Atanu wrote:
"Na Asat is not nothingness."
Yes. But I was addressing the subtle topic of "VOID".
Can you face this topic "VOID"? And concieve that does not exist?
What say you about "VOID"?
Atanu wrote:
"Na Asat is not nothingness."
Yes. But I was addressing the subtle topic of "VOID".
Can you face this topic "VOID"? And concieve that does not exist?
What say you about "VOID"?
Where is this absolute truth written in any of the Vedas?
Yes! Many many many.
But you must go beyond the "Void".
You must go beyond the varieties of Supersoul's jivatamas.
This is called the path of Vaishnavism.
You probleby have developed a strong opinion about the path of Vaishnavism ---a path that you are not a part of --and do not represent --and find troublesome to the formation of your philosophical logic & rationale, Yes?
No. As some one said in another post, you are are not truthful. You were not talking about void but you were talking about Brahman being void. And please do not speculate. If void is known, then it will be known by someone or some self. How is that?
I said na asat is not void. When shruti says there was nothing else, only IT was covered with desire -- Shruti means that there is IT and nothing else.
Just show us a few.yes, yes. many many.
The Shruti [Rg veda, etc] is 95% not decipherable, not comprehendible —with out the Puranas (histories).
True. And Puranas are also not clear to a biased closed mind. Puranas are also closed to those who are not aware of the All Attractrive.
About being Vaisnava, I asked of you the import of All Attractive. Your version of Krishna is not attractive to me, what to talk of christians and Muslims?
Om Namaha Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 15 September 2009 at 02:20 AM.
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.
Atanu wrote:
"You were not talking about void but you were talking about Brahman being void"
Bhaktajan:
I am talking about the real VOID.
You are Not addressing the topic of the nature of the Void or even the existance of the important aspect of the creation.
I am talking about the real VOID.
The same Void the Einstien and physicists refer to in the concept of "Zero".
It is a reality of the construct of the phenominal world that you 'think' has no reality.
Atanu wrote:
"If void is known, then it will be known by someone or some self."
Herein is the ironic hesitation on your (intellect's) part of the discussion. You cite claims to your familarity with the definition of "Brahman" ---but when I ask you to address the "Void", you ironically, stumble over the very essence of My meantion of the Void, 'Its ownership'.
You are Not addressing the topic of the nature of the Void --yet you say, 'You are Not addressing the topic of the nature of the Void' . . . Yes I am ---it is know as "Brahman" . . . or else 'It is owned by a seperate entity/principle.'
Brahman sits atop the void. The void is the same as Brahman. Brahman shares the same description(s) as the void. The VOID is an impersonal nomenclature. Maybe you are too influenced by Bhuddist doctrine to see the elemantary point I am making to name Brahman as the Void.
Oh, just had a realisation, I SEE NOW!:
Atanu has an aversion to the use of descriptive word "Void" cause that would confirm that he leans toward the philosophy of a Voidist, or, void-a-vadi.
That would be aside from Atanu want for the simplest of intellectual concepts that all schools teach in physics and calculus, and, Computer Code 0101's.
Atanu wrote:
"I said na asat [not non-eternal, not temporary] is not void. When shruti says there was nothing else, only IT was covered with desire"
The void is eternal and it is simply a name.
The hidden intellectual concept that I am showing Atanu is that the thought of the Void is an assessible and eaily understood concept.
Brahman is the next higher level of the meaning of the Void ---tantamount to The Supreme Personality of Brahman.
The logic is that the void is devoid of qualities yet beyond that fact where does the qualities come from? And what is the reservoir fountainspring of qualities?
All Attractive = is those qualities that spring forth and are appreciable by persons ONLY, that includes appreciable by bestial persons too.
When the reservoir fountainspring of all qualities in full par excellance IS SEEN BY AN ASPIRANT [or even known as 'na asat'] ---then the All Attractive Persona of the Godhead has pulled back the curtain of the Void to reveal the luminescence of His Body luster know as the effulgent Light Brahman.
Brahman is the luminescence of the Body of the All Attractive embodiment of all personal qualities. Such qualities are universally sought by all living beings thoughout the RELATIVE WORLD.
The All Attractive personal qualities are outside Brahman's "Field of Relativity" ---that area of The All Attractive personal qualities "Sphere of Influence" is the Absolute Realm where all is constructed of Brahman and is so is called 'sat-cit-ananda'.
That is the Vedic version hidden from humanity since Lord Brahma was born with his eyes still closed.
Last edited by bhaktajan; 15 September 2009 at 03:35 PM. Reason: ADD: IS SEEN BY AN ASPIRANT [or even known as 'na asat'] ---
Dear Everybody conversant in the scriptural explainations of "The Nature of Brahman",
I know what is said about "The Nature of Brahman" [albeit I may not recall exact verses 'on-demand'].
I am asking about "The Nature of the Void".
It may be proposed that the void is a 'Non-Issue'/"Irrelevant"/"Not worthy of Discussion" etc ---but, no one is addressing this.
My understanding was that advaita dealt with the nature of the "constitution/construct of the phenomenal World" and thus how "We are not this body (phenomenal World)---we are Spirit soul ---etc etc etc"
The Void is out there. It is Out There. It is part and parcel of the "Phenomenal World" ---why does one jump over it and confuse it with Brahman's Potentcies?
Nevermind the IMO, flaw in advaita logic "Brahman is beyond 'manifest' qualities & Brahman is 'innately' the source of all qualities"
Namaste,
First : The Brahman is not Void.
Second : The Void is not really Void. The concept of Void is within Mental realm & is relative.
Third : If Void is really Void, then there can't be anything called "Nature of Void".
Fourth : Advaita doesn't tell about the constitution of phenomenal world. It is not Physics. It is actually the final destination of all paths. And it is proven by thousands of Saints by attaining Self-realisation.
Fifth : "The Brahman is beyond qualities but is source of all qualities" ===> I don't know from which scripture it is taken but it is correct nonetheless. There is no flaw in the statement but it is difficult to understand this unless one is able to understand that all qualities are relative & within mental realm. The Reality/Brahman/SELF has no quality as we know in our world of relative existence.
OM
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
Namasté devotee
well said... Much more can be said about this, within a climate of openness and learning. Much is said about this Brahman in the Upanisads - perhaps another time we can revisit this and the attibutes the wise give to this Brahman.
praṇām
Last edited by yajvan; 18 September 2009 at 12:27 PM.
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
But the above is a derailment from the topic of VOID.
The Void defines the idea of the VOID. The Void is REALITY. The phenomenal world is not the VOID. You are taking offense over a name ---when it is the "Quality" that is the important maxim.
God exists in three ways ---BEYOND WHICH THERE IS NO OTHER MENTION OF EXISTANCE:
1] The VOID
2] The PARAMATMA ---via the Phenomenal World [earth, water, fire, air etc . . . plus Time etc]
3] The Godhead [aka Parambrahman].
Last edited by bhaktajan; 18 September 2009 at 01:20 PM.
Om
Dvaita darshana holds that "I am That" means 'I' and 'That' are two distinct entities. And it is not incorrect, since as per Shankaracharya, only the essence in "This" and the essence in 'That' is one and indivisible.
Does not the same logic apply to 'The Supreme Personality' and 'the Godhead' in the sentence "Supreme Personality of Godhead"? ? Going by intellectual Bhakajan's logic that 'A' and 'B' represent absolute difference, how does one reconcile this? Advaita dharshana, however, says "when all attributes are stripped from this (jiavatman) and 'that' (Ishwara-Paramatman), only the Atma tattva remains as the singular truth. Similarly Lord Krishna says: "It is difficult to overcome my mAya. Those know who know me as unborn mahesvara. Only a few in millions know me as I am". How is an unborn seen and known? I may now see a few bombs blasting.
.
So, Happy Navaratri to all. Sarva janah sukhinu bhavantu.
Jai Shri Krishna
Namah chaitanyamayi, anandamayi, brahmamayi Mother of the Universe.
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 18 September 2009 at 11:05 PM.
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.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Bookmarks