Adwaitabad and ...........
Hellow everyone ,
It is known to us that 'Brahma' as mentioned by sri sankaracharya can not be described. he is Nirbishes Nirguna and Nirakar . I am sure this description of 'Brahma' has been obtained from vedanta. Again on the other hand there are also beliefs that 'Brahma' is sabishes, saguna and sakar . Now my point is whether the description of 'Brahma' as sabishes, saguna and sakar can be found in vedanta also ? In fact , I want to know from you all that whether both the description of 'Brahma' has been originated from vedanta or not. Will anyone help me in this regard.
Re: Adwaitabad and ...........
Namaste Gossain,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gossain
It is known to us that 'Brahma' as mentioned by sri sankaracharya can not be described. he is Nirbishes Nirguna and Nirakar . I am sure this description of 'Brahma' has been obtained from vedanta. Again on the other hand there are also beliefs that 'Brahma' is sabishes, saguna and sakar . Now my point is whether the description of 'Brahma' as sabishes, saguna and sakar can be found in vedanta also ? In fact , I want to know from you all that whether both the description of 'Brahma' has been originated from vedanta or not. Will anyone help me in this regard.
1. Shankara talked about both the Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman. He said that Nirguna Brahman is ParmArthika Satyam & that is to be known.
2. The above is according to VedAnta. VedAnta talks about both forms of God (i.e. Saguna and Nirguna) as Bhagwad Gita too says. VedAnta says that Saguna form of God is Undifferentiated Pure Consciousness -Blissful-Omnipotent and Omniscient. The Fourth is Nirguna. However, the VedAnta says that it is the Fourth that is to be known.
OM
Re: Adwaitabad and ...........
Namaste devoteeji
If you don’t mind, would you please help me to get the answers of the following questions. Please forgive me if the questions are foolish but I am disturbed and seek your help as you are supposed to be expert on our philosophies.
i) who has written Vedas ? is it by brahma himself or human being?
ii) Can we consider nirguna nirakar and nirvishes brahma and saguna sakar and savishes brahma as two sides of a coin ? or there is any senior junior aspect in relation to nirguna and saguna brahma ?
iii) Why Vedanta says that nirguna brahma alone to be known and why not saguna brahma ?
iv) Can we consider Krishna as saguna sakar savishes brahma consideration verses 6,7 and 8 of Bhagavad Gita or the whole of Bhagavat Gita ?
v) What is ‘Parmarthika satyam’ concept and where this concept can be found ?
vi) What is Sri sankar’s views on PRANAB or OMKARA ?
I am to inform you that I take interest in our philosophies but they are very difficult to understand . So I request to bear me and my questions ( I do not know if they are silly or not) for my better understanding .
Re: Adwaitabad and ...........
Namaste Gossain,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gossain
i) who has written Vedas ? is it by brahma himself or human being?
Advaitic way of thinking is that it is the Consciousness which reveals the Truth to the "AdhikAris" (spiritually ready people) from time to time. So, the highest Truth is revealed/unfolded to the Truth Seeker. VedAs were revealed to our ancient Rishis in the highest purity of mind and these are considered eternal.
The VedAs were revealed to many Rishis at different points of time and it is difficult to even name them. This was at a time when writing was not invented. So, it was passed on by through the Guru-shishya tradition. The Shishyas (the disciples) learnt VedAs by hearing from the Gurus orally. They were later on compiled at at much later stage.
Quote:
ii) Can we consider nirguna nirakar and nirvishes brahma and saguna sakar and savishes brahma as two sides of a coin ? or there is any senior junior aspect in relation to nirguna and saguna brahma ?
You can say so. The same Nirguna Brahman when seen in the realm of MAyA (the three states of Reality) is perceived as the Saguna Brahman. As both are essentially same there is no 'senior'/'junior' concept.
Quote:
iii) Why Vedanta says that nirguna brahma alone to be known and why not saguna brahma ?
Because it is the highest reality ... because it is your essential nature. I talking to one lady on Advaita one day and I was explaining her the the four states of Reality. She asked, "So, after we graduate from the first two states, we become the third i.e. God ?". I said, "No". You don't "become" the third though you may attain oneness with the third. The third is created alongwith two states and its utility is there only till the two states are.
The fourth that is Turiya or the Nirguna Brahman is the Absolute Reality and therefore, it is what is to be known.
Quote:
iv) Can we consider Krishna as saguna sakar savishes brahma consideration verses 6,7 and 8 of Bhagavad Gita or the whole of Bhagavat Gita ?
You have not mentioned the chapter number of BG.
Krishna is both Saguna Brahman but He alone is Nirguna too. Please refer Bhagwad Gita Chapter-12. What does He say about those who meditate on the NirAkAr Brahman ===> "TeshAm aham SamudhdhartA Mirtyu sansAr sAgrAt, bhavAmi NachirAtt pArtha MaiyAveshitchetshAm" ===> I (Krishna) become their saviour (uddhArkartA) from this world of deaths and births. Chapter 13 of Bhagwad Gita is devoted to Advaita teachings and Advaita swaroopa of Brahman. He says in verse 16 of the chapter that "That (Brahman) alone is BrahmA (the creator), the Vishnu (the sustainer) and the destroyer (Lord Shiva)".
Quote:
v) What is ‘Parmarthika satyam’ concept and where this concept can be found ?
This is a very important issue which must be understood to understand Advaita. The Truth is One alone but is perceived differently from different states. VyAvhArikA satyam is the relative Truth which governs the three states of Reality (i.e. this gross world, the subtle worlds before birth and after death and world of dreams and imagination and the God-state). The ParmArthikA satyam is the Absolute Truth i.e. Turiya. When one sees from Turiya, all the earlier three states are false but not so when seen from the first two states.
This concept was conveyed by Adi ShankarAcharya.
Quote:
vi) What is Sri sankar’s views on PRANAB or OMKARA ?
I don't know what you mean by that. ShankarA's views are nowhere different than what is there in the VedAnta. MAndukya Upanishad tells us that OmkAra is everything that is. It has three mAtrAs : "A" which makes the Gross world where we are right now. "U" is what makes the Subtle World (before and after death and the dreams). "M" is what governs the first two states or the God-state. There is another --- the fourh or the Turiya wherein all three states appear and dissolve but it itself is free from any attributes, unthinkable, which is Absolute Peace where all activities come to perfect rest.
OM
Re: Adwaitabad and ...........
devoteeji
i)I must thank you. my question was about the present form of vedas. you mean no particular one or two rishi has written vedas rather it has been written or compiled by a number of unknown rishis ?
ii) if you say both nirguna nirakar nirvishes brahma and saguna sakar savishes brahma are same then where there is a place for perception in the realm of maya ? does it not contradict ? who is maya and why there is maya or three states of reality.This is simple that both are two sides of a coin but if you put some kind of maya or a states of reality on any of them , will not there be a imbalance in their status ? and if you say nirguna nirakar and nirvishes is the highest reality of brahma then you should not say both sides are same . in that case there must have a higher and lower aspect of brahma ,i.e. there will be two brahmas.
iii) i want to know why should i be in search of brahma ? and how and which brahma i have to follow ?
iv) what is the relation between brahma and I
v) if you say krishna is both saguna and nirguna brahma ,that means reaching to krishna is reaching to brahma. Is it jnan or bhakti which is considered the easiest way to reach to sri krishna ,the brahma
vi) I am sorry . it is chapter 4th of BG and one more thing i like to mention that the qualities like saguna sakar savishes come first and the disqualities like nirguna nirakar nirvishes should come next. if there is yes, there may be no also so yes first.I do not understand why we are using some negative qualities with brahma . i mean how is this confirmed that the highest reality of brahma is nirguna or nirakar , if this is true then why it would not be considered that sagun sakar brahma is lowest reality. definitely then both sides are not same .
vii) sir please elaborate the thee states of reality. how they are related to brahma and are these states of reality found in the vedas/upanishads ?
Re: Adwaitabad and ...........
Namaste Gossain,
Please first of all, make sure that your intentions are right. I am not at all interested in a discussion to show that one philosophy is better than the other. Your this post makes me a little apprehensive of your intentions. If that is what you are upto, please forgive me. There are other more important works for me to do than engage in this fruitless ego-massaging activity.
However, assuming that you have no such intentions, I would reply to the best of my ability :
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gossain
devoteeji
i)I must thank you. my question was about the present form of vedas. you mean no particular one or two rishi has written vedas rather it has been written or compiled by a number of unknown rishis ?
If you have any better information, please share with us.
Quote:
ii) if you say both nirguna nirakar nirvishes brahma and saguna sakar savishes brahma are same then where there is a place for perception in the realm of maya ? does it not contradict ? who is maya and why there is maya or three states of reality.This is simple that both are two sides of a coin but if you put some kind of maya or a states of reality on any of them , will not there be a imbalance in their status ? and if you say nirguna nirakar and nirvishes is the highest reality of brahma then you should not say both sides are same . in that case there must have a higher and lower aspect of brahma ,i.e. there will be two brahmas.
Why should it contradict ? You have not read my response properly. I will try again. Please try to understand very clearly :
The Self/Brahman has four states : Waking state (that makes this Gross world), Dream State (the subtle world in dream, before birth and after death), Causal State/God-state or PrAnja (Which is the Omnscient, Omnipotent and controller of the two states stated above). The fourth is the ultimate reality which is NirgunA, Nirvishesha, incomprehensible & even not-nameable, so it is called the Fourth.
The Fourth is the Only Reality as per Advaita VedAnta which is also known as the Nirguna Brahman. The four states can be considered like various forms of Carbon like Graphite, Lamp Black, Diamond etc. They are essentially the same 100 % Carbon but they exhibit different properties in their respective states. This is just an analogy and the Reality is not exactly like that. So, The Reality which alone exists can be without MAyA (i.e. the fourth state) in action or with MAyA in action. MAyA is the beginningless property of Brahman, which when in action, creates three states which is described above and still doesn't affect the Brahman's unchanging Nature. So, there is a paradox. There is apparently a change and creation but in reality there is no change and no creation.
This is a difficult proposition and has given rise to various forms of Advaita within Hindu Dharma because of difficulty in understanding how it is possible & whether it is logical.
Saguna Brahman is the third state of Brahman who is Omniscient, Infinite Mass of Consciousness and Controller of all in the two states discussed above. Nirguna Brahman is the Fourth. As Nirguna Brahman is lone Reality in its state, there is no question of Waking & Dreaming States and therefore there is no question of having a Omniscient and Controller. So, the three states are simultaneously created by MAyA and the states disappear together in the Fourth when MAyA ends (or say, merges back into Fourth).
You may say there is a lower Brahman (Saguna) and there is a higher Brahman (Nirguna). However, both are essentially not different from each other as there is nothing being added to or subtracted from Brahman. The two states are individualised Consciousness where there is differentiation. However, both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman are Undifferentiated ... both are auspicious. These are just two different states of the Same Reality as Graphite and Diamond are same 100 % Carbon exhibiting different properties in different states.
Quote:
iii) i want to know why should i be in search of brahma ? and how and which brahma i have to follow ?
Let your nature with which you are born decide what suits you. Everyone is at different stages of spirituality and his/her spiritual requirement is different. Both Bhakti and JnAn Marga are valid paths. JnAn MArga is direct but difficult and Bhakti is easy but not direct.
Quote:
iv) what is the relation between brahma and I
There is no real separate "i" in reality. There is Brahman alone. However, when MAyA is in action and three states appear, then there is apparent creation of "i" which is nothing but Conditioned Individualised Consciousness. If you have read threads I recommended, you might have read the analysis of Dream where it becomes clear how one Consciousness in us is capable of creating a virtual world having many-many "i"s. This is the property of Consciousness which gives rise to this apparent "I" of yours. It, actually, has no separate or real existence.
Quote:
v) if you say krishna is both saguna and nirguna brahma ,that means reaching to krishna is reaching to brahma. Is it jnan or bhakti which is considered the easiest way to reach to sri krishna ,the brahma
This will depend upon how you see Krishna. If you see Krishna as God in human body with a flute in his hand with a cow sitting by his feet and worshipping him like this ... this is worship of Saguna Brahman in Krishna form. It has same effect as worshipping God in Shiva or Durga or Ganesha forms.
JnAn yoga doesn't advise to get attached to any form of God and yet accepts all forms of God. This path is very different from Bhakti Yoga. This path lays a lot of stress on detachment from Worldly pleasures and pains, meditation, seeing God everywhere and in all beings, maintaining equanimity at all times, having no fear, no lust, loving everyone.
Quote:
vi) I am sorry . it is chapter 4th of BG and one more thing i like to mention that the qualities like saguna sakar savishes come first and the disqualities like nirguna nirakar nirvishes should come next. if there is yes, there may be no also so yes first.I do not understand why we are using some negative qualities with brahma . i mean how is this confirmed that the highest reality of brahma is nirguna or nirakar , if this is true then why it would not be considered that sagun sakar brahma is lowest reality. definitely then both sides are not same .
Even after answering your question in my earlier post, you are stuck with your same confusion. As I told you, the Nirguna NirAkAr Brahman is the sole Reality which is the fourth state of Brahman this shines ONLY WHEN THE THREE STATES DISAPPEAR. You can either accept what the VedAnta says or tread the path of JnAn yoga. By following the path of JnAn yoga you will attain the Turiya state and from there you can see what ShanKara says or what the VedAnta says. There is no easy way. Either you believe the scriptures, the saints who attained this OR DO IT YOURSELF.
Otherwise, this discussion will take us nowhere. This discussion will not give any answer which cannot be questioned as I have seen on this forum.
Quote:
vii) sir please elaborate the thee states of reality. how they are related to brahma and are these states of reality found in the vedas/upanishads ?
I have already done that above. There are many Upanishads which talk of these states. You may read, MAndukya Upanishad, Mahopanishad, SarvasAropanishad etc.
OM
Re: Adwaitabad and ...........
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gossain
devoteeji
i)I must thank you. my question was about the present form of vedas. you mean no particular one or two rishi has written vedas rather it has been written or compiled by a number of unknown rishis ?
As I believe devotee is doing a most excellent job explaining this matter let me offer this small contribution to the conversation.
If we look to the ṛg ved you will find about 400 seers or ṛṣi's ( sometimes called draṣtāra). About 25 of them are female ( just for the record). How do they come about ? By the grace of the devatā. If we go to the ṛg ved 1.31.16, it informs us it is agni that is the transformer of mortals into ṛṣi's (ṛṣikṛt¹).
These seers did not collectively come together and say lets take what we cognized in our awareness and write it down in books. This is done via a vyāsa which means 'arranger , compiler'. We know the ved was arranged and compiled by veda vyāsa, also as kṛṣṇa dvaipāyana.
His other names ( as he is known) was called vādarāyaṇa or bādarāyaṇa ( yet some may differ on this). He was the son of the sage parāśara and his mother was satyavatī.
praṇām
1. ṛṣikṛt = ṛṣi + kṛt = seer + maker or manufacturing
Re: Adwaitabad and ...........
Quote:
gossain;81081
ii) if you say both nirguna nirakar nirvishes brahma and saguna sakar savishes brahma are same then where there is a place for perception in the realm of maya ? does it not contradict ? who is maya and why there is maya or three states of reality.This is simple that both are two sides of a coin but if you put some kind of maya or a states of reality on any of them , will not there be a imbalance in their status ? and if you say nirguna nirakar and nirvishes is the highest reality of brahma then you should not say both sides are same . in that case there must have a higher and lower aspect of brahma ,i.e. there will be two brahmas.
iii) i want to know why should i be in search of brahma ? and how and which brahma i have to follow ?
Namaste Gossainji,
Imagine a Screen in a movie theatre.On the large screen,the middle the projector is projecting the movie in middle part,so that part we are seeing the picture.This is actually illusion perceived upon the screen,actually there is no real happening of any action.This portion of screen where projector is reflected is called Saguna-sarvishesa brahman.The other bigger part of the screen which we are not seeing is called Nirguna-nirvishesa brahman. And entire screen is called Purna-Brahman.
Here The projector is MAYA.but the difference between the analogy and maya of brahman is that the Maya is not external energy,but the inherent nature of the brahman and self-luminescent.Just like heat is synonymous with fire,but not just an attribute/nature,similarly Maya is very basic property of brahamn.
So now just imagine,isn"t the screen same in it"s entirety? And is there any actual change on the central part of the screen where we project the projector light?
Now you should be able to judge which brahman you should aim for.
Quote:
v) if you say krishna is both saguna and nirguna brahma ,that means reaching to krishna is reaching to brahma. Is it jnan or bhakti which is considered the easiest way to reach to sri krishna ,the brahma
Saguna Srikrishna is the means, Nirguna srikrishna is to be attained.
In Bhakti path,you must need a means to proceed.And Nirguna can"t be a means as its unthinkable and unimaginable.So Saguna sakara form is essential.
In jnana path,you may not need a sakara-saguna form to do worship,as you totally focus upon your own brahman self and perceiving everything as nothing but brahman,Still Guru will be the sakara form at time of learning,help,shower of path.
But bhakti is the easiest and most wonderful path as It is similar to our nature/swabhaba,jnana is contrary to our very human nature,thats why more difficult.
Again in bhakti,both journey aswell as destination are sweeter and very beautiful and the highest destination of PURE BHAKTI is madhuryananda/prema-sevattorogati,but in jnana,journey is hard,destination is Brahmananda/kevalananda.
But in Bhakti in santa-bhava(baidhi/according to scriptural bhakti) one may attain brahmananda/kevalananda.
One more thing will help you to understand saguna nature of God/Guru.Guru is nirguna,then how we see Guru in human form?Because out of compassion towards us,Nirguna Guru descends one step down to take saguna form in a human guru so that he can help us.Thats why though Nirguna Guru is not visible to us,but we should never think thst Human Guru as Human,but Parambrahman itself.
This is the reason why..sahasrara/crown chakra is place for Nirguna brahman/jagatguru.Just below it is satadala chakra-100lotus chakra is place for Guru.
Jayaguru
Re: Adwaitabad and ...........
Anirvanji and yazvanji
Namaste to both of you, at the very outset I will request you not to doubt my intention for counter questioning as devoteeji did . I suppose I am at the student level and you are in the teacher level. So if you doubt my intention, I am discouraged to ask questions. I ack that some of my questions may appear silly to you but that silly question is important for me to clear my understanding. I read your viewes in the forum as well as other writers viewes relating to our scriptures . Uptil now , I am not affiliated to any of the sampradaya or philosophical society and only trying to understand my religion from a neutral standpoint. Since it is a discussion so my humble request to you all please do read my writing and not my mind or intention.
It is very clear to me that brahma is both sagun sakar savishes and nirgun nirakar nirvishes just like two sides of a coin as agreed by devoteeji also. But my problem arises when you again say that i) sagun sri Krishna is the means , nirgun sri Krishna is to be attained. ii) Nirgun nirakar brahma is the sole reality iii) this is actually illusion perceived upon the screen actually there is no real happening of any action . this portion of screen where projector is reflected is called sagun savishes brahma. If maya is the basic property of brahma like heat with fire, how could property hide the element/object. Generally property help us to identify the true nature of object but here it is acting opposite direction, it is hiding its boss.it seems that maya is more powerfull than brahma that it can hide the swarup of brahma from us. What is the role of karma ? If you say out of compassion towards us,Nirguna Guru descends one step down to take saguna form in a human guru so that he can help us.Thats why though Nirguna Guru is not visible to us,but we should never think thst Human Guru as Human,but Parambrahman itself then you have to accept that sagun form of brahma is real and not illusion because nirgun guru can not act. But it can act if it become sagun only. One more thing sir, nirgun brahma is such a concept that you can not describe, think, experience .It is sagun brahma who is telling all about nirgun brahma. When we say brahma is every thing it is definitely sagun brahma. Even you can not spell a word about nirgun brahma in the absence of sagun aspect . our knowledge is limited to sagun brahma. But brahma is not limited to any aspects nirgun or sagun then how can we conclude that ultimate truth of brahma is nirgun , why not it must be sagun also at the same time ? In our society if a woman become daughter, sister ,wife , mother at a time and no one aspect is important than the other then why not all brahma can have only two aspects at a time being true ? If you say sagun brahma an illusion then there will be nothing left to think to act to know. There will be no jagat no sansar no karma no jnan . Sirs I again request you not to feel otherwise due to my silly question ( if it is so ) To me, we can not say this brahma is real and that brahma is illusion rather both brahma is real and since brahma is sat, everything out of him is sat so jagat sansar is also sat and real. How can it be that brahma is real and his creation is illusion ? The theory that sagun brahma is a mental state is not supported in BG. Brahma is both sagun and nirgun and both aspect is real as his will and we can not limit his will. However I am quoting some verses from BG and other scriptures and seek your help to understand their relevancy in this regard.
i) this is sruti bakya which says – tapasa chiyate totohannamvijayate
Annat prano manah satayam lokah karmusu chamritam- ( Mundak 1/1/8)
Sri Aravinda translate it like this – “By energism of consciousness, Brahma is massed, from that matter is born and from Matter, Life and Mind and the other worlds”
ii) BG- 4/6&9 , 9/10-12, 17-19 , most important 12/1-7. Sir please remember, it is Krishna , the sagun brahma who is speaking in the Gita so you can not say jagat-samsar is illusion and not real at least gita does not support your view of nirgun brahma only to be known with the help of sagun brahma. And lastly, if Krishna dwipayan vedavyas who compiled Vedas, also happened to be compiler of purans and gita mahabharat etc, I am sure he shifted his nirgun brahma from Vedas to sagun brahma to purans for our understanding and since it is latest it is acceptable.
