Originally Posted by
Necromancer
Namaste.
I have read that quote and the post over 4 times and I still don't understand any of it. I would like to try to understand it.
Aum Namah Shivaya
Dear Necromancer,
Okay, so what happens when Duality and Unity merge?
I mean Unity cannot merge with Duality because Unity already is and of itself, no?
The whole idea of the thread was presented in the first paragraph of the post itself; and when it reads ‘; blanket terminologies like Maya, Duality, Non- Duality, etc. which were exclusively relevant in the perfect domain of Indian metaphysics’, it is clearly evident that these are philosophical terms only and irrelevant in earth to earthy things, however superior thinking it may be. To be precise, duality and non-duality are the two necessary ambivalent poles involved in higher contemplation, and the most interesting thing is that the meaning of these blanket terms cover the entire knowledge mentioned in Vedanta text books, and therefore, due to own space-time limitations, we are unable to tell more on this.
You can all judge people by their beliefs on whether they are 'dualist' or 'non-dualist' while I just sit here, still trying to work out how that concept applies to my own Devata, Ardharnarishwar.
Vedanta considers three kinds of Brahman: One is the experiential Brahman only reachable by the Yogis, then the hypostatic one or the Para aspect that is mentioned in the Vedanta text books, and the last one that is the transactional Brahman, the Apara of Vedanta.
And, since Brahman is beyond the limits of names and forms, Vedantin doesn’t like to contemplate on any forms of deities, instead, they would prefer to stick to a high value that is construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the scriptures, and precisely, this is done with the help of a teacher.
Perhaps, a vedantin might love to equate Shri.Ardhanarishwar concept to the hypostatic God in Vedanta that is ‘Brahman’.
At what point does Shiva + Shakti become ShivaShakti - or was it always like that?
What we understand that it always stays together but seems, due to our own ignorance, to be different in appearance, provided, the shakti here is equated to maya or the non self and the siva to Brahman in the context of vedanta proper .
Where is that point in existence where Creator is thus separated from Creation? The Prana from the Life?
We find no point as such, since we understand that the creator and the creation are not different; or in other words, it would be advisable to understand their interdependence, that is, the creation is sustained by the creator, and the creator is sustained by the creation; one doesn’t exist without the other. Verse 2:16 of the Bhagavad Gita emphasises this point.
At what point do the two become one, and what is gained/lost in the 'becoming'?
When we become totally fearless; well that said, the fear is of threefold ādhyātmika, ādhibhautika and ādhidaivika.
Same time comes the gain, we see it as twofold, that is the loss of fear for ever, the Fearlessness, and the attainment of unbroken happiness that is the Bliss.
I am probably just missing the whole point, but I am at a loss to see what the point is - maybe that's because my whole approach is totally different.
Aum Namah Shivaya
It does not make much difference whatever view others have in their mind, anyway it is all false according to Vedanta, therefore we think, our own personal conviction to be the most important.
Actually, this thread was not opened to discuss any topics on Vedanta; instead, it was created as an answer and clarification to our own questions on some social issues in a running fashion. Love
Bookmarks