VOID Void void

[devotee]

Dear Bhaktajan,

Advait Vedantists are not voidists. This is a concept within Buddhism. Whatever you have quoted pertains to that philosophy. Buddhism doesn't talk about Brahman at all. So, in Buddhist's scriptures too there is nothing which equates Brahman = Void.

We were discussing whether any scripture says that Brahman = Void ? In all your posts above, it doesn't say so.

Çrémad-Bhägavatam 9.9.49:

yat tad brahma paraà sükñmam

açünyaà çünya-kalpitam

bhagavän väsudeveti

yaà gåëanti hi sätvatäù
SYNONYMS
yat—that which; tat—such; brahma param—Parabrahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kåñëa; sükñmam—spiritual, beyond all material conceptions; açünyam—not impersonal or void; çünya-kalpitam—imagined to be void by less intelligent men; bhagavän—the Supreme Personality of Godhead; väsudeva—Kåñëa; iti—thus; yam—whom; gåëanti—sing about; hi—indeed; sätvatäù—pure devotees.

====> Please mark above in your post :

Brahma Param = the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna

So, if we equate Brahman with void, Krishna will be equated with void.


And the above also underlines the fact that the Brahman is AshUnyam i.e. not void. And that is what we have been telling you.

I don't know what you want to prove by quoting this ?

OM

[atanu]

In his Meditations on the Bhagavad-gétä, (expcerpted here) the renowned sixth-century philosopher Çaìkara glorifies the Gétä and its divine author, Çré Kåñëa.
Although universally celebrated as an impersonalist, here Çaìkara reveals his devotion to the original personal form of God, Lord Çré Kåñëa.

Verse 9

Salutations to that supreme shining one
Whom the creator Brahmä, Varuëa,
Indra, Rudra, Marut, and all divine beingsPraise with hymns,

Purport by Çréla Prabhupäda:
By recitation of the ninth verse of his meditation, quoted from the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, Çaìkara has indicated that Lord Kåñëa is worshipable by one and all, including himself.

He gives hints to materialists, impersonalists, mental speculators, “void” philosophers, and all other candidates subjected to the punishment of material miseries—just offer salutations to Lord Kåñëa, who is worshiped by Brahmä, Çiva, Varuëa, Indra, and all other demigods. He has not mentioned, however, the name of Viñëu, because Viñëu is identical with Kåñëa. . . .

Namaste,

It is always this: Mayavadis are voidists. And Krishna-Vishu are the Supreme personalities and all others are servants. ISKCONITES have only these two themes.

If you are really contended with your faith then why this doubt and need to continously harp on only these two themes? Actually, it is love of ego with an imagined hero.

Srila Prabhupada dishes out his own views for his devotees. There is no problem with that. But do not impose those teachings, as those have been shown to be false and lies --mere opinions, without scriptural basis.

Similarly, the meditator Çaìkara (I do not know who Çaìkara is) may say anything. It is not supported by shruti.

Gita says 'Rudras' and not Rudra.

Om

[devotee]

Namaste Devoteeji
It is Aksharam and not akshara, Brahma and not brahman, see…

Aksharam brahma paramam…..

So avoid all translations by Swamijis and I say….

The Param akshar [ AUM ] is Brahma. See…

Trayah suparna striyavrata yadanyekaksharmbhisambhuya shakrah,

Pratyohanmrityumamraten sakmantardadhana duritanivishva.

[ 8/28/dirghayusukta/5kandam/atharvaveda ]

My great honour to both members for the role of King Videh and Enthusiast Laxman.

Now the play is declared OVER .

Happy Vizaidashami and JAI sriRama….

1. Follow….Vedastra: Vedastras

Namaste Guptaji,

You have rightly pointed out that it is Aksharam & not Akshara. Thanks for that.

However, imho, that doesn't change the meaning the way you have proposed.

Aksharam Brahma Paramam ===> In this part there is only one noun i.e. Brahma i.e Brahman. So, both the adjectives i.e. Akshara & Param must refer to the same noun i.e. Brahman. So, it should be read as "Brahman which is Akshara & Brahman which is Param i.e. Supreme" and not "Param Akshar is Brahman" because in that case Param an adjective qualifies Akshar which is an adjective.

Moreover, what is the meaning of "Param Akshar" .... IMO, it doesn't make things better to understand what Lord Krishna wants to say. Param in that case becomes almost redundant.


OM

[kd gupta]

Namaste Atanuji
A correction…not posted by Bhaktajan, but pasted by Bhaktajan
And An admiration to your sentence…your swami ate the word Paramam



kd gupta wrote: ‹ Select › By praying to remove difficulties you are disturbing God
So sridattaji, what usually god is doing ?




</SPAN></SPAN>

[bhaktajan]

Exactly. When everthing which can be metered out = [is voided] = then what remains is Brahman in full.

It's OK Atanu. Everyone loves you. But "God is in the Details"


But you [bhaktajan] started with Brahman and Void as equivalent terms,

No. I started by speaking of the Void as a topic of its own accord in the Thread The Supreme Personality.
I mention the void as an example of "that which is Absolute" [The Void = "that which is Absolute"] ---a) it then 'took on a life all its own from there' & b) I had no idea that there would be an viseral repulsion for what I thought was 'purely' a 'borrowing of terminology from science /metaphysic /astronomy /calculus /physics /theorethical{theo=God! I never realised this ~LOL}'/etc.

Only after there was an unexpected "resistance" from you all did I realise that I had hit a 'node' in the melodic line ---so I paused and thought that this was my entre to show that the VOID IS VERY EASY TO CONCEPTUALISE INTELLECTUALLY.

IE: In the thread "Sanatana Dharma and seperation from State Goverment":

I propose that the teacher [the religous ones] say,
"The Void is the space that the Universe fills ---in eastern Philosophy this Void is considered as the Spirit of God the Created the Universe; on the other side of the Coin: also in eastern Philosophy there is the teaching that beyond the "Void-Along-with-the-physical-Cosmic-Creation ---there is a transcendent realm where a Supreme Personality of **Godhead Exists beyond Physical Time"

{**Dio la Persona Suprema/La Suprema Personalida de Dios/The Summom Bonum Incarnata/Jesus's Dad/Allah's Abba/Buddha's Papa/ etc etc}

just to impose your opinion that Brahman-Self Realisation is equal to realising a void.

This is incorrect. I have the opinion that Brahman envelopes the Void ---yet the Void is the same as Brahman.

ATTENTION WHOMEVER HAS POSTED:
STOP REFERRING TO THE ENGLISH DICTIONARY WHEN I REFERENCE THE WORD 'VOID' ---I am saying: Whatever you have ascribed to the word Brahman is the same for the Void.

Matter and Energy cannot be seperated from the Void that it is occuping ---Eintein's *Theory of Relativity [with thanks to Doctor Bose et al].

"The Empty Void is the primodial source of all Creative Potential" -Lao Tsu

"That Darkness within Darkness that cannot be named . . . " -Lao Tsu.

This Tao of Ying and Yang is Famous ---but one must consult the original sankrit texts to know the whole story.

Jai Radhe-Syama

[bhaktajan]

Bhaktajan wrote:
For the impersonalist and voidist philosophers, the next world is a world of senseless eternity and bliss. The voidist philosophers want to establish that ultimately everything is senseless, and the impersonalists want to establish that in the next world there is simply knowledge devoid of activity. Thus less intelligent salvationists try to carry imperfect knowledge into the sphere of perfect spiritual activity. Because the impersonalist experiences material activity as miserable, he wants to establish spiritual life without activity. He has no understanding of the activities of devotional service. Indeed, spiritual activity in devotional service is unintelligible to the voidist philosophers and impersonalists. The Vaiñëava philosophers know perfectly well that the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can never be impersonal or void because He possesses innumerable potencies.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bhaktajan: The Above is not the Void. YES, It is the opposite of the Void. The Void is "Non-Brahman".

"Sadänanda-yogé, one of the greatest Mäyävädé äcäryas, has written in his book, Vedänta-sära:
“The Absolute Truth of eternity, knowledge and bliss is Brahman. Ignorance and all products of ignorance are non-Brahman."

The Void is "Non-Brahman" and the Void is without Material Tinge —simultaneously same and different!

HOW IS THE ABOVE IS A QUANDRY TO BE RESOLVED BY A DISCRIMINATING INTELLECT?


The material world is composed of the principle of Opposites(duality) ergo, the Void and the Energy.

We are spirit-souls in the material world.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I have 'bent-over-backwars' for you yet you abuse me like I am a disobedient dog. Why is that?
Bhaktajan

[bhaktajan]

Advait Vedantists are not voidists.
Yes they are my dear.
This is a concept within Buddhism. Whatever you have quoted pertains to that philosophy. Buddhism doesn't talk about Brahman at all. So, in Buddhist's scriptures too there is nothing which equates Brahman = Void.
I am taliking about a Topic Titled "VOID VOID VOID"
"The Nature of the Void."

Please stop and define the Void as best your breath of knowledge can ---and then present that here on these Threads ... you will be definin that which is classically known to be called Brahman in the Vedas of India.

Please stop and define the Void anyway YOU know of . . . see what happens.


We were discussing whether any scripture says that Brahman = Void ? In all your posts above, it doesn't say so.
It repeatedly say that the Mayavadis/sunyavadis regard Brahman
as a world of senseless eternity and bliss; to establish that ultimately everything is senseless; to establish that in the next world there is simply knowledge devoid of activity.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So, if we equate Brahman with void, Krishna will be equated with void.
Yes. That is a Voidist statment made by the Mayavadi & sunyavadi & Buddhist doctrines, Yes.
You apply elementry mathmatics to arrive at the topmost sublime mystical truths?

Did it occur to you that as a Hare Krishna ---this is all I am good for.
If the store does not sell the variety of stuffs you perfer why are you making a fuss?

[bhaktajan]

Satay wrote:
You have correctly judged me as an atheist. I was a atheist in a previous life . . .

I shall formally speculate about something that I cannot be 100&#37; sure of by just speculating: There is no way that Satay is an Atheist.
[Yeah, I was an atheist in many past lives too. Been there done it got the T-shirt and I wore it out long ago. It always was a cool T-Shirt]


But the only way is to approach the authority on the subject and submissively inquire etc etc etc.

BTW, again I shall formally speculate about something that I cannot be 100% sure of by just speculating:

Every poster in this thread to-date has been lying to me and You all have been pretending to not understand my discussion of the Void ---so as to . . . hmm? . . . Get me to prove myself as a Vaishnava. Am I correct in this formal speculation? Are you all actually Vaishnavas incognito?

Have You all been playing a group joke on me while consulting via PMs to prod me into admitting that maybe I was a impersonalist Voidist Buddhist Jesuit Christian Theology Professor writing a new Thesis about Cult Brainwashing medthods?

But now I am in the clear because the 'thrill-of-the-hunt' for the Voidists has turned out to be 'just another Hare Krsna Hare Rama Airport FlowerChild'?

Hari Bol everyone!

[devotee]

Advait Vedantists are not voidists.
Yes they are my dear.

Proof ? Scriptural quote please !

This is a concept within Buddhism. Whatever you have quoted pertains to that philosophy. Buddhism doesn't talk about Brahman at all. So, in Buddhist's scriptures too there is nothing which equates Brahman = Void.
I am taliking about a Topic Titled "VOID VOID VOID"
"The Nature of the Void."

Please stop and define the Void as best your breath of knowledge can ---and then present that here on these Threads ... you will be definin that which is classically known to be called Brahman in the Vedas of India.

Please stop and define the Void anyway YOU know of . . . see what happens.

This is your statement that Void is Brahman. So, onus of proving this lies on you. What is the basis of your this assertion ? I have already given you all possible meanings of Void & none of them represent Brahman.

We were discussing whether any scripture says that Brahman = Void ? In all your posts above, it doesn't say so.
It repeatedly say that the Mayavadis/sunyavadis regard Brahman as a world of senseless eternity and bliss; to establish that ultimately everything is senseless; to establish that in the next world there is simply knowledge devoid of activity.

Let us hear from you what you understand from MayaVad & ShUnyavad. While you do this things will automatically be clear.

What you say is not correct. Brahman is not a world of senseless eternity. I have quoted both B. Gita & MAndukya Upanishad & nowhere it is written what you say.

So, if we equate Brahman with void, Krishna will be equated with void.
Yes. That is a Voidist statment made by the Mayavadi & sunyavadi & Buddhist doctrines, Yes.

MayavAd & SUnyaVAd are not same. If you think they are not different please tell us what you understand by these two terms.

You apply elementry mathmatics to arrive at the topmost sublime mystical truths?

Did it occur to you that as a Hare Krishna ---this is all I am good for.
If the store does not sell the variety of stuffs you perfer why are you making a fuss?

Irrelevant for the discussion in progress & hence ignored.

OM

[bhaktajan]

Proof ? Scriptural quote please !
Quoting Paramahansa MahaBhagavatas are good enough.

This is your statement that Void is Brahman.
Quoting Paramahansa MahaBhagavatas are good enough.

Let us hear from you what you understand from MayaVad & ShUnyavad.
Quoting Paramahansa MahaBhagavatas are good enough.

Brahman is not a world of senseless eternity. I have quoted both B. Gita & MAndukya Upanishad & nowhere it is written what you say.
OM is a world of senseless eternity. Its not your nor My Senses that eminate OM. Krishna's Body eminates OM.
No, both B. Gita & MAndukya Upanishad explain it just as I have posted --Your Translation is simply & surely replete with the best of the best 'Flowery Words' --'Flowery Words of the Vedas'.

MayavAd & SUnyaVAd are not same.
No, They are exactly the same ---any difference is neglegible.

There are three paths mentioned in the Vedas.

One involves fruitive activities to gain promotion to better planets.

Another involves worshiping different demigods for promotion to the planets of the demigods, and another involves realizing the Absolute Truth and His impersonal feature and becoming one with Him.

The impersonal aspect of the Absolute Truth is not the highest.

Above the impersonal feature is the Paramatma feature,
and above this is the
personal feature of the Absolute Truth, or Bhagavan.

Bhagavata-purana gives information about the Absolute Truth in His personal feature.

It is higher than impersonalist literatures
and higher than the gyana-kanda division of the Vedas.

It is even higher than the karma-kanda division,
and even higher than the upasana-kanda division,
because it recommends the worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
Lord Sri Krishna.


Did it occur to you that as a Hare Krishna ---this is all I am good for.
If the store does not sell the variety of stuffs you perfer why are you making a fuss?

Apparently, You do not even pretent to know what the Void is.

Define Void ---see Brahman at the end of the Tunnel.

The above was Relevant for the discussion in progress & hence responed to.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PS: I said, "You apply elementry mathmatics to arrive at the topmost sublime mystical truths?"
You responded [in Post Post 129]: "Irrelevant for the discussion in progress & hence ignored."

But I was referring to your tactics in your Post #121. Sometimes it is difficult to keep facts in order. Just Remember "God is in the details" and that yes, that refers to Paramatma too.