"Mercy is the might of the righteous" - Vishnu Puran
"Mercy is the might of the righteous" - Vishnu Puran
Member
Namaste Simex,Originally Posted by simex
True. A great quote. But mercy of the righteous operates only after wrath humbles the deceptive.
Regards
Om
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Member
Namaste Mithya.
You are trying to give a twist to my explanations in post #38 by selective reading and claim repeatedly that I agree with YOUR VIEW that this world, like the snake on the rope is a superimposition, so it never existed and hence only Brahman exists.
In the same way you are also twisting Atanu's challenging question to you in post #42 as his opinion. Atanu clearly ASKS YOU, "Agreed that a limited thing and form such a cup is not Brahman. You win hands down." with an implicit IF in this statement because it is followed by a volley of questions that challenge your POV as expressed in your statements.
You can easily say that the snake as a superimposition is unreal, so the world must also be unreal as Sankara says ("brahma satyaM, jagat mithya").
When pressed for your view about the reality of the cup, you dodge with personal invectives (as you did especially to Devotee) and try to underestimate the greatness of sages like Swami Vivekananda. This only means that you cannot say that the perceived reality of the cup is the same as that of the snake because unlike the snake seen on the rope by the mind's eyes of only a few, the cup is seen with physical eyes by everybody as such with a distinct, superficial reality.
Despite my pointing out as early as in post #4 that Sankara means only a 'vyavaharika satyam' and not a complete unreality when he says "brahma satyaM, jagat mithya", you continue to try to maintain that the unreality of the world is like the an 'adyanta asat' (complete and extreme unreality) like the hare's horn or barren woman's child. If you are not convinced, check the article "Reality and Illusion (Satyam and Mithya)" by Mata Amritanandamayi Devi http://archives.amritapuri.org/matru...v09reality.php, but again you might term her a 'neo-vedantin'!
The quote I gave from Mandukya Upanishad in post #48 and Sankara's commentary on that verse clearly talk of four states of existence of the Jiva wherein it perceives the different levels of reality of the world.
Quoting RamaNa Maharshi selectively doesn't help our discussion. RamaNa of course said "There is no doubt whatsoever that the universe is the merest illusion" but he spoke those words from the state of turIya in which he was always immersed. RamaNa also said that just like a spider spins its web from its own self and later retracts it, Brahman creates this world from itself and then retracts it into itself.
For all the purest form of Advaita that Sankara taught, he also composed devotional songs on the Hindu Gods, established the PanchAyadana Puja and united the six philosophies into 'shad darshana'. For all his staunch inquires into the Self with nothing except the question 'who am I?', RamaNa composed devotional songs, wore vibhUti and shed tears when kunkumam prasAdam was presented to him from his Mother Meenakshi of Madurai! What sort of Vedantins are they in your estimation?
रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥
To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.
--viShNu purANam
Member
Namaste Mithya,
I have collected a few questions for which I request answers.
Om
- If the world is illusion, then what is wrong, if Swami Vivenkananda says: The world is nothing but Brahman?
- You are a form, Are you thus also illusion like the world or the cup?
- If a cup is not Brahman then what it is? If Jagat is not Brahman then what it is?
- Show us where any advaitin has said that "a cup is Brahman".
- Do you ascribe in full to "Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah (Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self)?
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
svabhAvamadhurA
Namaste,
My brother shared this quote a ways back, seems appropriate repeated here -
"Do the Gods really exist?" The master replied: "If you believe you exist, why shouldnt they?"
(Guru Ramana Maharshi)
ZN
yaireva patanaM dravyaiH siddhistaireva choditA .
shrI kauladarshane chApi bhairaveNa mahAtmanA .
It is revealed in the sacred doctrine of Kula and by the great Bhairava, that the perfection is achieved by that very means by which fall occurs.
Banned
As we're going in circles (and also because the mod is gonna ban me soon, since he's frustrated that my arguments aren't being refuted), this is perhaps my last post on the matter.
Not at all, they're one and the same. The snake is false, the rope alone is real. Likewise, the cup is false and Brahman alone is real. Why? Let's see. You argue that snake is only seen by a few, whereas cup is seen by many. So how can one consider the two to be the same? There are two fallacies in this. First, we don't determine reality through a majority vote.This only means that you cannot say that the perceived reality of the cup is the same as that of the snake because unlike the snake seen on the rope by the mind's eyes of only a few, the cup is seen with physical eyes by everybody as such with a distinct, superficial reality.
Second, the non-existent snake is seen on the rope through the tricks of the mind. Similarly, the non-existent cup is seen superimposed on Brahman due to the tricks of the senses. And because most human eyes function in the same way, it appears as if we're all seeing the same thing. This in turn strengthens the belief that what we see MUST have a concrete reality - or why would millions view the exact same thing at the exact same time? This is specious reasoning. Here's why.
In a magic show, thousands 'see' a man flying. But what they see isn't real, because if it were real, and if the man really were flying, then it wouldn't be magic anymore. It'd be reality! Therefore, thousands may see, hear, smell the same illusion, but that doesn't make the illusion real; for, a 'real illusion' is a contradiction in terms.
Bottom line, majority of people have the same sense organs, and they function in the same way. So they're all going to 'see' and 'hear' pretty much the same thing. But that doesn't mean what they see/hear is real. Like I said, we don't determine reality through a majority vote.
I never did, so let me explain. If X is perceived as X, there's no possibility of mistaken perception. But because there's mistaken perception, we have to conclude that X is being perceived as NOT X. You cannot have it both ways. Likewise, if Brahman is perceived as Brahman, where's the question of mistaken perception? There would be none. But because there's mistaken perception, we conclude that Brahman is being perceived as something it's not (world). Else, it's tantamount to saying we have a mistaken perception because we're seeing x as x!Despite my pointing out as early as in post #4 that Sankara means only a 'vyavaharika satyam' and not a complete unreality when he says "brahma satyaM, jagat mithya", you continue to try to maintain that the unreality of the world is like the an 'adyanta asat' (complete and extreme unreality) like the hare's horn or barren woman's child.
Says the man who doesn't quote Ramana to prove this point! At least, I quote from Ramana's work to prove that he held the world to be false. You haven't quoted anything from Ramana to prove otherwise. So your accusation carries with it a trace of hypocrisy, doesn't it?Quoting RamaNa Maharshi selectively doesn't help our discussion.
Last edited by mithya; 30 April 2009 at 01:58 AM.
In your seva...
namaskar mithya,
Good.
No, I am not frustrated. I couldn't care less if your arguments are or aren't refuted. I don't really see that you have presented your argument in clear terms anyway. You are hopping here and there and everywhere. Anyway, I digress.(and also because the mod is gonna ban me soon, since he's frustrated that my arguments aren't being refuted)
I (along with other members), however, do care about the quality of posts on this site.
Forums rules are clearly listed under the FAQ section. All members have to adhere to those rules. I noticed that your posts were breaking several rules on this thread and on previously posted threads that I deleted without any warnings to you. I requested you in a pm to please try to comprehend the rules of the site and if you had any qustions about them please let me know. I also told you that if you keep breaking the rules, I will redirect you out of the forum. This 'redirection' happens to all who cannot follow the rules and whose agendas are not in alignment with the purpose of this forum. There is nothing personal about it.
Therefore, simply if you follow the forum rules then you will not be redirected.
Thanks,
Last edited by satay; 30 April 2009 at 10:47 AM.
satay
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks