Page 1 of 15 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 141

Thread: VOID Void void

  1. #1

    Re: Creation and Advaita !

    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"?

  2. #2

    Re: Creation and Advaita !

    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?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Creation and Advaita !

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaktajan View Post
    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"?
    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.
    yes, yes. many many.
    Just show us a few.

    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 03:20 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.

  4. #4

    Re: Creation and Advaita !

    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.

  5. #5

    Re: Creation and Advaita !

    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 04:35 PM. Reason: ADD: IS SEEN BY AN ASPIRANT [or even known as 'na asat'] ---

  6. #6

    Re: The Supreme Personality...

    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"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4717

    Re: The Supreme Personality...

    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"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: The Supreme Personality...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    Namasté devotee

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    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
    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 01:27 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  9. #9

    Re: The Supreme Personality...

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    First : The Brahman is not Void.

    The above does not address the void. And it makes no attempt to address the "Nature of the Void".

    The "Nature of the Void" is not a scary thing.
    The "Nature of the Void" is not something that heretical to advaita.
    The "Nature of the Void" is part and parcel to study of "constitution of phenomenal world."

    The Bhagavad-gita explains the nature of the soul etc etc etc.

    Advaita is the study of the "constitution of phenomenal world."


    Second : The Void is not really Void. The concept of Void is within Mental realm & is relative.

    This absurd logic ---because it is not Logical ---devoid of logic.

    What could be more Absolute then "Void"?
    You are making a show of supposed argumentation regarding the subject of the Void by claiming
    A)is not a part of Advaita School of Philosophy ---so you do not know anything of this subject
    and
    B) then offer a sutra-formated dialogue as a means to explain how it is "Like this and like that . . . "

    Third : If Void is really Void, then there can't be anything called "Nature of Void".
    If? If? The Void is what the word denotes.
    Earth smells.
    Water is wet.
    Fire is hot.
    Air is cooling.
    Ether echos.
    Mind desires
    Intelligence discerns
    Ego Possesses an 'I'
    Time passes.
    Karma rewards and engages.
    Jivatamas survey all panoramas
    Ishvara (God as Controller) maintains.
    Void is quality-less.
    . . . etc etc etc . . . ie: Puranas (histories)

    Note that the qualities are abolutely relegated to a limited sphere-of-influence.

    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.
    Advaita is indeed all about the constitution of phenomenal world and is non-different from western Physics.

    Time to go back to school and return after accredited study.


    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.
    It is my own quote [I know perfectly the purport of what I said ---but YOU cannot tell me why it is a "self"-contradicting statement.] I know it is correct ---BUT YOU mentally black-out with temporary blindness. Even the derisively used term 'circular-logic' is difficult to apply this term to your logic. You aggree with the first part of my Statement ---but YOU cannot see that it REFERS TO THE TRANSCENDENT as a 'Source' of Brahman's so-called qualities.

    If Brahman is beyond(without) qualities . . . HOW can it be descibed as the "source of all qualities"?

    The source would pre-date the realm of Brahman! This is found in the Gita, ---[which I quote as my primary source material].

    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.

    Beyond mental realm? Just try to stay on task, "THE VOID" [noun---name of person/place/thing]. All qualities are part and parcel the manifest phenomenal cosmos subtile and gross.
    Lastly, keep this in mind:
    "The Reality/Brahman/SELF has no quality as we know in our world of relative existence" ---but it is difficult to understand this unless one is able to understand what lies beyond the constitution of phenomenal world which is called Transcendental (daivyam).

    Long before arrive at the topic of daivyam we must familarise ourselves with Brahman.


    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 02:20 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: The Supreme Personality...

    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; 19 September 2009 at 12:05 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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •