Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Your definition of Brahma

  1. #21
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,211
    Rep Power
    4713

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste Avyadya and all,

    May I please make a request that unless you understand a philosophy properly, please don't start giving your verdict with a tone of finality. No one is asking anyone to accept what is offered by Advaita or any other school of Hindu Dharma if one has trouble in accepting its philosophy for any reason whatsoever.

    I find your post highly judgmental. If you are interested to share this view, it would have been proper to post your views on some other forums appropriate for such posting. I find that it has become a fashion to come to Advaita forum and starting bashing up Advaita philosophy without having a grip on even basics on Advaita philosophy. It creates even more trouble in controlling passions going wild when you draw a wrong conclusion with a tone of finality ... that is ... your word is the final word and the only word of wisdom. In that process you actually denigrate our Great Teachers of Advaita whom we hold in very high esteem and that hurts us. Can I ask you how much VedAnta you have studied before posting such judgmental views ? You are not even aware that Aparoskha Anubhuti i.e. Direct Perception is one of the essential requirements and the final goal in Advaita. It is only the Advaita path which greatly emphasizes on Direct Perception of the Reality. There may be difficulty in expressing the Reality but ... in Advaita no one says that you should blindly accept whatever is offered as the Ultimate Truth. Our teachers encourage us to go for Direct perception of the Reality which would leave us without any doubt.

    Please be considerate to feelings of all who are followers of this path on this forum and accordingly please tone down the language used in your posts so that it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  2. #22
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    India
    Age
    44
    Posts
    69
    Rep Power
    234

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste All

    Hari Om


    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    Namaste all of you..
    Share you definition of Brahman or how'd you like to describe it..
    To me, HE is the invisible, infinite, all powerful energy whose various manifestations can be experienced by our (limited) senses but who is beyond our (intellectual) understanding.

    Om Namah Shivay

  3. #23

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste Avyaydya,

    If you are not interested in truth no one is asking you to go after it. Even to say that I do not believe that there is such a truth is a perspective is it not. Also all I see are assumptions here for eg you say "Oh non contradiction is not proof" so you have merely assumed that in Advaita only after we see that there is non contradiction we say it is proof ? who told you that ? Is this not your own assumption ?


    You were talking about Buddha being exhausted by too much thinking, to be fair none of us were there to know what Buddha went through, but whatever teaching he has given has been interpreted by different schools of thought. Now you have your own strong opinions which I see as assumptions.

    You already have very strong conclusions, and you are using those conclusions to bash up another Siddhanta.

    Are you not at home with yourself? If you are at home with yourself why do you even need to come and post in this forum viz an Advaita forum.

    "My personal opinion: The Jana path can for some be a path to enlightenment. But it is not so that all, or even most, or even many that follow it become enlightened. The enlightenment follows when through a process of neti neti one starts to understand the absolute hopelessness of understanding Brahman, in the same way that Buddha did not become enlightened by his thinking but the utter failure of his thinking, leaving him disillusioned under a tree. In his utter hopelessness his enlightenment was born. To free man from his illusion total desperation is necessary which can only come from failure, not the illusion of truth. The jnana path is a steep path with many casualties along the way. It also creates many people who think they have reached higher consciousness by dressing themselves up with ideas they regard as absolute truth. A slower, less steep and easier path is Bhakti but that requires a different mind set. "
    Fine but is this opinion not an assumption ? Is this not a perspective ? You again say "I am a practical person" even saying that is an opinion and an assumption, since practicality is different for different people. For some people only making money is to be practical, for some people just living like a vagabond is practical and so on. So even the term practical is a very relative term which does not seem to have any standard definition.

    You can have your opinions, but at this point I would suggest please express them some where else if you believe in some basic courtesy. This is an Advaita forum for Advaitins to comment.

    If you want you can even form your own forum to express your opinions but this is not the forum to express your opinions and assumptions.

    Good day.



  4. #24

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste Avyadya and all,

    May I please make a request that unless you understand a philosophy properly, please don't start giving your verdict with a tone of finality. No one is asking anyone to accept what is offered by Advaita or any other school of Hindu Dharma if one has trouble in accepting its philosophy for any reason whatsoever.
    Namaste devotee,

    I do not see where I gave a verdict on Advaita (a value assessment), but I accept that it is interpreted that way by you. As my words cause misunderstanding and upset people, it is no longer proper to remain here.

    Sriram257
    I am interested in truth as experience not conjecture. An opinion is only strong if one believes in it, wants to hold on to it, and holds it up to others as more than a personal truth, I do nothing of the sort, on the contrary. I explained my thinking is only illustrative and must not be seen as reasons to believe in it. Like water thinking takes a flow too.

    I simply give a momentary view. At every moment I have a view, but as it is changing, why should I want to defend that as truth? It is my experience that people who believe in absolute truth easily assume that others do the same.

    Of course I have assumptions when I express a view, did I not argue that under every view lies an assumption? The difference between me and many others is that I am very aware of the assumptions and that is the very reason I do not see any view as absolute truth, just a personal view.

    My mistake was to think that the topic title: YOUR definition of Brahman was an invitation to give a personal view, not realizing an alternate view is is not appreciated in Advaita and easily interpreted as an attack on Advaita. I did not know of this vulnerability, I thought this was an invitation to discuss different views.

    My apologies.
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 29 April 2015 at 10:57 PM.

  5. #25

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste Avyadya,

    We are not against alternative view nor are we saying we are right and another person is wrong, that is not the way an Advaitin approaches alternative views.

    You seem to have taken only one part of devotee's post, he makes a very big stress on "direct perception". If your path is a matter of direct perception for you then it is good for you. Although you may claim that you never gave a verdict on Advaita, your opinion about Advaita shows that you have a strong conclusion about it.

    May be you realise it and are not willing to accept that you have strong opinions and conclusions about the Advaita path or may be in the name of not having perspectives and conclusions you do not realise that you have definite conclusions about the Advaita path.

    I can say this since you have not said "I don't know" in any of your posts.

  6. #26

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Quote Originally Posted by Sriram257 View Post
    Namaste Avyadya,

    We are not against alternative view nor are we saying we are right and another person is wrong, that is not the way an Advaitin approaches alternative views.

    You seem to have taken only one part of devotee's post, he makes a very big stress on "direct perception". If your path is a matter of direct perception for you then it is good for you. Although you may claim that you never gave a verdict on Advaita, your opinion about Advaita shows that you have a strong conclusion about it.

    May be you realise it and are not willing to accept that you have strong opinions and conclusions about the Advaita path or may be in the name of not having perspectives and conclusions you do not realise that you have definite conclusions about the Advaita path.

    I can say this since you have not said "I don't know" in any of your posts.
    Namaste Sriram257,

    If one accuses someone and is sincere, one also mentions exactly how and when the other did what he is accused off, allowing the other to defend/explain himself. Leaving that out, thus creating vague accusations, is not fair. On can not defend against a general accusation like: You gave a (negative) verdict on Advaita. However I accept you feel offended and I take responsibility for that.

    But to explain myself and take some of the hurt away, to my knowledge I did not express an value assessment on Advaita but rather explained how I see perceptions in general. That is not in anyway a verdict on Advaita in particular, but explaining my line of thinking. A verdict would mean a value assessment, like Advaita is good or no good. I also gave examples how one can counter the reasoning as well, hoping this would underline the relativity of my thought process and stressing that it is a personal view. Sadly, it did not achieve its purposed effect, so I failed.

    I now understand it is hurting for you if one person says he does not see Advaita as absolute truth. I will not post in Advaita forum ever again. Personally I am not upset by other people not sharing my views, on the contrary, I like people to share their different views and explaining them. That is because my thinking is inclusive not exclusive. In the same way I can appreciate Advaita in its own right, without having to commit to the idea of its absolute truth..

    It is not a new experience that people committed to absolute truth, can nor want to think beyond that truth. I should have realized that. I will leave it at that.

    Again my sincere apologies.
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 29 April 2015 at 11:01 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,211
    Rep Power
    4713

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste Avyayda,

    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    I do not see where I gave a verdict on Advaita (a value assessment), but I accept that it is interpreted that way by you. As my words cause misunderstanding and upset people, it is no longer proper to remain here.
    You say that you don't give a verdict but by saying this, "not realizing an alternate view is is not appreciated in Advaita and easily interpreted as an attack on Advaita." is a statement with finality and thus it is natural to be interpreted as your verdict. I don't know with how many Advaitins you have discussed but here discussions in various forums would suggest that we are far more accommodating other's views than others.

    I had difficulty with your this post :

    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.

    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.
    We didn't start calling this world as "Illusory" ... this is what the VedAnta says. I can quote from Upanishads and Srimad Bhagwatam if you are interested. Moreover, the Truth that this world is Illusory was not only understood with VedAnta (which was indirect perception) but also experienced directly by the seers. It is not just a matter of assumptions and "beliefs" alone. ... and instead of questioning why we do believe in a thing, you said, "... they even started to call ..." etc. etc.. Certainly these words could have been toned by you.

    Anyway, please don't take my post otherwise. I would love to read your posts. However, this forum has seen many acrimonious debates in the past and my effort was to avoid that ... and I have nothing against you in particular.

    Sorry, if you felt bad by my post !

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  8. #28

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Namaste Again,

    Question is not about hurting Advaita Siddhanta, it seems devotee was hurt , not me but for me since you are interested in eliminating the absoluteness of all views and assumptions which I actually appreciate, but I see you are caught up with a lot of assumptions and opinions.

    If you want to be free from the absoluteness of views you have to leave all assumptions and opinions, it is only after leaving all assumptions is when you come to the space of I don't know. When in this space you do not have any conflict with any one. As long as you have your own opinions and assumptions, you cannot come to the space of I don't know.

    You will fall into the trap of the absoluteness of your own views and assumptions.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,211
    Rep Power
    4713

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    No, Sriram, I was not hurt. I was just doing my job as moderator where keeping the discussions within friendly environment is one of my duty.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  10. #30

    Re: Your definition of Brahma

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste Avyayda,
    You say that you don't give a verdict but by saying this, "not realizing an alternate view is is not appreciated in Advaita and easily interpreted as an attack on Advaita." is a statement with finality and thus it is natural to be interpreted as your verdict. I don't know with how many Advaitins you have discussed but here discussions in various forums would suggest that we are far more accommodating other's views than others.

    Namaste devotee,

    It seems that you will only believe my words are purely meant as limited personal view unless I repeat that after every single sentence, even after I stressed it repeatedly. If you do not want to take that seriously, what is the point of us discussing? I am getting a bit tired of this. I made my apologies, but I can not take away bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    I had difficulty with your this post :

    We didn't start calling this world as "Illusory" ... this is what the VedAnta says. I can quote from Upanishads and Srimad Bhagwatam if you are interested. Moreover, the Truth that this world is Illusory was not only understood with VedAnta (which was indirect perception) but also experienced directly by the seers. It is not just a matter of assumptions and "beliefs" alone. ... and instead of questioning why we do believe in a thing, you said, "... they even started to call ..." etc. etc.. Certainly these words could have been toned by you.
    I already explained that and will not do that again. If people do not want to understand, one is powerless.

    Anyway, please don't take my post otherwise. I would love to read your posts. However, this forum has seen many acrimonious debates in the past and my effort was to avoid that ... and I have nothing against you in particular.

    Sorry, if you felt bad by my post !

    OM
    No this is definitely my last post in this forum. It is better to avoid future misunderstandings.

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
  •