread it there ?

praNAm

Who is to say that his way is the right way. I feel at home in certain ways which might be inclining towards Advaita. It is only out my analysis from my very childhood.

Again it is not out of any books, as I read anything hardly. Now a days I hear discourses on Gita and now Upanishads on CDs.

Now with this background, how should I define myself - Advaita (I hardly have read anything on that) or dvaita (again I have not read anything on that). I frequent ISCKON and Ramakrishna Mutt along with my family - but not for any discourses.

I pray to God as if He is a person up in the sky. I do deep analysis and find that all the system is One. So some are tradition, some are knowledge. Where do I belong ?

Do I have to choose one path ?

It is good that you have clarity on where do you belong. But I believe most do not.

We are not yet as blessed as some of you are.

[smaranam]

We are not yet as blessed

No, please don't say that. Parameshwar is always ready to bless. It is a shower, downpour of blessings. We simply have to ask.

We are all learning... and sorry if i sounded rude, didn't mean to. Simply trying to sort apples and oranges to make things clear-cut.


_/\_ Hare KRshNa

[smaranam]

Some say we are made of Beloved...and some say we are made by Beloved.

and I say...Both are correct.

Both both...say it again...both!

Namaste NayaSurya,

This is achintya-bheda-abheda. Particles Of KRshNa/God, By God, live for God.
(jivera svarup haya nitya krsna das)

_/\_ Hare KRshNa

[NayaSurya]

Beloved Smaranam! I never knew this thing I have seen and experienced had a name and I am so grateful to know others also have experienced this Truth.

Thank you!<3

[devotee]

Then there should be an Uttara under each philosophy. Because, this very existence of ONE Uttara assumes that all SD paths converge into the same thinking. Classic example is this thread - the OP assumed that the God with infinite transcendental qualities (NirguN as in beyond material guNas) being a projection of Maya in impersonal attributeless Brahman is unanimous to all SD paths. It may be unanimous with keval-advaita, Kashmiri Shaiva and all other monistic Shaiva, Shakta paths. That is not the complete list.

Let us face it. We cannot have a common Uttara technically.

VaishNavs discuss their esoteric things in VaishNav, although not all of it can be discussed in forums.


Namaste Smaranam,

That way, there is a need to :

a) Divide all Hindus and keep them in separate islands so that they don't become contaminated by coming into contact with each other.

b) Divide India into as many parts as there are sects within Hindu Dharma with walls so high around each region that people of one sect never ever see people from any other sect.

c) Even in one Hindu family, there are people having different views, so they should also be given some masks so that they avoid the risk of coming into contact with each other.

Good to know how you are proposing to maintain the purity of every sect. BTW, please have a census how many people here are pure Advaitins belonging to any of Shankra's Schools ?

NAMASKAAR !

OM

[sm78]

Though I should not be the one commenting on these topics, but by reading smaranam's comments I did not feel his concern is about having vaishnava company for himself - which he could seek elsewhere. He seems to be concerned with biased representation of hinduism for newbie's, not seasoned vaishnava's like himself.

However, I don't think this forum is biased as such but has a large number of eclectic hindus who don't belong with any school as such, but tend to use more "advaitic" language, motivated by current fashion perhaves?

If I count people representing orthodox systems - I can may be count 3 people or maybe 4. Surely vaishnava is not under representated in that context.

Btw, majority (I mean majority-majority) of hindus have always been eclectic. Followers of orthodox systems have always been a few minority sects. That we go to shiva temples doesn't make us shaiva, that some of us danced behind the village kirtans doesn't make us vaishnava - or visiting a shankara peetha on our pilgrimage doesn't make us smarta. The shaiva-vaishnava-smarta sects in the core are small sects, but have always recieved public and stately support for their endevours. This does not make the state and the public a vaishnava or shaiva. The ancient kings used grant to all sects including so called nastikas - although personally he may have had one or two favourites.

I digress a bit, but my point to smaranam is that, you should not get pained to see common hindus are not in your camp in terms of doctrine or practices. It is also incorrect assumption on your behalf that since they are not in your camp they must be advaitic or shaiva. They are not that either. Common hindus identify with all of them including yours at a generic level and at the same time don't belong to any one sect in terms of core beliefs or practices. Common hinduism has and will remain eclectic and simple. Those who want to follow orthodox strict sectarian lives can always count on the eclectic hindus for mutual symbiotic relationship - it doesn't matter if the eclectic common hindu is now speaking more advaitic language - he will still sponsor and rejoice in a vaishnava katha and keep the tradition alive.

Please look issues from societal point of view. Internet is a reflection of the society. And this forum is for common hindus - or has become one.

[devotee]

Thanks for a very good and balanced post, sm78 !

I am wondering where I should put myself ?

All my family members have their own chosen deity and yet they don't belong to any of the schools except my father and myself.

a) My father was a Vaishnava but he worshiped Shiva, Goddess Durga etc. too and also talked on Advaita

b) My elder brother is devoted to Shiva but also worships other deities

c) My elder sister is devoted to Goddess Durga also worships other deities

d) Others worship all deities without having special preference to anyone

e) I can count myself as Advaita but worship all deities. Every morning I start my day with jalAbhisekam of Lord Shiva, singing a chapter of Bhagwad Gita and singing bhajans of Lord Krishna

I should create a separate island for myself and my family !

OM

[NayaSurya]

My family was isolated as a child so we had contact with only one uncle, this one abused my sister and I and was godless.

My mother dead, but did not have a church.
Father abandoned us, and is godless.
brother has no church and abandoned our family many years ago.
Older sister is insane and astranged but claims Buddhism.
Younger sister is Buddhist and actually is.

As for me, I belong to Beloved.

Devotee,
You have such a blessed family. I say if you make this island, please invite us all. As you know many of us are homeless in this particular sense.

[devotee]

I say if you make this island, please invite us all. As you know many of us are homeless in this particular sense.

We all are eternal friends and always together. Isn't Hindu Dharma that beautiful island where God wanted all of us to meet ? I think it is so. :)

OM