Atman

[sm78]

[quote=anirvan;79607]

If eventually it is found that mine is actually he?the my boundary and his is one?And if prayers is helping for the relief of pain and source of infinite joys?

Is that nyaya darshana?

Its the self care/self prayer we do everyday,is what a theist does in his daily prayer.

jaysrikrishna

Theism is fine infact core of vedanta or the position you are referring to. I am not contensting Theism, but was questioning necessity (not sufficiency, as nyaya is theistic in its later developments - early nyaya did not pay a great attention to Ishvara) of theism in Nyaya darshana. Naya ofcourse became the main defenders of theism against buddhist down the ages and their arguments were mostly based on infallibility of vedas and related scripture. But I don't see why theism is importanat in its own metaphysics.

[devotee]

Namaste Shian,

But in Mahayana Buddhism, from Great Sangha of ancient china,
They still use term "Soul", in chinesse is LING, or 灵

But it not denied , and used by holder of lineage (enlightened Masters),

And the term anatman in Mahayana Buddhism is practice of Bodhisattva when someone is work for benefit of sentient beings, because they already enlightened that their self is Big self as universe, see all sentient beings is same and is Buddha.

So , the meaning of anatman is not mean "no soul",. soul is only like we called many part hand, head, limbs, foot etc as "BODY", or called someone with their own name.

But i know in Hinayana it is different, they also have different understanding on Nirvana and Bardo. (Have different with Mahayana)

I have been very much interested in Mahayan Buddhism and I have found that both the paths say more or less the same thing (refer : Prajnaparamita). Buddha state is similar to Turiya.

OM

[wundermonk]

Theism is fine infact core of vedanta or the position you are referring to. I am not contensting Theism, but was questioning necessity (not sufficiency, as nyaya is theistic in its later developments - early nyaya did not pay a great attention to Ishvara) of theism in Nyaya darshana. Naya ofcourse became the main defenders of theism against buddhist down the ages and their arguments were mostly based on infallibility of vedas and related scripture. But I don't see why theism is importanat in its own metaphysics.

I dont see what the problem is here.

Vedanta or Nyaya, the role of God is essentially that of the efficient cause. In addition, God cannot be partial, so God is the common cause of creation. The Brahmasutra deals with this in dealing with the Problem of Evil. I see no reason why the same argument cannot be made for the conception of God in Nyaya.

The only purely non-theistic metaphysics seems to be Samkhya. But Yoga take in Samkhyan metaphysics and suggests meditation/praying to God as one of the means of attaining "Chitta Vriddhi Nirodah".

[kallol]

As I understand :

1. When viewed from macro perspective, atman is the consciousness which enlivens the mind which in turn enlivens the body. Like in presence of sun, thousands of mirrors reflect the same sunlight. Each a small part of it. This small part, though part of the main, is enabling the mind to drive the body. This enabler is the atman. As mind is in the ocean of conciousness always, this atman is constantly there just like the mirror moving around in the sun.

2. When viewed from micro perspective, it is the feeling of being when all senses are stopped and mind is blank. Still something is there in the nothingness, which enables me to be. It cannot be felt for its property but can be felt as enabler - I am there when nothing is there. This sense of I (though part of ego) is out of the enabler which works through the mind.

3. However in the absence of minds (mirrors), there is only the consciousness (sun) which pervades everything and anything.

[sm78]

I dont see what the problem is here.

Vedanta or Nyaya, the role of God is essentially that of the efficient cause. In addition, God cannot be partial, so God is the common cause of creation. The Brahmasutra deals with this in dealing with the Problem of Evil. I see no reason why the same argument cannot be made for the conception of God in Nyaya.

The only purely non-theistic metaphysics seems to be Samkhya. But Yoga take in Samkhyan metaphysics and suggests meditation/praying to God as one of the means of attaining "Chitta Vriddhi Nirodah".

My question was about necessity, God can surely be fit into Nyaya. But after reflecting on this, I concede there is no formal problem and my reaction went over the top.

But did Nyaya have any concept of Moksha which can only be granted by the Ishvara like in Vedanta - or they were only interested in finding correct means of inference so as to gain correct knowledge which alone can free the individual self from its pains, which are created by the Self itself?

Philosophically God may accepted (in Nyaya, Purva Mimamsha etc), but my question is what is the role of this God in actual practice and living according to these philosophies? Praying, surrender to God, love for God, meditating on God etc I believe only began with Yoga and Uttara Mimamsha.

[wundermonk]

Actually, the soteriology of Nyaya is interesting...it is denoted as "absence of pain".

The Nyaya had a long series of dialectics with Vedantins [who held that salvation involves "presence of pleasure"] over this issue.

Time permitting, I will post on this discussion in due course.

Also, God in Nyaya is supposed to have taught the usage of terms/meanings of words and language to humans at the beginning of each cycle - about this, I am not so sure.

[brahman]

Namaste Brahman,

I think Anirvan has answered it quite well and if you carefully read my posts everything is answered there itself.

If you want to use the term "Avidya", I have no issues. However, I try to avoid jargons when the concept can be explained without that. I talked of arising of multiple apparent "i"s in the first two states. This false notion of having a separate "i" is the root of "individualised Maya" or Avidya". So, the concept doesn't change with or without the use of jargons.

As far helping an individual is concerned, it doesn't matter whether you use a particular jargon or not. You cannot see Avidya separate from Maya. Self-realisation destroys everything created under the influence of Maya. Moreover, my posts were directed at answering what Atman is and not how help an individual realise Self.

OM

Dear Devotee,

Moreover, my posts were directed at answering what Atman is and not how help an individual realise Self.

Philosophy means "love of (ultimate) wisdom" or ‘thinking how to think’ in a layman’s language. We discuss on ‘philosophy’ and for me its a value science than intellectual curiosity. So, I was not satisfied with a definition.

“I try to avoid jargon when the concept can be explained without that”

If so, and just because the term’ Maya’ does not appear in the major Upanishads(First 10mentioned in mukthika), you could have avoided this technical enigmatic expression instead of 'Avidya'.. With all basis for evidence, ‘Avidya’ appears in key Upanishads like ‘Isa’.

---------------------
---------------------

Dear Anirvan

Does the concept of MAYA and Avidya is like thinking global and acting local?

May be I am not sufficiently qualified enough to understand the oneness of ocean and waves, and its essential content as water!

---------------------
---------------------

But Devotee, you presented it differently.

Thank you both once again for your efforts.Love

[devotee]

Namaste Brahman,

Philosophy means "love of (ultimate) wisdom" or ‘thinking how to think’ in a layman’s language. We discuss on ‘philosophy’ and for me its a value science than intellectual curiosity. So, I was not satisfied with a definition.

I am unable to guess what your intentions are. If you can explain it better then why question me ?

If so, and just because the term’ Maya’ does not appear in the major Upanishads(First 10mentioned in mukthika), you could have avoided this technical enigmatic expression instead of 'Avidya'.. With all basis for evidence, ‘Avidya’ appears in key Upanishads like ‘Isa’.

Again, if you know the Upanishads better than me, why force me to answer a question in "your terms" ?

Please forgive me for not being able to come up to your expectations. I am not here to win a game on "I know better than you". If you think, you know better than me ... please share freely for everyone's benefit what you know and please don't try to force out the answer from me that you already know. If you are asking a question then I presume that you are asking for your knowledge & not for judging my depth of knowledge. If the intention is to judge my depth of knowledge, please forgive me.

P.S. May I ask you to check what meaning Avidya carries in IsA Upanishad ? Does it have the same meaning as your post suggests ?

OM

[brahman]

Namaste Brahman,



I am unable to guess what your intentions are. If you can explain it better then why question me ?



Again, if you know the Upanishads better than me, why force me to answer a question in "your terms" ?

Please forgive me for not being able to come up to your expectations. I am not here to win a game on "I know better than you". If you think, you know better than me ... please share freely for everyone's benefit what you know and please don't try to force out the answer from me that you already know. If you are asking a question then I presume that you are asking for your knowledge & not for judging my depth of knowledge. If the intention is to judge my depth of knowledge, please forgive me.

P.S. May I ask you to check what meaning Avidya carries in IsA Upanishad ? Does it have the same meaning as your post suggests ?

OM

Dear devotee,

Myself being inexperienced on the traditional sciences, I was always comfortable discussing vital topics with a knowledgeable person like you. I am sorry if you mistook my remark on a personal sense.

So, I still need to clarify myself. I said I was not satisfied with definitions and was inclined more towards value sciences. But, your particular answer did satisfy me, and so did Anirvan . And I thanked you for that.

To elucidate, I don’t regard an arithmetical apprehending approach to 'knowledge' either. I mean, ‘Know it differently’ and IT’S NOT ‘knowing less’ or ‘knowing more’.

Uniqueness is the character of Brahman. We are not different from Brahman. And so we too are unique, we can’t expect the others to act the same way we do it. I am very well aware of it.

Apologies if I have hurt anyone.

To resolve the issues and conclude this discussion in a delighted manner, I repeat my Param Guru’s words once again:

“Not to argue and win, but to learn and to let learn should be our motto.”
Love

[devotee]

Namaste Brahman,

Dear devotee,

Myself being inexperienced on the traditional sciences, I was always comfortable discussing vital topics with a knowledgeable person like you. I am sorry if you mistook my remark on a personal sense.

So, I still need to clarify myself. I said I was not satisfied with definitions and was inclined more towards value sciences. But, your particular answer did satisfy me, and so did Anirvan . And I thanked you for that.

To elucidate, I don’t regard an arithmetical apprehending approach to 'knowledge' either. I mean, ‘Know it differently’ and IT’S NOT ‘knowing less’ or ‘knowing more’.

Uniqueness is the character of Brahman. We are not different from Brahman. And so we too are unique, we can’t expect the others to act the same way we do it. I am very well aware of it.

Apologies if I have hurt anyone.

To resolve the issues and conclude this discussion in a delighted manner, I repeat my Param Guru’s words once again:

“Not to argue and win, but to learn and to let learn should be our motto.”
Love

Sorry, it was my fault. I read too much into your posts.

Best wishes ...

OM