Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Reality

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    Namaskar Singhi Mashai

    You have chosen an imaginative name. What does it exactly mean? Though from my perspective I understand it as one having a body of Simha --- Durga's vahan.

    Though age is not a factor, still for a 27 year old, you are spiritually advanced. Scriptures, philosophies, arguments are all sattwik hooks. You know one has to some how give to mind something to do. Else, it becomes the demon -- Raktabija (millions of thoughts giving birth to millions more) or Bhandasur (the Ego), whom Durga alone can vanquish.
    Dhonnobad!
    About my name your understanding is correct. There is some interpretation to it. But in a nut shell, to do bring down durga, own has to develop the character of a lion. The supreme mother doesn't ride on peace loving lambs. There are some very inspiring hynms on Singhi-Charitra (Lion hearted character) in the Vedas. My name reminds me of my spiritual ambition.

    About the rest of your post, I must think more or else I may post something ******.

    Regards
    Singhi
    Last edited by Singhi Kaya; 14 April 2006 at 02:29 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    364

    A bit of confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    I am still trying to understand your posting as it neither direclty questioning nor directly commenting.

    -----
    I never said real is relative. I was just countering idea of Unreal

    And I am trying to understand whether this post is for me? If it is, then it is in reply to which post of mine? And in which post I had interacted with Shri ramkish42 Ji?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    48
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    114
    Namaste Atanuji,

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee

    Ram Ji, who is the viewer, what is space and what is object? Does space and object exist apart from the viewer (seer in our language)?
    viewer is the Atma, whether jIvAtma(embodied or liberated) or paramAtma

    space is an abstract concept, it refers merely to the degrees of freedom a viewer has.

    object is a number of points(samples) in the space defined above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Bannerjee
    Ram Ji, the logicians have not had the grace of studying the upanishads. They all work with concepts of jagrat state alone.
    That is all we have. If you claim to be working with the concepts of Turiya, shouldn't you have experienced it yourself? The above concepts are not based on Jagrat alone, as you can see, which should be roughly limited to a 3D world.

    Jagrat, as percieved by an ordinary man is the 3D space.(consisting of the 5 gross elements)

    Svapna, incorporates higher dimensions, and in my opinion seven - corresponding to the seven worlds of Brahmanda.( This is called the realm of mind in vedanta, and consists of the 5 subtle elements)

    Prajna incorporates a disjoint set of all the infinite Brahmandas, giving rise an infinite degree of freedom. ( this is called by the term Mahat in vedanta)

    I dont want to define Turiya this way, however, as it is beyond prakrtic definitions.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    48
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    Namaskar Ram Ji,

    *********All perception in the world have to be relative.**********

    Sense perceptions are relative. Each perciever has his own universe.
    Righto, but how does another man's perception falsify mine? The advaitin is so sure that the world is completely unreal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Bannerjee

    ********So by this concept, the terms real and unreal are just relative.*********

    What do you mean exactly? The terms are realtive or the real itself is relative? The real by definition cannot be relative.
    Although, one's concept of the reality is certainly relative, the reality is devoid of concepts --- it is the father of Aham, from whom concepts have sphurana.

    Turiya is the ever unchanging one reality.
    As you say, the term pratibhasika satya is correct, and we can verify in the world.

    Vyavaharika Satya is also correct, as it can be verified, from various jnanins having having higher perception than us. For eg, it is well known that Yogis can see atoms, they can see spirits, they can percieve divinity etc, thus overriding my perception. But does a Yogi say that my knowledge of the world is false? By no means. Every reality is superceded by a higher reality that augment each other. If you dig deeper into atoms, you will find electron and protons, and such things. What do you get when you go inside? And inside? Brahman lies at the deepest level(being the material cause), and since the entire world has been built on this substate, it is all absolutely real. Calling the world unreal amounts to saying that Brahman is unreal, if you accept Brahman to be the material cause.


    Knowledge of Brahman leads to knowledge of whatever there is to be known, and never leads to the knowledge that what I see now is false. Knowledge of Brahman leads to omniscience, which should naturally include all knowledge of mUla prakriti.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    364

    Knowledge

    Namaskar,

    Quote Originally Posted by Ram
    Righto, but how does another man's perception falsify mine? The advaitin is so sure that the world is completely unreal.


    A blind man who sees pillars in place of an elephant must agree to a man who sees the full elephant. Similarly, one having only experience of lower state must agree to abheda scrripture and act accordingly to gain the higher experience.

    A simple shivo advaitam description for Turiya is sufficient for me, though, I can cite many more abheda vakyas. Interpreting what advaitam here means or interoplating another thing above Self are mere mental jugglery. There is nothing above the Self and Turiya is the Self, which has been described as advaitam -- whatever that may mean.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ram
    ----- But does a Yogi say that my knowledge of the world is false? By no means.



    Exactly. A yogi who sees the One reality will never say my knowledge of world is false. He will say Jagat Mithya, Brahman Sat, Brahman Jagat.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ram
    Every reality is superceded by a higher reality that augment each other. If you dig deeper into atoms, you will find electron and protons, and such things. What do you get when you go inside? And inside? Brahman lies at the deepest level(being the material cause), and since the entire world has been built on this substate, it is all absolutely real. Calling the world unreal amounts to saying that Brahman is unreal, if you accept Brahman to be the material cause.


    Brahman is both the efficient and material cause. But it is his Maya power that with millions of material manifestation, Brahman does not change a bit. That is why Lord says:

    The undivided Paramatma (Avibhaktam), appears as if (iva) existing (sthitham) divided (vibhaktam) in the material bodies and Jivatma (bhooteshu).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ram
    Knowledge of Brahman leads to knowledge of whatever there is to be known, and never leads to the knowledge that what I see now is false. Knowledge of Brahman leads to omniscience, which should naturally include all knowledge of mUla prakriti.



    Dear Ram,

    I believe that some put a lot of emphasis on sense perceptions. This way a dog has better knowledge since it has extended hearing and seeing capacity. Such people may not believe that what appears to be blue color under some kind of lighting appears green under a different lighting. Which is the truth? Before jnana or after jnana?


    Whereas some others say the one who perceives is the reality. The Pragnya that perceives in me, you and a dog is ONE. EXISTENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY reality. Yourself is the reality. Before bringing in xyzt and objects one must question and verify one's own reality.


    And there is a gross misunderstanding. Advaita says: Brahman jagat. So, Advaita can never even suggest jagat to be asat. What it says is that the sense perception of the jagat being composed of millions and millions of discrete object is not correct. It goes very well with Rig Vedic verse: Rudra Visvam, Rudra Visvarupam.

    Rig Veda also says: Who knows how the boneless gives rise to the bony? The highest knowledge of ajativada thus says: on the boneless pure intelligence appears multiforms -- ever changing like kaleidoscopic view but the pure intelligence ever remains pure intelligence.

    On a personal pratyaksha level also (when stripped from senses) the same can be appreciated. The awareness "I am" has never changed, though everything else attached to "I am" changes every moment. The perceiver of "I am" is neither the body and nor the senses/mind. The perciever of "I am" is neither the body and nor the senses/mind but one indivisible Self alone. To know the Self, one cannot be a second beside the self, since that would create two selves -- an impossiblity.


    Regards

  6. #26
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    40
    Posts
    49
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    Namaskar,



    A blind man who sees pillars in place of an elephant must agree to a man who sees the full elephant. Similarly, one having only experience of lower state must agree to abheda scrripture and act accordingly to gain the higher experience.
    Namaste Atanu,

    Here the example you have given is for whether the perception is right or wrong but not for whether the perception is absolutely true or false.
    So if a blind man thinks the pillars in place of elephant..he must aware of pillars before..so pillars must be true. Ofcourse his assumtion was wrong..because of his blindness.


    A simple shivo advaitam description for Turiya is sufficient for me, though, I can cite many more abheda vakyas. Interpreting what advaitam here means or interoplating another thing above Self are mere mental jugglery. There is nothing above the Self and Turiya is the Self, which has been described as advaitam -- whatever that may mean.
    That is the problem with Advaitins..you take oly some descriptions which are suitable fot your theory.
    If turiya is the self and there is nothing above this turiya, then what is Avidya? is Avidya a thought ? who is experiencing Avidya?

    tell me what is Turiya and what is avidya? which one is real..or both are real?






    Exactly. A yogi who sees the One reality will never say my knowledge of world is false. He will say Jagat Mithya, Brahman Sat, Brahman Jagat.
    So..that Yogi will say to whom? to himself? how does he know this fact?
    could he know that reality without this body which is unreal ?



    Brahman is both the efficient and material cause. But it is his Maya power that with millions of material manifestation, Brahman does not change a bit. That is why Lord says:
    You said Jagat midhya , again you said it is his maya power..so his maya power is midya.?

    tell me one thing..is the world midhya or the viewr's view in which he is viewing this world is maya?

    Whereas some others say the one who perceives is the reality. The Pragnya that perceives in me, you and a dog is ONE. EXISTENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY reality. Yourself is the reality. Before bringing in xyzt and objects one must question and verify one's own reality.
    I agree..existence or conciousness is the only reality..
    does that existence knows itself and knows its exact nature?

    Then why that reality came into avidya..lack of knowledge?



    Rig Veda also says: Who knows how the boneless gives rise to the bony? The highest knowledge of ajativada thus says: on the boneless pure intelligence appears multiforms -- ever changing like kaleidoscopic view but the pure intelligence ever remains pure intelligence.
    on the pure intelligence how the multiforms appeared? and why appeared?
    pure intelligence ever remains..I agree..it'ss existence is not the problem..why it is not behaving like that now?

  7. #27

    Re: Reality

    Namaste tatvam,

    You have much curiosity....are your motives good or to make fun? I cant understand that.

    Anyway, here is the deal.

    Every religion or belief system requires faith in a certain entity to begin with. Advaita vedanta requires you to trust the words of Adi Shankaracharya, who is believed to have realized Advaita himself. To his followers, his words are enough to understand basic axioms.

    1. The world is illusory.
    2. Brahman is real.
    3. The individual soul and Brahman are one and the same.

    A belief common to all advaitins, and the interpretation of scripture rests on this theory. Any further development ofr vedanta starts from these fundamentals, and not all advaitins may have the same beleifs.( except these basic axioms)

    Apart from these whether you beleive in Ajata vada, or any of the creation theories or whether you beleive in heavenly planets, which spiritual path you follow etc is not related to proper Advaita and there are widely prevalent beleifs.

    The term Advaitam defies description in words, all I can assure you that it is not a void, but the exact opposite of it. It is defined by negation only because there is no earthly parameter that can define moxa.

    Regarding Avidya, you can take it as one of unknown origin, one that simply is non existant( hard core advaita that may put you off!), or a divine will, law, sport or whatever. People who ask too many questions regarding Maya or Avidya cannot learn Advaita. For now you can accept that you have something called ignorance that covers your shining self beneath, and try to work it out, as per your beleifs. The very avidya( which you have to admit whichever school you belong to) under whose spell you are now, will prevent any understanding of it - all other theories are conjectures.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    40
    Posts
    49
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    Namaste tatvam,

    You have much curiosity....are your motives good or to make fun? I cant understand that.
    Namaste truthseeker,
    I am seriously seeking for truth, not making any fun.

    Every religion or belief system requires faith in a certain entity to begin with. Advaita vedanta requires you to trust the words of Adi Shankaracharya, who is believed to have realized Advaita himself. To his followers, his words are enough to understand basic axioms.

    1. The world is illusory.
    2. Brahman is real.
    3. The individual soul and Brahman are one and the same.
    Can you provide me some scripture statements that prove the above three arguments?


    Regarding Avidya, you can take it as one of unknown origin, one that simply is non existant( hard core advaita that may put you off!), or a divine will, law, sport or whatever. People who ask too many questions regarding Maya or Avidya cannot learn Advaita. For now you can accept that you have something called ignorance that covers your shining self beneath, and try to work it out, as per your beleifs. The very avidya( which you have to admit whichever school you belong to) under whose spell you are now, will prevent any understanding of it - all other theories are conjectures.
    Ok..but my doubt is Avidya..this word seems opposite to Vidya (knowledge)..and if Brahman is knowledge self..how this avidya came?

    ok..if I take this avidya as 'will' of God..so..because of his own will he became many and experiencing this misery..how it is possible?
    I can't understand how a knowledge-self could became many by his own will after all his 'will' lead him into misery ?

  9. #29

    Re: Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by tatvam
    Can you provide me some scripture statements that prove the above three arguments?
    Yes, scriptural verses like "sarvam khalvidam brahma" have made it beyond any doubts whatsoever that there is nothing whatsoever beyond Brahman. We dont care for "alternate" interpretations. It is quite allright if you prefer to do so...take comfort in them please.

    Do you know what even the great Vaishnavite saint Nammalvar has said? I am just quoting a sample, where many great monistic mahAvAkyas can be found. Suggest you to read his hymns in a more unbiased way.( without your usual twisting of meanings)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nammalvar

    The Lord is and has become that guy, this guy and the one who is
    in between that guy and this guy- that lady, this lady and the one
    who is in between that and this lady- those and these people and ones
    who are in between them- that and this object and those objects which
    are in between them- the one which is a question in our minds; good
    things; bad things; past, present and future things; things which
    are never permanent and are going to be perished;- (TVM 1.1.4)

    Lord has got no attachments; He exists everywhere in its full
    entirety.
    Hence, you do not get attached to any other thing and immerse yourself in ALL kinds of divine works and all sorts of service to the Lord.(TVM 1.2.6)

    Equipped with such Great virtues which are not inferior to any other virtue- such all time Greats who possess the duty to create, destroy etc., The One who has become one and all and becomes all by Himself; Who knows the secret and concept of His avataars?- Absolutely none.

    I think Nammalvar was perfect monist who taught only the path of Bhakti and surrender, hence his hyms occasionally carry a touch of dualism. Please dont misinterpret him. His philosophy is not dualism by any means, though the way of life suggested by him suggest so. I have considerable liking for his hymns.



    Quote Originally Posted by tatvam
    Ok..but my doubt is Avidya..this word seems opposite to Vidya (knowledge)..and if Brahman is knowledge self..how this avidya came?

    ok..if I take this avidya as 'will' of God..so..because of his own will he became many and experiencing this misery..how it is possible?
    I can't understand how a knowledge-self could became many by his own will after all his 'will' lead him into misery ?
    Avidya cannot be explained for those in avidya. That is it about it.
    You can understand that as the Lord's will to become many. You will understand that when Lord's will so, until then you can beleive whatever you want. Yes, he himself became the good and bad things, as even Nammalvar has testified, and hope you will atleast obey his words. If God creates bad things( if you think there are bad things), how can he impose it on others, except himself? Just think about it, or we are heading towards the model of Abrahamic religions. Not vedanta.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    40
    Posts
    49
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    Yes, scriptural verses like "sarvam khalvidam brahma" have made it beyond any doubts whatsoever that there is nothing whatsoever beyond Brahman. We dont care for "alternate" interpretations. It is quite allright if you prefer to do so...take comfort in them please.

    Do you know what even the great Vaishnavite saint Nammalvar has said? I am just quoting a sample, where many great monistic mahAvAkyas can be found. Suggest you to read his hymns in a more unbiased way.( without your usual twisting of meanings)




    I think Nammalvar was perfect monist who taught only the path of Bhakti and surrender, hence his hyms occasionally carry a touch of dualism. Please dont misinterpret him. His philosophy is not dualism by any means, though the way of life suggested by him suggest so. I have considerable liking for his hymns.





    Avidya cannot be explained for those in avidya. That is it about it.
    You can understand that as the Lord's will to become many. You will understand that when Lord's will so, until then you can beleive whatever you want. Yes, he himself became the good and bad things, as even Nammalvar has testified, and hope you will atleast obey his words. If God creates bad things( if you think there are bad things), how can he impose it on others, except himself? Just think about it, or we are heading towards the model of Abrahamic religions. Not vedanta.
    What did you understand from Nammalvar's poems ?
    "all sorts of service to the Lord"..when will you understand this if you think you youself is equal to GOD.

    if Avidya can't be explained for those in avidya..then you also don't understand that , and even Shankarachrya didn't understand that..because all of us in avidya only..then how to get solvation?

    let us stop this discussion as you are not able to answer regading Avidya..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Advaita on Mind and Reality
    By realdemigod in forum Advaita
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 13 April 2012, 05:57 AM
  2. Escape from Reality?
    By yajvan in forum Canteen
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03 January 2009, 12:20 AM
  3. Relationship between Atma(spirit) and the Body.
    By nirotu in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 17 August 2008, 12:31 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06 November 2007, 01:32 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
  •