Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Your definition of Brahma

  1. #31

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Ok got you.

  2. #32

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste All,

    Avyaydya gave a very interesting statement that he or she ( don't know the gender) does not believe in the absoluteness of any view or philosophy. This is very much appreciated, however the posts show statements that Advaita is perspective that is based on certain assumptions. This is definitely a verdict that has been passed on Advaita Siddhanta. Hence I have asked this person to go to the space of I don't know.

    As an Advaitin I find nothing wrong in raising objections against Advaita, now saying that Advaita is a mere perspective with certain assumptions is a definite statement made on it and can be taken as a position. However even after questioning as to why this person arrives at this verdict no answer is given.

    Again another accusation is made by this person that Advaitins are stuck in the absoluteness of the Advaita philosophical view, which again I see as a verdict on Advaita.

    Interestingly even post telling this person that Advaita is not based on any assumption but that it is only known post verification, this person is adamant and makes another statement about non contradiction being taken as a proof in Advaita.

    This itself shows that it is very difficult to be without any definite opinion or view, even the Jains and the Buddhists were trying to be free from the absoluteness of views but they again ended up with their own views.

    Hence the best way to be free from these views is to just be aware of our ignorance and come to the space of I don't know.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    श्रीवर्धन
    Age
    25
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1114

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Hello Avyaydya

    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post

    Brahman for me rather is an Experience. People who have experienced Brahman know it is the most all encompassing experience they have ever met. It is indeed pure bliss, without any distinction. From there people have started reasoning, taking this experience as a base and calling it Brahman. And others have turned this experience into the goal of existence, hoping they can forever live in this experience of pure happiness. And thus they have started to look down on ordinary experiences calling them feeble and illusionary because they are not a constant bliss.
    Brahman is reality. Do you know what's reality? Do you know why there is something or do you know why there is nothing? Do you think all these things (world of matter) are baseless? The world must be illusory is a logic for which no proofs are required. Start with your own body itself. Do you think you are body itself or any part of Body? Are you eyes? Are you Hands? Are you cells? Are you brain? Are you just a composition of chemicals? Tell me who are you? Who am I? This is know as 'Brahma-jidnyasa' and this is a primary thought which is responsible for Moksha. Ordinary experiences are related to body. The happyness we get from them is not only impermanent but also illusory. Why illusory? Because they are relative. Common logic - Relative things must be illusory. Eg. Pigs enjoy sitting in mud, eating ****. But humans won't enjoy sitting in mud, eating ****. So how do you conclude is there happiness in mud or not? it is questionable and can't be answered. The same happiness is like nectar for one and for other like a poison. Sharp-minded people know this truth/logic and so abandon everything except the very existence of oneself.

    They even started to call our world "illusionary". But that I see as a misappropriation of Maya, which can better be translated as the world of objects, or the world of changing experiences. They have defined that the experience of Brahman is superior because it is an unchanging experience. They define Absolute = Unchanging. Such definitions are hidden assumptions. One could easily counter that unchanging is like death, and change is like life and life is superior over death.
    It is your assumption that absolute is not unchanging. Do you have any basis for your claim that unchanging is not absolute?

    It is very simple to understand the thing. Before the creation of world, the state was changeless. The cause must be supreme than effect. So the effect which is world is inferior than the cause (We call it brahman). The cause which is unchanging is supreme than the effect. So it wouldn't be wrong to say unchanging cause is absolute.

    Also the idea that we left Brahman to be here suggest that we want to be here. And what we strive for is generally a higher state not a lower one. I am not trying to disprove anything, but simply show that there are many other perceptions possible based on different considerations, and indeed present in Hinduism. I do not agree with those that want to create the impression that: Hinduism = believing this world is illusionary. That certainly is the prominent idea in many Hindu traditions but not all. In Tantra this world is considered very real and of prime importance.
    Experiences of Sages, saints must be embraced. Tantra is not Vedanta.

    Personally I hold to Dharm and do not want to lock my mind in one perspective. I see value in all perspectives. I think personally keeping your mind free of embracing a sole perspective is actually the highest state for the mind.
    Such mind is incapable of knowing truth. Because such mind can not be fixed at one goal and so the goal is always out of reach with lots of confusions.

    Hari On!

  4. #34

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Quote Originally Posted by Sriram257 View Post
    Namaste All,

    Avyaydya gave a very interesting statement that he or she ( don't know the gender) does not believe in the absoluteness of any view or philosophy. This is very much appreciated, however the posts show statements that Advaita is perspective that is based on certain assumptions. This is definitely a verdict that has been passed on Advaita Siddhanta. Hence I have asked this person to go to the space of I don't know.
    Namaste Sriram257,

    I am able to entertain your view, but the opposite seems hard for you, because as I see it your understanding is locked in your own (Advaita) view. Otherwise you would by now have understood Advaita is a perspective based on assumptions TO ME. Not to you, not to what Advaita claims about itself, but to ME. No matter how many times I repeat that, it never seems to fully register that my words are not truths that go beyond a personal view. You insist on interpreting it as a verdict. In my view that is a logical consequence of embracing an absolute truth, it does not allow for relativity of the view and thus one also finds it hard to see other views as anything but wrong or ignorance. I do not see other views as wrong or ignorance, but simply other views based on different tenets. But when one believes one's own view does not have tenets, one can no longer equally respect other views, as one takes one's own view as the elevated view. Elevated above others one automatically sees other views not agreeing on ones elevated position as an attack. As there are more views that take this elevated position, this then easily becomes a source of disrespect.

    The discussion here is titled "YOUR view on Brahman" and that is exactly what I did, I gave my view understanding it as an invitation to give my view, as I did not consider it as an invitation to discus the many views on Brahman in Advaita as I am not aware they have more than one. But now that I understand that actually giving another personal view, creates so much defensive reactions. I understand Advaita does not leave room to examine the deeper tenets of thinking as they are considered non-existent and one expects to comply with Advaita thinking first and only then discuss. I personally think that is at odds with any discussion about Brahman, because I see Brahman as more fundamental than a philosophy about Brahman. It gives me the impression that In Advaita Brahman rather grows out Advaita, than the other way round.

    As an Advaitin I find nothing wrong in raising objections against Advaita, now saying that Advaita is a mere perspective with certain assumptions is a definite statement made on it and can be taken as a position. However even after questioning as to why this person arrives at this verdict no answer is given.
    I respect your opinion, I would myself frame it differently. The answer that I gave did not make sense to you. As we have no unlimited understanding, we should not use our lack of understanding as definite proof. You could have asked for further explanation, but you rather explain it as a shortcoming of me. In my personal world view that is a fallacy that comes from the idea one holds a superior understanding of reality. And as I understand it now (thanks to you), this belongs to the tenets Advaita. To me this comes across like: We advaitins believe we hold a superior view and thus our view is superior. This indeed has no beginning and no end. You might be interested to know the bible uses the same circular reasoning, declaring itself absolute truth. That is taken as a starting point of every discussion. I find that problematic.

    Again another accusation is made by this person that Advaitins are stuck in the absoluteness of the Advaita philosophical view, which again I see as a verdict on Advaita.
    With "this person" you mean me? I am no longer worthy of being mentioned by name? Does your awareness encompass how most people experience that? I see several possibilities. 1: You do and want to hurt me by belittling me. 2: You do not have this awareness. 3: your words are an ill-controlled emotional outburst. 4: one that may ore may not be explained by you. Luckily I am fairly impervious to disrespect of any kind. Whatever people want to say about me, I accept it as their prerogative, I am sorry to have provoked this reaction with you.

    By the way I already made the distinction between what I hear/understand Advaitins say and what Advaita is.

    Interestingly even post telling this person that Advaita is not based on any assumption but that it is only known post verification, this person is adamant and makes another statement about non contradiction being taken as a proof in Advaita.
    Still the same "this person"? It is like talking about someone in a room but pretending he is not there. He is a thing. Does this kind of detachment come with Advaita? I am treated as an illusion, not really being there? How interesting! Let me assure you you are very real to me and I fully experience your presence.

    This itself shows that it is very difficult to be without any definite opinion or view, even the Jains and the Buddhists were trying to be free from the absoluteness of views but they again ended up with their own views.
    I would counter that it is difficult to be without opinion, I do not see you have proven the opinion has to be definite. I welcome you to change my mind.

    Hence the best way to be free from these views is to just be aware of our ignorance and come to the space of I don't know.
    Here we meet a contradiction in terminis. If we are fully aware of ignorance we are no longer ignorant, but then we are aware of something that no longer exists. In my world view believing in a definite view is the actual ignorance. That does not mean however this an easy state to achieve as our mind has a natural tendency to embrace ideas and turn them in convictions. It needs constant questioning of ones own ideas. I personally believe there is more value in questioning fixed ideas than embracing them. Questioning is however not the same as refuting or denying, I only question their absoluteness not their intrinsic vakue. I accept that all views have an intrinsic value and can be internally consistent, and should be respected as such. However to be able to hold high more than one view, one tries to stay free from accepting one as more than a stepping stone to others. One acts as mother that loves all her children and does not engage in favoritism.

    Thus this person says from present personal view.

    By the way, if you feel personally addressed, that is by objective, I always recognize the presence of people I am with. I think that is courtesy. If you understood me leaving this forum as no longer reading your posts, and thus being not present, I find that hard to believe from an intelligent person. A civil reaction in my view would have been to go on with discussion and leave it at that. But as you seem to want to give a reaction "over my head" to others in which you declare the shortcomings of my ideas, I am happy to explain it once more, so at least hopefully others may understand.

    Sriram257. I guess we will never agree, but I hope we understand each other better now. It was surely illuminating to read your views.
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 30 April 2015 at 08:15 AM.

  5. #35

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste Avyaydya,

    It appears that I have upset you a little bit, but I was under the impression that you would not comment on this thread.

    Following is what you said

    "I am able to entertain your view, but the opposite seems hard for you, because as I see it your understanding is locked in your own (Advaita) view. Otherwise you would by now have understood Advaita is a perspective based on assumptions TO ME"

    Fine so according to you since I am supposedly locked in my own Advaita view, I cannot see assumptions that have been made and are unproven.

    Now if you personally feel that there are assumptions in Advaita , enlighten me what those views are.

    As stated before Advaita is not based on any assumptions what so ever, it is something that has to be verified. Once you know something post verification it is by definition knowledge not a fixed perspective or view.

    If you do not want to be in fixed views that is fine, but saying that "I" am "locked" in "my own Advaita view" shows the height of arrogance which means you believe your assumption that I am locked in an Advaita view as a fact. You have not even entertained even a bit of doubt that you may be wrong. Instead you firmly believe that what you say is true. This is definitely a fixed view so you are stuck in your own fixed view which you are unwilling to accept.

    Also the below statement made by you I find it absolutely ridiculous

    "
    Here we meet a contradiction in terminis. If we are fully aware of ignorance we are no longer ignorant, but then we are aware of something that no longer exists. In my world view believing in a definite view is the actual ignorance. That does not mean however this an easy state to achieve as our mind has a natural tendency to embrace ideas and turn them in convictions. It needs constant questioning of ones own ideas. I personally believe there is more value in questioning fixed ideas than embracing them. Questioning is however not the same as refuting or denying, I only question their absoluteness not their intrinsic vakue. I accept that all views have an intrinsic value and can be internally consistent, and should be respected as such. However to be able to hold high more than one view, one tries to stay free from accepting one as more than a stepping stone to others. One acts as mother that loves all her children and does not engage in favoritism."

    When you are ignorant you say you do not know, knowing your ignorance does not take it away, when you say my view it is by definition your assumption. Ignorance is ignorance there is no opinion on it. I am ignorant of something that is all, I have an opinion on my own ignorance is pure nonsense nothing more.

    Last edited by Sriram257; 30 April 2015 at 08:31 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    February 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    22
    Posts
    10
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste

    I would define Brahman as "Innocence", for it is the purest state of Being.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Sanatana Dharma for Kids: Hindu Trinity: Brahma - Sarasvati
    By saidevo in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30 April 2015, 09:52 PM
  2. Learning Sanskrit by Interaction at HDFpuri
    By saidevo in forum Canteen
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 26 September 2010, 04:22 PM
  3. THE MAHAVAKYAS
    By Krsna Das in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 27 January 2010, 08:18 AM
  4. Brahma - God of creation
    By madhurijntu in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19 October 2007, 12:30 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12 September 2006, 08:27 AM

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
  •