Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

  1. #1
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    56
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    277

    why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Namaste


    When we say that Brahman is sadchidanand , does this not carry the attributes to Brahman ? brahman is sat means he exists but where does he exist . we are in the universe but from his side there is no universe . we say he is all pervading but what is that ‘all’ that he is to pervade . as far as he is concerned there exists nothing other than him. Next he is chit means he is knowledge. what is this knowledge meant for , who requires this knowledge who delivers this knowledge to whom. If he is knowledge then who is ignorance. If ignorance is maya which is brahman’s power that means he is ( since power can not be separated from powerful) ignorance also. Next he is anand that is bliss. What is the need of being blissful for a nirgun nirvishesh Brahman. Can he enjoy anand or Is there any link between the anand or bliss we enjoy and that of Brahman ? . why sat chit and anand are not attributes of Brahman ? He is there, he is knowledge and he is anand still we have to say he is nirgun or nirakar nirvishesh. Is it justifiable?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,167
    Rep Power
    4542

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by jopmala View Post
    When we say that Brahman is sadchidanand , does this not carry the attributes to Brahman ?
    Yes. Brahman is both with attributes and without attributes. It is Brahman which is this world. It is Brahman which acts as Ishvara and it is Brahman which is beyond all attributes in Turiya.

    brahman is sat means he exists but where does he exist . we are in the universe but from his side there is no universe . we say he is all pervading but what is that ‘all’ that he is to pervade .
    This question is invalid as it is coming from condition mental state where for existing there must be something in which anything can exist. Existence by definition doesn't say that existence of a "home" is necessary before anything can exist. "Pervades all" is a term useful to our understanding as for us there are things which we see as "all". In absolute, there is Brahman alone, there is no seer and no seen, there is no cognizer and no object of cognition.

    Next he is chit means he is knowledge. what is this knowledge meant for , who requires this knowledge who delivers this knowledge to whom.
    This statement too comes due to conditioned mind. "Chit" means Consciousness which has all the knowledge of past, present and future. Again, the analogy is very difficult to understand keeping ourselves in the state we are. "Chit" doesn't mean knowledge.

    If he is knowledge then who is ignorance. If ignorance is maya which is brahman’s power that means he is ( since power can not be separated from powerful) ignorance also.
    When we start talking of "knowledge", "ignorance" comes into picture because we have moved from "fourth" state to the "first state" of Brahman. Nirguna Brahman is the real substance .... it is the substratum of all that is. When this Nirugna Brahman is "associated with" MAyA (as there is no better term available otherwise using "associated with" too is not correct. Also, use of "when" brings in the concept of Time which is again fallacious), Ishvara comes (again this is fallacious as MAyA, Ishvara are beiginingless ... but in absence of any better option to explain the reality) into being which has attributes and there comes to the concept of "Knowledge" and "Ignorance". Ishvara, MAYA, Ignorance and the World are non-different from Brahman.

    Next he is anand that is bliss. What is the need of being blissful for a nirgun nirvishesh Brahman.
    Actually, there is no "he" ... so there is no "need" of "anyone". In the above sentence, Nirguna Nirvishesha Brahman has been used as some separate entity. This is the real state of "us".

    Can he enjoy anand or Is there any link between the anand or bliss we enjoy and that of Brahman ? . why sat chit and anand are not attributes of Brahman ? He is there, he is knowledge and he is anand still we have to say he is nirgun or nirakar nirvishesh. Is it justifiable?
    All such questions are being asked from "First state" about "Fourth state" keeping the axioms applicable in First state valid in Fourth state and that is why no question raised above is valid. Again the Fourth state's definition has been badly mixed with the third state.

    I would advise you to read MAndukya Upanishad carefully and its KArikA of Gaudapad.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    781
    Rep Power
    416

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Om

    Namaste

    Devoteeji has aptly replied the query.

    Unfortunately there is no way to describe the base state of every thing we know and do not know. It encompasses the matter, thoughts, emotions, etc, etc.

    Say "anand" - the base state of mind is bliss - a state of fulfillment beyond imagination. As emotions grow the mind moves from that state to even anger, irritation, egoism, etc. The base state is "anand".

    "sat" - Truth - all other states are temporary and has "not truth" embedded. This "sat" is the base state.

    "chit" - consciousness - This is the only part which cannot be changed and remains as such though all the manifestations. How to define it ?

    When we are talking about attributes - they relate to gross and subtle world. Brahman is beyond that - where all attributes end and become unified one without attributes - consciousness which is pure truth, pure anand.
    Love and best wishes:hug:

  4. #4
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    56
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    277

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Namaste

    Most humbly I would like to mention that when you say ( advaitin pov) Brahman is both with attributes and without attributes it becomes fallacious because you treat both Brahman differently. Your interpretation of Brahman is not both sides of a coin. According to advaita philosophy Brahman with attributes is not absolute whereas Brahman without attributes is absolute. Brahman with attributes comes into being out of the association of Brahman without attributes and maya but such a situation does not arise in case of Brahman without attributes. Further, there is only one Brahman without attributes but there are so many Brahmans with attributes ( Krishna, Vishnu, Ram, shiva, ganesha and surya etc). Of course I do not know whether each of them or any one of them is the controller of maya which is the mother of all Brahmans. Maya is their mother because due to association of maya with Brahman without attributes these Brahmans with attributes come into being. If maya is considered as power of Brahman that means Brahman is no longer without attributes. with maya as power ,Brahman becomes powerful to act. Brahman with attributes is also beginning less but does not appear in action before the so called association of Brahman without attributes and maya. Again although both maya and Brahman with attributes beginning less but they come to an end before turiya state. You have mentioned how as a result of association of maya with nirgun Brahman , ishara or sagun Brahman comes into being. I think you should also mention how jiva and maya comes into being out of nirgun Brahman. Can you just convince with authority how sagun Brahman which itself comes into being owing to association of maya with nirgun Brahman becomes controller of maya. Does it not seem that creation is controlling its creator ? it is possible . the point is if maya does not associate with nirgun Brahman , sagun Brahman can not come into being then how the same sagun Brahman can become controller of maya . if you say nirgun Brahman is the controller of maya that is acceptable but that’s your problem you can not say so instead of that you are making people fool by forcing to accept that Brahman created by maya is its controller. The problem is maya can not enter in turiya state and Brahman without attributes stays in turiya state. Now how do they associate to form another Brahman which has attributes, all pervading , almighty etc etc even controller of maya but can not enter into turiya state. Therefore sagun Brahman is nothing but a fallacious philosophy for which you are short of words or phrase to explain and have to use fallacious words in support of a fallacious tattva.

    You mean Brahman exists but in nowhere. What is Sarvam khalvidam brahma . what you are saying is not all. There is another side of the coin which says that he has expressed himself in the form of universe that we see. only because of his existence everything exists, because of his power everything is full of power, because of his illumination (jyoti) everything is illuminated. This tattva has been stated over and over again in Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita ( 7/7-12,15/12-14) .so validity of question may differ.

    You yourself are saying that chit means knowledge of past present and future but my question is whose past whose present whose future are refereed to by you . Are you referring past present future to the nirgun brahman or world or jiva or maya ?

    The question is why only Mandukya Upanishad has mentioned the states of consciousness and also why there is no mention of these states of consciousness in Srimad Bhagavad Gita. These states of consciousness are of Brahman or jiva because except jiva who else can walk, dream or sleep . No religious process can take place when we are in dream or sleep. Therefore religious upliftment is impossible in any state other than walking. Therefore judging everything from the point of view of states is not appropriate. It seems these states of consciousness are conveniently referred to to escape from reality . basing on these states of consciousness you are very easily saying my questions are all invalid but before that you should prove the validity of the states of consciousness which are nothing but imaginary. I wonder how this states of consciousness make sri Krishna dependent on maya whereas in Gita sri Krishna says ‘mama maya’ Here you have to explain how Sri Krishna comes into being due to association of nirgun brahaman with maya but at the same time you have to accept Sri Krishna as the controller of maya. This is totally unacceptable to a Krishna bhakta..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,167
    Rep Power
    4542

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Namaste Japmala,

    Quote Originally Posted by jopmala View Post
    Most humbly I would like to mention that when you say ( advaitin pov) Brahman is both with attributes and without attributes it becomes fallacious because you treat both Brahman differently.
    Please elaborate how it is fallacious. It is not clear. Have you read MAndukya Upanishad ? What I said is as MAndukya Upanishad says. In fact, if you read Bhagwad Gita chapter-13, it also says that BhoktA, BhartA and Maheshwara are the same Brahman. They are all Brahman and yet they are treated differently. So, why is it fallacious.

    Your interpretation of Brahman is not both sides of a coin.
    What you want to say is not clear.

    According to advaita philosophy Brahman with attributes is not absolute whereas Brahman without attributes is absolute.
    Right.

    Brahman with attributes comes into being out of the association of Brahman without attributes and maya but such a situation does not arise in case of Brahman without attributes.
    Brahman without attributes is the substratum of all prapancha and there is substratum of Brahman without attributes where all prapancha stop.

    Further, there is only one Brahman without attributes but there are so many Brahmans with attributes ( Krishna, Vishnu, Ram, shiva, ganesha and surya etc).
    You got it all wrong. The Brahman without attributes and many Brahman with attributes are all not different but there is Only One Sat. Please read Bhagwad Gita Chapter 2.17 which specifically says that indestructible that alone which pervades everything through and through and all bodies/forms of that Indestructible is are destructible. That indestructible is AtmA, the Self and that is the substratum of everything.

    The differences in forms are perceived due to our creative thoughts. Please read Mudgala Upanishad which gives the reason for these many forms of God, "He became what He was worshipped as". He became Shiva because He was worshiped as Shiva. He became Vishnu because He was worshiped as Vishnu.

    Of course I do not know whether each of them or any one of them is the controller of maya which is the mother of all Brahmans. Maya is their mother because due to association of maya with Brahman without attributes these Brahmans with attributes come into being.
    You have not read VedAnta and that is why such questions arise. Saguna Brahman i.e. God is one alone and He is the controller of MAyA and the worlds. You may worship Him in any form. Whatever form you worship as the Supreme would be the controller of MAyA.

    I don't think we can call MAyA as mother of God because Nirguna Brahman acts as Saguna Brahman when MAyA is in action. Now, you may decide if you want to call MAyA as mother of God. I would not call it because MAyA doesn't shape the form and name of God. God is non-dual i.e. resides in all beings and everything including space.

    If maya is considered as power of Brahman that means Brahman is no longer without attributes.
    The problem with you is that you are trying to be your own pramANa whereas you cannot act as pramAna in Shaastrartha. We must stick to Sabda PramANa and I won't accept anything unless it is supported by the Vedas (including VedAnta) and Bhagwad Gita. So, your logic is faulty as it is not conforming to Sabda PramAna.

    MAyA is beyond understanding of human mind. In fact, the Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman and the whole world cannot be understood by human mind's logic.

    with maya as power ,Brahman becomes powerful to act.
    "Brahman becomes" ===> this shows your lack of study of VedAnta. You must read VedAnta very very carefully.

    Brahman with attributes is also beginning less but does not appear in action before the so called association of Brahman without attributes and maya.
    This is another example of gross misunderstanding and no knowledge of what the VedAnta says. Brahman without attributes and Brahman with attributes and even you and me and the whole creation are not different entities. Does this make any sense to you. If not, you need serious study of VedAnta first.

    Again although both maya and Brahman with attributes beginning less but they come to an end before turiya state.
    What does this mean ? It is meaningless understanding.

    You have mentioned how as a result of association of maya with nirgun Brahman , ishara or sagun Brahman comes into being. I think you should also mention how jiva and maya comes into being out of nirgun Brahman. Can you just convince with authority how sagun Brahman which itself comes into being owing to association of maya with nirgun Brahman becomes controller of maya. Does it not seem that creation is controlling its creator ?
    I have said what the VedAnta says. If you can't understand what is said in my post then you should not study JnAna Yoga or Advaita VedAnta. The problem is that without having basic knowledge of VedAnta you have started taking out your opinion with your mental logic which is greatly handicapped. With your human mind you cannot explain even Scientific phenomena at atomic level. If you have any doubts, please tell me so that I would ask questions from you on scientific facts which are not understandable by mind. It is has been accepted as the fact because there are scientific proofs.

    So, either one should study VedAnta and accept what VedAnta says or go for Realisation of Truth. My dear sir, these VedAntic facts are proven by thousands of Self-realised souls. Your worldly mental logic has no value here. The Truth is the Truth and cannot be denied by simply because you are unable to understand the same.

    I have stopped replying further to your post because you logic is meaningless and not in conformity with what Shruti says.

    Pranam.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    56
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    277

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Namaste
    Is it necessary that everyone should understand shashra in your line of thinking ? I may have little understanding but the basic teaching of sanatan hindu dharma is that maya can not come on the way of brahman. When Brahman is knowledge , maya is ignorance just opposite of each other but you are teaching here the association of maya with Brahman resulting formation of another Brahman . Is the state of nirgun Brahman and maya same ? . if maya is a power where is it attached before sagun Brahman come into being since it can not attach itself with nirgun Brahman ?

    I say Your view is fallacious because you call Brahman ( sagun) but that Brahman is not absolute. The entity which is not absolute is derived from maya or prakriti i.e. sattva raja and tama gunas so subject to destruction . if this is the state of your sagun Brahman then it is misleading idea. Our scriptures teach that Brahman ( nirgun or sagun) is above maya and so absolute.

    If you remember, chapter 2 and chapter 13 of Gita pertains to samkhya philosophy which describes purush and prakriti tattva. If you do not approve purush prakriti tattva you can not make any comment on these two chapters but tragedy is that being a advaita philosopher you are against samkhya philosophy which is dvaita. In 2.17 bhagavan says to arjun “all these bodies in which dwell the imperishable ,indefinable and the eternal atma are by themselves perishable. Therefore fight”. It is clear here that bhagavan means the body of bhishma ,guru drone or karna etc who ever participated in that battle. The body of jiva is formed from trigun that is sattva raja and tama so subject to destruction but atma is above triguna and indestructible .Do you mean that since these bodies are destructible so also the body of sagun Brahman i.e. sri Krishna ? do you mean that the body of sri Krishna is made from trigun sattva raja tama like jiva ? that is the greatest mistake you always do and mislead other. How do you describe the avatara of sri Krishna in this world . do you mean to say that body of sri Krishna derived from prakriti which is subject to sattva raja tama guna or do you mean that the atma and body of sri Krishna are different means his body is destructible etc etc ? Please read Gita 7.24 ( avyaktim vyaktam apannam) and 9.10( maya’dhyaksena prakriti ), 9.11 ( avajananti mam mudha) and read gita 14.4 ( sarvayonishu Kaunteya) which says sri Krishna is not from triguna prakriti. Although you can not accept maya being the mother of sagun Brahman at the same time you can not accept that sagun brahman is absolute therefore you have to accept 14.4 of gita which says prakriti is the mother of all (deva or jiva) . Equating the body of sri Krishna whom you call sagun Brahman with that of jiva is adharma so far sanatan hindhu dharma is concerned. In chapter 13 there is field and knower of that field . sri Krishna says that in all cases I am the knower of the field. Definitely by field he means the organisms senses etc of jiva tattva not para tattva which is knower of the field. Therefore equating my body which is derived from three gunas with the body of sri Krishna which is above three gunas is the biggest sin. This knowledge of the field and knower of the field is the only true knowledge but to you there is no difference between field and knower of the field as you say “Brahman without attributes and Brahman with attributes and even you and me and the whole creation are not different entities”.We can not impose 2.17 of gita on sri Krishna whom you call sagun Brahman.

    Brahman is both sagun and nirgun and absolute. If we say sagun Brahman is not absolute then he is not Brahman at all. Nirgun and sagun is just aspect that does not mean sagun Brahman is not absolute. Aspects do not make entity to become destructible or indestructible. In one hand you say sagun Brahman is not absolute only nirgun Brahman is absolute then why not you accept two different independent entity of Brahman.

    These are not my mental logic rather basic sanatan hindu philosophy. You can not bring maya within the ambit of Brahman to associate. Maya can not be power of nirgun Brahman. Body of Brahman( whom you call sagun) and body of jiva are different. Body of Brahman is not from triguna maya that is sattva raja and tama so not subject to destruction but yes body of jiva is from triguna and subject to destruction. When you say“ nirgun Brahman acts as sagun Brahman when maya is in action” you should remember that the word ‘act’ can not be associated with nirgun Brahman nor maya is independent to be in action.

    If Brahman with out attributes and Brahman with attributes are not different entities according you, then why do you not accept Brahman with attributes as supreme absolute tattva ?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,167
    Rep Power
    4542

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Namaste Japmala,

    If that is your understanding of Bhagwad Gita and Upanishadic texts, why are you discussing this subject on JnAna forum ?

    Be happy in your bhajans and kirtans.

    Sometimes, I have doubts if you are purposefully planted by some vested interest group for raising such issues and trying to convert people to your way of understanding Hindu scriptures. This may not be true but I have serious doubts by watching your activities for a long time. You come with some innocent looking post of discussing something related to JnAna/Advaita and then try to make ridicule of that philosophy without any support from any of the six pramANas. You don't read whatever is offered and just keep repeating same thing again and again. If you or anyone want, I can list all your such threads and posts which produce nothing except bitterness between the two sects.

    Why are you not happy in your Vaishnava sect without jumping into forums of JnAna and Advaita and creating bitterness and nothing else ? Why so much restlessness ?

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    56
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    277

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Namaste devotee

    This amounts to personal attack and disheartening . see, I did not hide my identity as a vaishnab and I am extremely happy with my bhajan and kirtan. Advaita philosophy is not your personal property that I can not question it. I am Krishna bhakta . when I see advaitavada has brought down sri krishna to such a level equal to us , I feel unhappy and like to ask you about your philosophy . I know very well that you feel embarrassed when some one questions you on maya and sagun Brahman. Instead of getting angry you should be cool . you alleges me of trying to convert other people with vested interest and creating bitterness among sects etc etc. very cheap remarks from your standard. You could have stopped me by giving a sound reply from your philosophy but I know you are even short of words to explain your understanding of sagun Brahman and maya and so you take other way to stop me from further questioning . I think raising question is my right.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,167
    Rep Power
    4542

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Namaste Japmala,

    Quote Originally Posted by jopmala View Post
    This amounts to personal attack and disheartening .
    I am sorry, if i sounded like that. See, I raised this issue because I find a definite pattern in your coming to this forum at almost fixed intervals after gaps and raising same thing again and again. If you want I can show you the threads you have created or have posted on Advaita.

    You think your understanding of Scriptures is the best one and according to you, in Hindu Dharma all other sects are deluded except that of yours. If you ask me, I will say that all those who don't understand the Advaita philosophy and all those who keep bashing up Advaita on this forum in one way or the other don't understand scriptures even a bit. So, we don't meet at any point. So, if we discuss where will we reach ?? The Advaitins are Advaitins because they have strong logic/reasons for believing in what this path says. They don't keep bashing up Vaishnava philosophy unless a debate is started by a Vaishnava as you keep doing it again and again. If you find any Advaitin doing that on this forum, please let me know.

    I am perplexed to think what forces you to do this ! Do you want to act as a saviour/Christ for the Advaitins like Christians do ? You can see previous threads where you have "discussed" on Advaita and you have refused to accept Sabda PramANa (where you tend to draw your own meaning), AnumAna (logical arguments based on VedAnta) or Pratyaksha PramANa (thousands of Advaitins have been Self-realised souls in the past and there are quite a few even today) .... you deny everything. You keep parroting your own understanding again and again. This makes at least one thing clear that you have no interest in understanding Advaita VedAnta. So, what could be another goal ? Trying to force your idea of VedAnta philosophy to all Advaitins on the forum or ridiculing their understanding in the garb of an innocent looking thread ? What is this and why ?

    I have seen that you even deny the fact JnAna/Samkhya mentioend in Bhagwad Gita or indicates towards Advaita. You say that it is Kapila's Samkhya even after mentioning to you that Samkhya is a atheistic philosophy whereas Advaita is theistic. Advaita VedAnta or JnAna Yoga borrows a lot from SAmkhya but doesn't stop there. It goes ahead and explains Brahman as It is. In Bhagwad Gita, the reference to Samkhya-yogis is not atheistic but you don't see that. You want to discredit Advaita by such a stand.

    So, when you are out to discredit Advaita thinking that you know much more than any of the VedAntic Gurus of the Six schools of VedAnta, (has any Guru said that the reference to SAmkhya and JnAna is actually to Kapila's atheistic Samkhya ? I don't know) what can be said about your motives ?? It can't be so innocent, no ?

    see, I did not hide my identity as a vaishnab and I am extremely happy with my bhajan and kirtan.
    So, what drives you here again and again ? You don't want to understand our point of view, so what is the point to discuss it all ?

    Advaita philosophy is not your personal property that I can not question it. I am Krishna bhakta . when I see advaitavada has brought down sri krishna to such a level equal to us , I feel unhappy and like to ask you about your philosophy.
    Yes, that is perfectly right that Advaita philosophy is not my personal property but when you are out to belittle Advaita and indulge in Advaita bashing then you can't expect people to remain silent and that would start an acrimonious debate leading us to nowhere. This has happened so many times here on this forums. We can have mercy on peace-loving people visiting this place.

    Advaitavad has not brought Lord Krishna to human level .... that is the worst understanding of Advaita philosophy. Who has said so ? I myself am a devotee of Lord Krishna. Adi Guru Shankaracharya pays his deepest respect to Lord Krishna before he starts his writing on Advaita. This all is done because He is considered a human being ???

    You have got it all wrong. Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita makes it clear that He pervades everything through and through and He/Brahman alone is that exists in all forms :

    "Know that alone to be imperishable which pervades this universe; for no one has power to destroy this indestructible substance" BG 2.17

    "In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is God. Such a great soul is very rare indeed." BG 7.19

    "There is nothing else besides Me, Arjuna." BG 8.7

    "Arjuna, that eternal unmanifest supreme PuruSa in whom all beings reside and by whom all this is pervaded, is attainable only through exclusive
    Devotion." 8. 22

    "The whole of this universe is permeated by Me as unmanifest Divinity, and all beings dwell on the idea within Me. But really speaking, I am not present in them." BG 9.4

    Now, that is what we say, "Everything is Brahman". What is wrong in it ? Don't have that egoistic feeling that you are a better bhakta of Lord Krishna and you are entitled to ridicule others who worship Him in a different way than what you have chosen. Lord Krishna /Brahman is always in my heart and I see Him everywhere and in every being. My spiritual journey started with Bhagwad Gita. You want to see Lord Krishna as human being, like a all powerful King ... we worship same God as present in all beings through and through. You say that we are all foolish because we can't see such a small thing which is so obvious to you. But there is where we differ and we must respect this difference.

    I know very well that you feel embarrassed when some one questions you on maya and sagun Brahman.
    That is another misunderstanding of yours. Please see, how many posts I have written quoting a number of scriptures on this very forum ! The problem arises when you don't read what is offered and don't accept what is written in scriptures. So, what I say is that "if that is the status, why discuss this at all ?"

    Instead of getting angry you should be cool.
    I don't get angry. I state what I feel and I always try to keep myself free from any biases even against my opponents. It is your misunderstanding that statement of facts is perceived by you as my anger. I said that I can show you so many threads and your posts where you keep repeating same things again and again. This only creates bitterness without adding even a bit to our knowledge.

    you alleges me of trying to convert other people with vested interest and creating bitterness among sects etc etc. very cheap remarks from your standard.
    Please read your posts and see what you are upto. You come with an innocent request to discuss Advaita and don't accept what is offered to you. Do you want to teach Advaita to Advaitins ? If that is your motive, please let me know.

    You could have stopped me by giving a sound reply from your philosophy but I know you are even short of words to explain your understanding of sagun Brahman and maya and so you take other way to stop me from further questioning .
    You have misunderstood many things and I am sure, you have not come for understanding things. So, I am not affected by what you say. Be happy in your understanding that you know and understand Advaita more than all Advaitins on this earth. What will it change in this world ?

    I think raising question is my right.
    Raising questions with ulterior motives cannot be a sign of a good devotee of Lord Krishna. He doesn't advise you to act like this.

    Jai Sri Krishna !

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 09 September 2014 at 02:06 AM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  10. #10

    Re: why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman

    Pranam,

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    "Know that alone to be imperishable which pervades this universe; for no one has power to destroy this indestructible substance" BG 2.17
    "Pervades" is not the same as "includes all". For example, "a smell pervades a room" doesn't mean "the room is contained within the smell".
    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    "In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is God. Such a great soul is very rare indeed." BG 7.19
    The exact word used there, I suppose, is "Vasudeva" that is: "who pervades", and not "all this is God". Please correct me if I am wrong here.
    "There is nothing else besides Me, Arjuna." BG 8.7
    I think this is a misquote; perhaps you mean B.G 7.7 which says "there is nothing beyond/ superior than Me." And not "there is nothing besides me" as suggested here.
    "Arjuna, that eternal unmanifest supreme PuruSa in whom all beings reside and by whom all this is pervaded, is attainable only through exclusive
    Devotion." 8. 22
    "yasya antaḥ-sthāni bhūtāni" means "inside whom jiva-s reside". But this can mean "the room that has a cat inside it (but the cat still not a part of the room)". So this means Purusha is of infinite, all-encompassing nature, but still not "everything" necessarily.

    "The whole of this universe is permeated by Me as unmanifest Divinity, and all beings dwell on the idea within Me. But really speaking, I am not present in them." BG 9.4
    Again, "permeates" means "pervades", not "contains".

    Now, that is what we say, "Everything is Brahman". What is wrong in it ?
    So, the "wrong" is:
    Brahman (Brahm) pervades everything -- is well evidenced. But "Brahman contains everything" has a weak support, if at all, and something open to discussion.

    The "right" what we know firmly from our texts is:
    "Brahman is Nothing"
    as also,
    "This Nothingness pervades Everything"
    and,
    "This is attained by neti-neti (this is not That, that also is not That)"
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. nirgun brahman maya and sagun brahman
    By jopmala in forum Bhagavad Gita
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 01 May 2015, 08:20 AM
  2. Tattvas
    By grames in forum Advaita
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14 October 2009, 08:55 AM
  3. Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma: Real or symbolic?
    By TatTvamAsi in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 24 January 2008, 09:52 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 June 2007, 10:40 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06 September 2006, 08:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •