N
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Atman and its adjectives
- Thread starter Dr.S.Ramanathan
- Start date
- Status
N
nachi naga
Guest
re
renu,
let me re-phrase it a bit.the chariot cannot exist without sarathy.as the sarathy can exist without chariot.people get enamoured by the chariot forgetting sarathy is the doer,not the other way around.without the sarathy the chariot is inert.atman is the sarathy.body is the chariot.atman exists without body.body cannot exist without atman,it will rot and decmpose eventually,to mingle back to base elements of pancha bhootha.
nachi naga.
renu,
let me re-phrase it a bit.the chariot cannot exist without sarathy.as the sarathy can exist without chariot.people get enamoured by the chariot forgetting sarathy is the doer,not the other way around.without the sarathy the chariot is inert.atman is the sarathy.body is the chariot.atman exists without body.body cannot exist without atman,it will rot and decmpose eventually,to mingle back to base elements of pancha bhootha.
nachi naga.
N
nachi naga
Guest
renu,
to know about god and whether god favors atheist or theist or agnostic=one must be god?
lord dattatreya took avataram at shirdi,now in puttaparthi and in future mandya.
bhagavan sathya sai baba has in his discourses said,i know i am divine,so are you for the rest of the jeevans.the source for all of us in the world is the same.as we all are from god and to god we return,in a cyclic process.based on karunya karma.
nachi naga.
namaste Nara.
Yes, definitely; specially what we have assumed as the security blanket provided by Science, under cover of which we seek to defy God and challenge his words.
The question is, "Who or what has the adhikAra--entitlement/authority, and the yogyatA--ability/eligibility/fitness, to validate the recorded knowledge of the Rishis, which is not theirs but God's own words?" The thought that scientists and Science can do it can at best be a pipe dream.
The classic science of Newton and Darvin needed validation because they were flawed. The knowledge as revealed by God in the Vedas is for ever flawless. After the Vedic Rishis gave it to mankind, it has indeed been verified by so many eligible Hindu sages from the PurANic to the present time, and has been experientially found to be the only real and ultimate knowledge that mankind can ever obtain. BhagavAn through SanAtana Dharma has given the liberty to anyone to verify and validate it, not intellectually, but in experience, and that requires far more rigorous qualifications than needed by Science.
Faith, when it comes to the Vedas and God, does not require any proof of authenticity.
My dear professor, when there is a fundamental difference between your and our approach to Reality, how can we agree on its manifest nuances?
• For us, there is an Absolute Reality, which as the Universal Consciousness, is the backdrop, witness and reference to all the changing realities and these changing realities it projects and superimposes on itself. For you, the changing reality is THE REALITY and the AR is only an unknowable concept.
• You call mithya unreality, whereas for us it is the changing and conditional reality of the world. For us the subjective reality of dreams is also mithya. For you, both these kinds of realities are on par with THE REALITY.
• The only thing we agree is about the unreality as being something that does not exist.
In this background:
• Vedas are immutable, yes, because they are flawless. Science is self correcting, yes, because it is always flawed.
• Vedas are inerrant by diktat, yes, because they are revelations from God. Science must prove itself time and again, because it is time and space dependent.
• Vedas require blind faith? Far from it. As I said above, anyone who has the adhikAra and yogyata can very well seek to verify the knowledge of the Vedas, not intellectually, but only experientially. The reality, finality and beauty of this knowledge is that although experience is subjective (that is personal), everyone who has it finds the ultimate knowledge to be the same!
• Compare this with the knowledge afforded by Science, which is at best subjective with reference to a group, and percolates down as shabda in the textbooks to the common people, depending on the power and influence of this group.
The term 'shabda pramANa' for Vedas is a yaugika name--kAraNap peyar. The generic meaning of the term is 'sound proof (pun intended)', which is the proof through spoken/written words. In this generic meaning, it does apply to the teaching of science to common people.
When a Hindu switches on the light for the first time in the evening, he thanks God by lighting tapping his chin. Only then he thinks about Science, which he sure does. He has his measure of thanks both to the Science and the Vedas, and knows very well that while Science can only illuminate his external world, the Vedas in the form of GAyatrI illuminates his buddhi about the internal world, which for him is as much--actually more--essential.
Why when start typing my response, when I wake up in the morning, I realize that it is due to God's grace that he has provided me one more day to live, so it is him I must thank and seek to know him better through his Vedas. It is that grace that has provided Science to mankind, although some people conceitedly, wrongly and ignorantly think that only they provide the knowledge and application through their discoveries in Science.
I don't think I should seek to provide an atheist/agnostic, any proof from the Vedas for the nirguNa, saguNa brahman and the jagat, specially when I know he won't accept them as such.
I said some posts back, "Different strokes for difference folks', and so it is. Thanks Prof. Nara, for your interactions.
Yes, definitely; specially what we have assumed as the security blanket provided by Science, under cover of which we seek to defy God and challenge his words.
The question is, "Who or what has the adhikAra--entitlement/authority, and the yogyatA--ability/eligibility/fitness, to validate the recorded knowledge of the Rishis, which is not theirs but God's own words?" The thought that scientists and Science can do it can at best be a pipe dream.
The classic science of Newton and Darvin needed validation because they were flawed. The knowledge as revealed by God in the Vedas is for ever flawless. After the Vedic Rishis gave it to mankind, it has indeed been verified by so many eligible Hindu sages from the PurANic to the present time, and has been experientially found to be the only real and ultimate knowledge that mankind can ever obtain. BhagavAn through SanAtana Dharma has given the liberty to anyone to verify and validate it, not intellectually, but in experience, and that requires far more rigorous qualifications than needed by Science.
Faith, when it comes to the Vedas and God, does not require any proof of authenticity.
My dear professor, when there is a fundamental difference between your and our approach to Reality, how can we agree on its manifest nuances?
• For us, there is an Absolute Reality, which as the Universal Consciousness, is the backdrop, witness and reference to all the changing realities and these changing realities it projects and superimposes on itself. For you, the changing reality is THE REALITY and the AR is only an unknowable concept.
• You call mithya unreality, whereas for us it is the changing and conditional reality of the world. For us the subjective reality of dreams is also mithya. For you, both these kinds of realities are on par with THE REALITY.
• The only thing we agree is about the unreality as being something that does not exist.
In this background:
• Vedas are immutable, yes, because they are flawless. Science is self correcting, yes, because it is always flawed.
• Vedas are inerrant by diktat, yes, because they are revelations from God. Science must prove itself time and again, because it is time and space dependent.
• Vedas require blind faith? Far from it. As I said above, anyone who has the adhikAra and yogyata can very well seek to verify the knowledge of the Vedas, not intellectually, but only experientially. The reality, finality and beauty of this knowledge is that although experience is subjective (that is personal), everyone who has it finds the ultimate knowledge to be the same!
• Compare this with the knowledge afforded by Science, which is at best subjective with reference to a group, and percolates down as shabda in the textbooks to the common people, depending on the power and influence of this group.
The term 'shabda pramANa' for Vedas is a yaugika name--kAraNap peyar. The generic meaning of the term is 'sound proof (pun intended)', which is the proof through spoken/written words. In this generic meaning, it does apply to the teaching of science to common people.
When a Hindu switches on the light for the first time in the evening, he thanks God by lighting tapping his chin. Only then he thinks about Science, which he sure does. He has his measure of thanks both to the Science and the Vedas, and knows very well that while Science can only illuminate his external world, the Vedas in the form of GAyatrI illuminates his buddhi about the internal world, which for him is as much--actually more--essential.
Why when start typing my response, when I wake up in the morning, I realize that it is due to God's grace that he has provided me one more day to live, so it is him I must thank and seek to know him better through his Vedas. It is that grace that has provided Science to mankind, although some people conceitedly, wrongly and ignorantly think that only they provide the knowledge and application through their discoveries in Science.
I don't think I should seek to provide an atheist/agnostic, any proof from the Vedas for the nirguNa, saguNa brahman and the jagat, specially when I know he won't accept them as such.
I said some posts back, "Different strokes for difference folks', and so it is. Thanks Prof. Nara, for your interactions.
N
nachi naga
Guest
re
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Give up the feelings "I" and "you". Only then can you understand the glory of that which is neither “I” nor “mine”. This does not mean you renounce everything. Deal with the world as duty demands, in a spirit of detachment. The acid test by which an activity can be confirmed as holy and sacred is to examine whether it promotes attachment or bondage. The activity is unholy or sinful if it arises from or promotes greed. With the intent of fulfilling your legitimate duties, pray to God to keep you alive for a hundred years. You will not incur blame. This is the lesson from true education.-Sai Baba.[/FONT]
- Divine Discourse, Vidya Vahini.
N
Nara
Guest
Dear brother saidevo, greetings!
This is the second time you want to sign off without addressing my main questions about Vedic pramana for,
Please permit me to make a few observation before signing off from my side.
Terminologies matter as they are the means by which we communicate our thoughts. We cannot simply define terms like unreal the way we want. For anything that changes there is a perfectly suitable word like asat/immutable. When we use terms like mitya/unreal and say it just means that which changes, then the rest of us will have to just grin and bear it.
Science is incomplete as it represents the sum total of verifiable human knowledge, but it is not flawed. Just because scientific knowledge at the leading edge is not well settled and subject to further modification until it becomes settled, it is not flawed.
Deriving legitimacy for something with the claim that it is revealed by God is completely arbitrary and self-serving. The same God seems to have revealed different messages to different tribes.
If we have science on the one hand and religion on the other, and if science has its own peers to verify and validate the claims made, then who are the ones with adhikAra and yogyatA among the religious people? I think if I suggest the names of the three great saints of Vaideekic thought, most religious people in this forum would not object.
Now, Bhagavat Ramanuja does not agree with Adi Shankara. Swami Madhwachariyar does not agree with the other two. Even within the vaideekas there is no consensus, not to mention other orthodox schools of thought and other heterodox religions like Buddism, jainsism that reject Vedas, and Christianity and Islam that reject rebirth. With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?
All said and done, all these religious theories have done nothing to improve the human condition. How much ever flawed science may be, it has done that.
Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience.
Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic.
Cheers!
This is the second time you want to sign off without addressing my main questions about Vedic pramana for,
- jagath is unreal
- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal
Please permit me to make a few observation before signing off from my side.
Terminologies matter as they are the means by which we communicate our thoughts. We cannot simply define terms like unreal the way we want. For anything that changes there is a perfectly suitable word like asat/immutable. When we use terms like mitya/unreal and say it just means that which changes, then the rest of us will have to just grin and bear it.
Science is incomplete as it represents the sum total of verifiable human knowledge, but it is not flawed. Just because scientific knowledge at the leading edge is not well settled and subject to further modification until it becomes settled, it is not flawed.
Deriving legitimacy for something with the claim that it is revealed by God is completely arbitrary and self-serving. The same God seems to have revealed different messages to different tribes.
If we have science on the one hand and religion on the other, and if science has its own peers to verify and validate the claims made, then who are the ones with adhikAra and yogyatA among the religious people? I think if I suggest the names of the three great saints of Vaideekic thought, most religious people in this forum would not object.
Now, Bhagavat Ramanuja does not agree with Adi Shankara. Swami Madhwachariyar does not agree with the other two. Even within the vaideekas there is no consensus, not to mention other orthodox schools of thought and other heterodox religions like Buddism, jainsism that reject Vedas, and Christianity and Islam that reject rebirth. With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?
All said and done, all these religious theories have done nothing to improve the human condition. How much ever flawed science may be, it has done that.
Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience.
Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic.
Cheers!
N
nachi naga
Guest
That which has no origin knows no beginning. It was before everything or anything was. There was nothing prior to it. For that very reason, It has no end. It expands as far as It wills, progresses as diverse as it feels, and through Its Fullness, It fills the Universe too. Knowledge of this Supreme Principle is known as Vidya, Knowledge, Wisdom, Awareness.
Many seers with manifold experience of this unique Awareness have visualised in their illumined hearts the sovereign secret underlying the captivating beauty of the Cosmos; compassion towards humanity has prompted them to communicate the vision through human language to arouse the innate thirst in the soul for immersion in that Bliss. Vidya causes this urge in the hearts of the seers.
Sound is the very core of the Veda. Sound is associated with harmony and melody and hence the Veda has to be heard and ecstasy derived therefrom. It is not to be analysed, commented upon and judged. This is the reason why the Veda is called Sruti ('That which is heard'). Through listening to its recital alone the awareness of the Atma and of the Bliss it confers can be earned. This Bliss thus acquired manifests in words and deeds that confer bliss on all around.
vidya vahini-sai baba
Many seers with manifold experience of this unique Awareness have visualised in their illumined hearts the sovereign secret underlying the captivating beauty of the Cosmos; compassion towards humanity has prompted them to communicate the vision through human language to arouse the innate thirst in the soul for immersion in that Bliss. Vidya causes this urge in the hearts of the seers.
Sound is the very core of the Veda. Sound is associated with harmony and melody and hence the Veda has to be heard and ecstasy derived therefrom. It is not to be analysed, commented upon and judged. This is the reason why the Veda is called Sruti ('That which is heard'). Through listening to its recital alone the awareness of the Atma and of the Bliss it confers can be earned. This Bliss thus acquired manifests in words and deeds that confer bliss on all around.
vidya vahini-sai baba
namaste Nara.
Yes, I really want to sign off our discussions, but you seem to insist that I have difficulty in giving you Veda pramANa for the above concepts you have quoted.
You need to understand one thing: just because the exact terms 'mithyA', 'saguNa brahman', 'nirguNa brahman' are not found in the Vedas in their identical forms, it does not mean that the concepts behind them are absent in the Vedas. Sanskrit provides dhAtus--roots, which are used to coin new words based on strict regulations, to express derived meanings.
If you insist on such exact findings, I would in turn ask you to establish the Biblic/other original source for the English coined words such as 'stagflation, cosmophobia, cyberspace' and so on.
brahma satyam jagat mithyA
The terms in question, have the following derivations:
• jagat: from the dhAtus--roots, ja--jAyate--arise/originate/born; and ga--gamana--that which goes/moves/changes. Thus the term 'jagat' means 'the moving/changing world that arose/originated'.
• mithyA: from the dhAtu 'mith' for which Apte gives five meanings:
01. To associate with; 02. To unite, pair, copulate; 03. To hurt, injure, strike, kill; 04. To understand, perceive, know; 05. To wrangle (i.e., to herd).
When we seek to appy these meanings to Brahman and jagat, we find that except the third, all the other meanings match, giving an idea of the different factets of the world:
01. Only Brahman exists, jagat is associated with him/it.
02. Only Brahman exists, and he forms the jagat uniting with mAyA (whereby he becomes saguNa brahman). It is for this reason that mAyA is called the shakti--power, of saguNa Brahman, and in the TrimUrti, who are forms of saguNa Brahman, the pair is personified as consorts: BrahmA-SarasvatI, ViShNu-LakShmI, Shiva-PArvatI. (The term 'maithuna' meaning 'connected by marriage' is also derived from the root 'mith').
04. Only Brahman exists, and jagat, comprising its jIva prapancha--universe of beings, is formed to (ultimately) know/understand/perceive Brahman as its substratum.
05. Only Brahman exists, who forms the jagat with all its jIvas and wrangles--that is, herds, and he/it tends them.
What is explained above is based on the contents of this blog: kaal - Chiron...: Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya
where the author also traces the connection of these meanings with Advaita, VishiShtadvaita and Dvaita.
Now, the Vedic pramANa for the concept 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' are:
• ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.
--Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1
• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.
--Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda
• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman.
-- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda
Everything here is Brahman, but it hardly seems so, because of their limitations in matter, mind, and intellect; these limitations appear to measure out, compartmentalize and dilute the nature of Brahman and make the One look like the Many, because of the power of mAyA--restrained dispensations (from ma--measure out, ya--restrain/regulate). This is how the popular meaning 'Brahman is real, the world is only an illusion' came about.
saguNa brahman
There is much evidence for the origin of the concept of TrimUrti--BrahmA, ViShNu, Shiva in the Vedas, which honour all the three Gods, who are the manifestations of saguNa Brahman, equally. For actual references, please read the booklet Explaining the Gods published by SAKSHI (downloadable at: Please sign in to your eSnips account).
nirguNa brahman as the only reality
The Rig Veda text 'ekam sat' and the three mahAvAkyas given above, besides the other mahAvAkyas given in my post #24 of this thread.
This made me laugh--perhaps one of the best jokes I have ever heard! The 'improvement of human conditions' by Science is too well known to be discussed/debated here.
Alright, Prof.Nara, you have your own precious work, I have my precious svAdhyAya, you are west and I am east, so 'never the twain shall meet'; therefore, allow me to sign off our discussion with this post.
**********
Yes, I really want to sign off our discussions, but you seem to insist that I have difficulty in giving you Veda pramANa for the above concepts you have quoted.
You need to understand one thing: just because the exact terms 'mithyA', 'saguNa brahman', 'nirguNa brahman' are not found in the Vedas in their identical forms, it does not mean that the concepts behind them are absent in the Vedas. Sanskrit provides dhAtus--roots, which are used to coin new words based on strict regulations, to express derived meanings.
If you insist on such exact findings, I would in turn ask you to establish the Biblic/other original source for the English coined words such as 'stagflation, cosmophobia, cyberspace' and so on.
brahma satyam jagat mithyA
The terms in question, have the following derivations:
• jagat: from the dhAtus--roots, ja--jAyate--arise/originate/born; and ga--gamana--that which goes/moves/changes. Thus the term 'jagat' means 'the moving/changing world that arose/originated'.
• mithyA: from the dhAtu 'mith' for which Apte gives five meanings:
01. To associate with; 02. To unite, pair, copulate; 03. To hurt, injure, strike, kill; 04. To understand, perceive, know; 05. To wrangle (i.e., to herd).
When we seek to appy these meanings to Brahman and jagat, we find that except the third, all the other meanings match, giving an idea of the different factets of the world:
01. Only Brahman exists, jagat is associated with him/it.
02. Only Brahman exists, and he forms the jagat uniting with mAyA (whereby he becomes saguNa brahman). It is for this reason that mAyA is called the shakti--power, of saguNa Brahman, and in the TrimUrti, who are forms of saguNa Brahman, the pair is personified as consorts: BrahmA-SarasvatI, ViShNu-LakShmI, Shiva-PArvatI. (The term 'maithuna' meaning 'connected by marriage' is also derived from the root 'mith').
04. Only Brahman exists, and jagat, comprising its jIva prapancha--universe of beings, is formed to (ultimately) know/understand/perceive Brahman as its substratum.
05. Only Brahman exists, who forms the jagat with all its jIvas and wrangles--that is, herds, and he/it tends them.
What is explained above is based on the contents of this blog: kaal - Chiron...: Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya
where the author also traces the connection of these meanings with Advaita, VishiShtadvaita and Dvaita.
Now, the Vedic pramANa for the concept 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' are:
• ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.
--Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1
• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.
--Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda
• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman.
-- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda
Everything here is Brahman, but it hardly seems so, because of their limitations in matter, mind, and intellect; these limitations appear to measure out, compartmentalize and dilute the nature of Brahman and make the One look like the Many, because of the power of mAyA--restrained dispensations (from ma--measure out, ya--restrain/regulate). This is how the popular meaning 'Brahman is real, the world is only an illusion' came about.
saguNa brahman
There is much evidence for the origin of the concept of TrimUrti--BrahmA, ViShNu, Shiva in the Vedas, which honour all the three Gods, who are the manifestations of saguNa Brahman, equally. For actual references, please read the booklet Explaining the Gods published by SAKSHI (downloadable at: Please sign in to your eSnips account).
nirguNa brahman as the only reality
The Rig Veda text 'ekam sat' and the three mahAvAkyas given above, besides the other mahAvAkyas given in my post #24 of this thread.
This made me laugh--perhaps one of the best jokes I have ever heard! The 'improvement of human conditions' by Science is too well known to be discussed/debated here.
Alright, Prof.Nara, you have your own precious work, I have my precious svAdhyAya, you are west and I am east, so 'never the twain shall meet'; therefore, allow me to sign off our discussion with this post.
**********
N
Nara
Guest
Dear brother saidevo, greetings!
I also thought I was signing off, but you have come back with an exegesis of terms but leave the central question not satisfactorily answered. There is no intent to force an answer from you, but a reluctance to discuss is surprising.
The main issue is Vedic pramana for some central concepts like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika; nirguna and saguna; or jagat is mitya/unreal because it is created. With Ishwara being not just nimitta karana, but upAdhaana karana as well, how can jagath be interpreted to mean mithya/unreal.
Your citations from Vedas do not address any of the above:
I may be living in the west, but in as much as my formative years were in India, I am also of the East. Rudyard Kipling not withstanding, if there is a desire the twain can meet.
Cheers!
I also thought I was signing off, but you have come back with an exegesis of terms but leave the central question not satisfactorily answered. There is no intent to force an answer from you, but a reluctance to discuss is surprising.
The main issue is Vedic pramana for some central concepts like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika; nirguna and saguna; or jagat is mitya/unreal because it is created. With Ishwara being not just nimitta karana, but upAdhaana karana as well, how can jagath be interpreted to mean mithya/unreal.
Your citations from Vedas do not address any of the above:
Now, the Vedic pramANa for the concept 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' are:
• ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.--Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1
• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.--Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda
• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman. -- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda
None of these can mean jagath is mithya/unreal. • ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.--Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1
• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.--Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda
• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman. -- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda
ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
"Ekam sat" simply means only one is unchanging, how can this mean jagat is mitya/unreal.
ekam evadvitiyam brahma
This is preceded by "agre", at that time, i.e. during pralayam before shrushti begins, there was only one, and no two. This is not to say the jagat created by Ishwara is mitya/unreal.
prajnanam brahma
This is not germane in this context.
sarvaM khalvidaM brahma
If anything this, statement only says everything is real, not mitya.
I may be living in the west, but in as much as my formative years were in India, I am also of the East. Rudyard Kipling not withstanding, if there is a desire the twain can meet.
Cheers!
N
nachi naga
Guest
re
The expression 'God is nowhere' can remain unchanged; there is no need to confront or contradict it. The only thing necessary is to read the 'w' in 'where' in conjunction with the previous 'no,' so that it becomes 'God is now here!' The negative suddenly becomes positive. Similarly, by merely unifying in one direction the multidirectional vision now directed on the universe, the distinctions and the differences disappear and the Many becomes One. -Vidya Vahini Sai Baba.
The expression 'God is nowhere' can remain unchanged; there is no need to confront or contradict it. The only thing necessary is to read the 'w' in 'where' in conjunction with the previous 'no,' so that it becomes 'God is now here!' The negative suddenly becomes positive. Similarly, by merely unifying in one direction the multidirectional vision now directed on the universe, the distinctions and the differences disappear and the Many becomes One. -Vidya Vahini Sai Baba.
Shri. Nara,
For questions regarding things like Jagat or Atman, I will leave for scholarly people to answer them as it is beyond my scope of knowledge. I would just like to give my opinion on the various schools of Vedantic thought and the religions. One thing which is a striking feature when you look at the major non-Hindu religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism all came about in the last 2500 years in this kali-yuga period. But mankind precedes these religions way back and it is now an accepted fact that people of those ages were nature worshipers including a number of deities as confirmed by the Egyptian, Sumerian and Greek civilizations meaning civilizations all over the world had a common source called the Sanatana Dharma which continues even today in the form of Hinduism with a number of deities, nature worship and fire worship. Going back to the fact that varnas were created at the beginning of Kali-Yuga, the Vedas were divided at the beginning of this Yuga and a number of religions each claiming superiority sprang in this yuga, I think it all ordained according to a divine plan which foresaw a general decline in the spirituality of people, dharma and suiting the swabhavam of the people of this yuga.
In other words, the source is just One which is the Brahman or the Supreme but the various religions created to suit the standards of that era. It is up to the people to experience this personally. A man can be standing at the banks of the tributary of Ganga but think the tributary is Ganga itself. Can Ganga be faulted for this?
The beauty of the Hindu religion is the multitude of Vedantic thought itself. You choose the thought which suits your mental makeup at that point of time but you don't stop there but keep digging for the truth. This is the essence of our religion. Even other religions have multitude of thought but in Hinduism we don't end up killing each other. Rather differences in opinion were reconciled by Vaadham or Tarka and many a time the defeated party ends up as a disciple of the victor and not killing the victor. I will only talk for a apaureshaya religion like Hinduism. But even taking the man-made religions like Islam or Christianity supposedly containing violent passages in the Quran and the Bible, there are a huge number of people who don't believe in them or discard them. So finally it all boils down to one's intellect of what you want to see, how you see it and how you interpret it. If we interpret religion or god in a very narrow minded and self centric way that is what we will get. We reap what we sow.
I will not agree that religion has caused all this misery. On the contrary, man in the name of religion has caused all this which he will still cause even if there is no religion or god. For the simple reason, the mind can never be still. That is why all these rituals, karmanushtanam, atma vicharanai and so on have been created to still the mind and make it focus. Material development is taken care of by Science while spiritual development is in the realms of religion and god. Again man in the name of Science has created monsters for which even the coming generations are going to be accountable.
There are lot of personal experiences which cannot be scientifically measured and verified because science has still not come up with the instruments to measure them. Again scientific measurability is limited by the human brain's potential which has not been exploited fully. What do they say, that even Einstein was using only 13% of his brain. If I am a Scientist and using only, say, 9% of my brain what if these personal experiences are falling in the other 91% which cannot be measured with the instruments currently available. While due respect has to be given to the intellect it is time the other great aspect of the brain which is "intuition" is recognized as well.
Apologies for my ramble.
Thanks
For questions regarding things like Jagat or Atman, I will leave for scholarly people to answer them as it is beyond my scope of knowledge. I would just like to give my opinion on the various schools of Vedantic thought and the religions. One thing which is a striking feature when you look at the major non-Hindu religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism all came about in the last 2500 years in this kali-yuga period. But mankind precedes these religions way back and it is now an accepted fact that people of those ages were nature worshipers including a number of deities as confirmed by the Egyptian, Sumerian and Greek civilizations meaning civilizations all over the world had a common source called the Sanatana Dharma which continues even today in the form of Hinduism with a number of deities, nature worship and fire worship. Going back to the fact that varnas were created at the beginning of Kali-Yuga, the Vedas were divided at the beginning of this Yuga and a number of religions each claiming superiority sprang in this yuga, I think it all ordained according to a divine plan which foresaw a general decline in the spirituality of people, dharma and suiting the swabhavam of the people of this yuga.
In other words, the source is just One which is the Brahman or the Supreme but the various religions created to suit the standards of that era. It is up to the people to experience this personally. A man can be standing at the banks of the tributary of Ganga but think the tributary is Ganga itself. Can Ganga be faulted for this?
The beauty of the Hindu religion is the multitude of Vedantic thought itself. You choose the thought which suits your mental makeup at that point of time but you don't stop there but keep digging for the truth. This is the essence of our religion. Even other religions have multitude of thought but in Hinduism we don't end up killing each other. Rather differences in opinion were reconciled by Vaadham or Tarka and many a time the defeated party ends up as a disciple of the victor and not killing the victor. I will only talk for a apaureshaya religion like Hinduism. But even taking the man-made religions like Islam or Christianity supposedly containing violent passages in the Quran and the Bible, there are a huge number of people who don't believe in them or discard them. So finally it all boils down to one's intellect of what you want to see, how you see it and how you interpret it. If we interpret religion or god in a very narrow minded and self centric way that is what we will get. We reap what we sow.
I will not agree that religion has caused all this misery. On the contrary, man in the name of religion has caused all this which he will still cause even if there is no religion or god. For the simple reason, the mind can never be still. That is why all these rituals, karmanushtanam, atma vicharanai and so on have been created to still the mind and make it focus. Material development is taken care of by Science while spiritual development is in the realms of religion and god. Again man in the name of Science has created monsters for which even the coming generations are going to be accountable.
There are lot of personal experiences which cannot be scientifically measured and verified because science has still not come up with the instruments to measure them. Again scientific measurability is limited by the human brain's potential which has not been exploited fully. What do they say, that even Einstein was using only 13% of his brain. If I am a Scientist and using only, say, 9% of my brain what if these personal experiences are falling in the other 91% which cannot be measured with the instruments currently available. While due respect has to be given to the intellect it is time the other great aspect of the brain which is "intuition" is recognized as well.
Apologies for my ramble.
Thanks
N
nachi naga
Guest
anand plz dont be apologetic.i feel like giving you a 'kunja laddu ' 'mysore paakku' and 'kai murukku' right now sir.total anandam for what you have written.thnx.
nachi naga.
nachi naga.
Dr.S.Ramanathan.
Excellent postings by various learned leaders, but the main issue I raised, namely whether Atman can be equated as Nucleus, has been side tracked .
I would like to reinstate a few things.
* Vedas and Upanishads have never been undisputably assertive in the views expressed. Where they had pramanams, they made assertive statements.
* where they had no personal proof or evidences, but statements which they believed as true, they said, " Brahmavajino vadanti" "those who have understood Brahman say so".
* I would prefer the dissenting group to be called as Rationalists rather than Atheists . Science and religion have benefitted and progressed much because of their questioning.
*While discrediting either Science or Religion, a point to remember is "Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence.
*Wherever affirmative statements have been made in Vedas and upanishads, the onus for finding proof exists with Science until it is found to be correct and proved.
* Whereever Ne ti Ne Ti like statements are made in Vedas and Upanishads, the onus rests more with the religion to meditate upon and prove it or otherwise with a positive approach and science may incidentally discover something to positively prove or disprove such statements.
Regards and Respacts,
Ramanathan.
Excellent postings by various learned leaders, but the main issue I raised, namely whether Atman can be equated as Nucleus, has been side tracked .
I would like to reinstate a few things.
* Vedas and Upanishads have never been undisputably assertive in the views expressed. Where they had pramanams, they made assertive statements.
* where they had no personal proof or evidences, but statements which they believed as true, they said, " Brahmavajino vadanti" "those who have understood Brahman say so".
* I would prefer the dissenting group to be called as Rationalists rather than Atheists . Science and religion have benefitted and progressed much because of their questioning.
*While discrediting either Science or Religion, a point to remember is "Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence.
*Wherever affirmative statements have been made in Vedas and upanishads, the onus for finding proof exists with Science until it is found to be correct and proved.
* Whereever Ne ti Ne Ti like statements are made in Vedas and Upanishads, the onus rests more with the religion to meditate upon and prove it or otherwise with a positive approach and science may incidentally discover something to positively prove or disprove such statements.
Regards and Respacts,
Ramanathan.
N
nachi naga
Guest
Dr.SR,
Atman has chosen a body,to cleanse itself out of karma accumulated,in our samsara.
Proof of existence itself is god,who resides amongst all beings.Omnipotent,Omniscient.
nachi naga.
Atman has chosen a body,to cleanse itself out of karma accumulated,in our samsara.
Proof of existence itself is god,who resides amongst all beings.Omnipotent,Omniscient.
nachi naga.
namaste everyone.
It is not my intention to reopen the advaitin-agnostic debate, but with reference to the mahAvAkya 'tattvamasi', and the question as to who is teaching whom (post 20), this thought occurred to me in a different context, which I just want to share here, not for discussion, but for our contemplation:
Why should 'Brahman--the teacher, teaching Brahman--the student' be so queer? It is only the philosophical equivalent of a man who is a scientist teaching a man who is ordinary--notice that both are humans:
"Hey, you think you are in love and are going heady about it? Gobbledegook, I say! There is no such emotion as love; it is all just the play of the harmone Oxytocin."
Who is real here, the ordinary man, the scientist man, or both?
*****
As to the question of jnAna falling into ajnAna, I have shared a compilation here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/42720-post9.html
This too is for our vichAraNa.
It is not my intention to reopen the advaitin-agnostic debate, but with reference to the mahAvAkya 'tattvamasi', and the question as to who is teaching whom (post 20), this thought occurred to me in a different context, which I just want to share here, not for discussion, but for our contemplation:
Why should 'Brahman--the teacher, teaching Brahman--the student' be so queer? It is only the philosophical equivalent of a man who is a scientist teaching a man who is ordinary--notice that both are humans:
"Hey, you think you are in love and are going heady about it? Gobbledegook, I say! There is no such emotion as love; it is all just the play of the harmone Oxytocin."
Who is real here, the ordinary man, the scientist man, or both?
*****
As to the question of jnAna falling into ajnAna, I have shared a compilation here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/42720-post9.html
This too is for our vichAraNa.
Last edited:
N
Nara
Guest
Post #20 was mine. So, permit me to join the conversation. Saidevo, I know you don't want to engage me directly, so I understand if you don't respond.
A scientist teaching an ordinary man is not the correct analogy. If you want to use this analogy, then it must be scientist teaching herself, which is totally absurd. Why would an all knowing brahman, who surely knows that if advaitam is true that the arjuna standing in front of him is not real, bother to teach him anything?
I know, but there is nothing there that states why a brahman of complete vidya fall into avidya? I invite anyone to explain this to me. Please don't give me a ton of web links to read. Just explain to me in a paragraph or two, why would a brahman full of complete vidya, and devoid of attributes of any kind from which one could possibly infer a second, fall into avidya and become embroiled in maya, when maya should not exist as that would negate advaita?
Cheers!
N
nachi naga
Guest
re
nara,
i know you don't want to engage in a conversation with me directly,so i will understand,if you dont respond.
brahman is the vidya.attaining brahman jnanam is advaitha.one cannot desrcibe the anubavam of nirgunam brahman.a saguna brahman can be explained.i think renu wrote it beautifully in one of the threads.
when choclate is eaten,only then we experiance the taste as chocolate.by writing is it possible to experiance?choclate?
advaitha is for an evolved athma.unless and until the evolution has not taken place,its verily not possible to know.even for vedanta vada,there are parameters upon which such a debate takes place.unless such criteria are established,only futile,one upmanship will follow.
pardon me for asking.how does it really matter to you,whether advaitham,dvaitha,visita-advaitham,acinta bheda abheda,....schools of philosophy exist or do not exist.you have expressed that your view is that of agnostic who does not believe in super-naturals in this forum,we love you just as you are-period.
the all knowing nir guna brahman,took a form as saguna brahman in lord krishna,and since arjuna wanted explanation,lord krishna taught him.the saguna brahman,lord krishna,lord arjuna and others like you and me,will be ashes to ashes,at one point of time.depending upon your karma,you may take up another reincarnation to work your karma out,untill you attain moksham from the cycle of birth-death of the body.
i am reminded of raghys statement in one of the threads,that i am not seeing what you are doing.probably he is right,i still dont understand your motive.are you,nudging us to know better about vedanta? or are you just mocking at us,as imbeciles?agnostic definition is,Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.source,wikepedia.
nachi naga.
nara,
i know you don't want to engage in a conversation with me directly,so i will understand,if you dont respond.
maya,in context is optical illusion.when a mother shows a child,that X is your father,the child happily accepts it as truth,and starts calling X as daddy.when the child grows into a youngman,does it still believe its mother or suspects his mother might have told untruth?when such doubts occur in the mind owing to some reason,as ascertained ,maya comes into play.everything is the same,but some doubts creeps in.my writing in this forum is real.due to some reason,the server crashes and all data vanishes,and no trace at all,does it amount to maya,or can anyone prove the existance of my post?maya is transitory,appears to be there but does not exist.maya,ma=not,ya=that.
brahman is the vidya.attaining brahman jnanam is advaitha.one cannot desrcibe the anubavam of nirgunam brahman.a saguna brahman can be explained.i think renu wrote it beautifully in one of the threads.
when choclate is eaten,only then we experiance the taste as chocolate.by writing is it possible to experiance?choclate?
advaitha is for an evolved athma.unless and until the evolution has not taken place,its verily not possible to know.even for vedanta vada,there are parameters upon which such a debate takes place.unless such criteria are established,only futile,one upmanship will follow.
pardon me for asking.how does it really matter to you,whether advaitham,dvaitha,visita-advaitham,acinta bheda abheda,....schools of philosophy exist or do not exist.you have expressed that your view is that of agnostic who does not believe in super-naturals in this forum,we love you just as you are-period.
the all knowing nir guna brahman,took a form as saguna brahman in lord krishna,and since arjuna wanted explanation,lord krishna taught him.the saguna brahman,lord krishna,lord arjuna and others like you and me,will be ashes to ashes,at one point of time.depending upon your karma,you may take up another reincarnation to work your karma out,untill you attain moksham from the cycle of birth-death of the body.
i am reminded of raghys statement in one of the threads,that i am not seeing what you are doing.probably he is right,i still dont understand your motive.are you,nudging us to know better about vedanta? or are you just mocking at us,as imbeciles?agnostic definition is,Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.source,wikepedia.
nachi naga.
N
Nara
Guest
Nachi naga, I will respond to you if you present a serious argument, but all you do is present declarations and assertions.
Whether Saidevo wants to engage me or not is his call, and I respect that. He has always been very upright, civil, and kind, and it speaks volumes about his character. Whether I agree with his views or not, I respect his sincere contributions to this forum.
Cheers!
namaste Nara.
I sensed you would come up with the objection you have made to the analogy of a scientist man teaching an ordinary man.
Alright, let us have it your way, and see where it takes us:
• A scientist, who is desperately in love with a man, has this dilemma, between her professional self and her personal self:
"What is love, after all? I know it's not an emotion, only the play of the hormone Oxytocin. Yet I have it as an emotion, a desperate emotion at that! Science teaches me that all emotions are just neuro-chemico-electrical reactions in the brain and the body, and yet I can't keep away from them? Who am I, a scientist or a human? Can't a scientist be a human, or a human a scientist? Who is the real me, human or scientist? Or is it all just role play in the drama of life enacted by a Superior Being?"
• A medical doctor who strives hard to cure a lung cancer patient addicted to smoking tobacco, can't avoid smoking it himself, because he is more a human than a doctor.
• There is an overwhelming volume of doctrines and texts of theology, religion, and spirituality and the common people who follow them have no compulsions to teach or convince or speak ill about the principles that an atheist/agnostic/rationalist/scientist holds dear to his heart.
Yet, it is invariably the case that the atheist has an overwhelming compulsion to revile and ridicule the scriptures and principles of a theist, specially of a Hindu, why?
Is it because he feels insecure about his own doctrine, specially in the light of the ups and down of life and the mystery of soul and death?
Is it because these non-theistic people are a minority and feel that there is safety in numbers if they can convice and convert the theists?
Is it because there are no organized doctrines and texts of atheism and that the only way for an atheist is to attack the beliefs of the theists?
Why should an atheist bother about the teachings in the Vedas that a Hindu holds dear to his/her heart and say that they are all only subjective/irrational/superstitious teachings that are unsuitable for today's practical life? (A Hindu by definition is one who believes in the Vedas, karma & reincarnation, and God's avataras.)
If an atheist is confronted in a discussion, with the ramifications of the wide and deep Hindu philosophy, why should he, instead of reasoning it out, ask for their original scriptural proof? Is this because he can't face the derivations of the Vedic philosophy, where it seeks to damage the rationale of Science where it is a vagary?
Last but not the least, when will an atheist learn to think about himself, the Self in him, the self he is and inquire into these aspects of his personality and life? Because if he starts this inquiry, he will find that the answers to all his questions and objections are within him.
I sensed you would come up with the objection you have made to the analogy of a scientist man teaching an ordinary man.
Alright, let us have it your way, and see where it takes us:
• A scientist, who is desperately in love with a man, has this dilemma, between her professional self and her personal self:
"What is love, after all? I know it's not an emotion, only the play of the hormone Oxytocin. Yet I have it as an emotion, a desperate emotion at that! Science teaches me that all emotions are just neuro-chemico-electrical reactions in the brain and the body, and yet I can't keep away from them? Who am I, a scientist or a human? Can't a scientist be a human, or a human a scientist? Who is the real me, human or scientist? Or is it all just role play in the drama of life enacted by a Superior Being?"
• A medical doctor who strives hard to cure a lung cancer patient addicted to smoking tobacco, can't avoid smoking it himself, because he is more a human than a doctor.
• There is an overwhelming volume of doctrines and texts of theology, religion, and spirituality and the common people who follow them have no compulsions to teach or convince or speak ill about the principles that an atheist/agnostic/rationalist/scientist holds dear to his heart.
Yet, it is invariably the case that the atheist has an overwhelming compulsion to revile and ridicule the scriptures and principles of a theist, specially of a Hindu, why?
Is it because he feels insecure about his own doctrine, specially in the light of the ups and down of life and the mystery of soul and death?
Is it because these non-theistic people are a minority and feel that there is safety in numbers if they can convice and convert the theists?
Is it because there are no organized doctrines and texts of atheism and that the only way for an atheist is to attack the beliefs of the theists?
Why should an atheist bother about the teachings in the Vedas that a Hindu holds dear to his/her heart and say that they are all only subjective/irrational/superstitious teachings that are unsuitable for today's practical life? (A Hindu by definition is one who believes in the Vedas, karma & reincarnation, and God's avataras.)
If an atheist is confronted in a discussion, with the ramifications of the wide and deep Hindu philosophy, why should he, instead of reasoning it out, ask for their original scriptural proof? Is this because he can't face the derivations of the Vedic philosophy, where it seeks to damage the rationale of Science where it is a vagary?
Last but not the least, when will an atheist learn to think about himself, the Self in him, the self he is and inquire into these aspects of his personality and life? Because if he starts this inquiry, he will find that the answers to all his questions and objections are within him.
Last edited:
N
nachi naga
Guest
re
nara,
Pray sir,tell us,what you present and assert here in the forum?
Maybe then,i will try to write,as a serious argument.
Existance of god and no god,is going on for eons.You and i,are the new jokers in the pack to continue this tradition,if i may take the liberty of joking with you.
All are our scriptural matter is getting validated with scientific proof.You choose proof,whereas i choose faith.Period.
nachi naga.
nara,
Pray sir,tell us,what you present and assert here in the forum?
Maybe then,i will try to write,as a serious argument.
Existance of god and no god,is going on for eons.You and i,are the new jokers in the pack to continue this tradition,if i may take the liberty of joking with you.
All are our scriptural matter is getting validated with scientific proof.You choose proof,whereas i choose faith.Period.
nachi naga.
N
Nara
Guest
Dear brother Saidevo, Greetings!
The questions is about consistency within a premise one believes in. If one wants to present advaitam, or any other ism, then there is an obligation to be consistent within their own premise. All I am asking for is this consistency. You brought up the analogy of a scientist. All I am asking is why would a scientist try to teach herself/himself that she/he already knows. Only those who believe in advaitam have an obligation to answer this question.
Whether my world view is right or wrong is a legitimate question. I am ready and eager to discuss that. But, whatever the truth may be, if there are inconsistencies within the confines of your own premise, resolving that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of any other position.
No my dear brother Saidevo, I don't revile nor do I ridicule the scriptures and principles of a theist, of any kind, Hindu, or Islam, or Christianity, or Voodoo for that matter. I just don't believe in them, that is all.
Whether my POV is in the minority or majority has nothing to do with whether it is logical or not. I care not a bit about minority or majority. The only thing that matters to me is whether it is reasonable to give an a priori consent or not. I have not seen any evidence so far that permits me to give that consent yet. I am open to any new evidence you or others may provide.
Dear Saidevo, please do not mistake me to be an irreverent trouble maker. However, I want to respectfully disagree with you and ask you to be consistent within your own stated premises.
Cheers!
The questions is about consistency within a premise one believes in. If one wants to present advaitam, or any other ism, then there is an obligation to be consistent within their own premise. All I am asking for is this consistency. You brought up the analogy of a scientist. All I am asking is why would a scientist try to teach herself/himself that she/he already knows. Only those who believe in advaitam have an obligation to answer this question.
Whether my world view is right or wrong is a legitimate question. I am ready and eager to discuss that. But, whatever the truth may be, if there are inconsistencies within the confines of your own premise, resolving that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of any other position.
No my dear brother Saidevo, I don't revile nor do I ridicule the scriptures and principles of a theist, of any kind, Hindu, or Islam, or Christianity, or Voodoo for that matter. I just don't believe in them, that is all.
Whether my POV is in the minority or majority has nothing to do with whether it is logical or not. I care not a bit about minority or majority. The only thing that matters to me is whether it is reasonable to give an a priori consent or not. I have not seen any evidence so far that permits me to give that consent yet. I am open to any new evidence you or others may provide.
I don't. But if you believe in the Vedas, then how come you hold views that are not supported by the Vedas? Tell me where in the Vedas you have support for Vyavaharika satya or saguna brahmman. Why can't I ask you to be consistent with your own stated faith just because I don't happen to hold Vedas as the inerrant and aupoureshaya?
All I am saying is that you have an obligation to be consistent within your own stated premises. If all your thesis is based on Vedas, then I ask you to show me the proof from what you believe in. Why is that a preposterous requirement. I am not asking for a proof outside the realm of your own faith. Why is this unreasonable?
Dear brother, keep an open mind and let "Noble Thoughts come to us from all sides". Look to new and exciting discoveries and you will find that there is nothing other than brain tissue. It is like a magician cutting a lady into half. It all looks real, until you find out it was just a trick. The so called self is nothing but the amygdala making sense of the the inputs the brain receives from the sense organs.
Dear Saidevo, please do not mistake me to be an irreverent trouble maker. However, I want to respectfully disagree with you and ask you to be consistent within your own stated premises.
Cheers!
namate brother Nara.
I am glad that you have reiterated your stand, and I highly appreciate it.
All the questions I have asked about an atheist are only general,--not specifically addressed to you--but they have their own truth behind them.
Now that you have reiterated your position, let me state that I don't consider you to be a trouble maker at all; I respect your views just as you respect mine, although I am a bit concerned that you are not prepared to look into the subjective world at all, just as you are concerned that I am not prepared to think that only this objective world--which is repeatedly rediscovered by Science in different theories and postulations--is all there to Reality.
This is the 'East is East and the West is West' position I spoke of many posts back. The East and West are more in our minds, rather than in our heritage.
To put it in a nutshell,
• in your view "the so called self is nothing but the amygdala making sense...";
• In my view, the so called amygdala is jaDa--insentient/inert--whatever the glories Science seeks to amass on it--unless it is activated by the immanent Self, which is the Universal Consciousness; and, receving this activation of the Self, instead of being grateful about it, the naughty amygdala appropriates it as its personal self, and that is the crux of its inability to think beyond itself. And mind you, this monkey is completely sedated of its naughty, wayward and worldy thoughts in deep sleep by the immanent Self! And there is the final state of turIya from where the pranks of this monkey can be blissfully witnessed!
There are other, far better ways to make sense of the Reality of the World and the Reality behind it.
Just as a scientist has no obligation to make himself intelligible beyond his own group of scientists, I have no obligations beyond my group of Advaitins. All the discussions we hold and their logical derivations and conclusions we come to appreciate, are for our own clarity and convictions of the knowledge of Advaita. We have no obligations towards anyone who does not believe in Advaita to prove that the derivations of our knowledge are from nowhere else than the Vedas and are consistent in its own domain.
Unless you believe in the efficacy of Advaita, and have the willingness and empathy to consider the subjective views of Advaita which alone are relevant in its domain, you have no locus standi* to ask us of these aspects of our Advaitic knowledge.
Queries from non-Advaitins (such as you) are of course useful to us, are welcome, and we seek and provide answers for them, but it's only for our own conviction and betterment of knowledge, rather than to prove anything about the Vedic origin and consistency of Advaita to non-Advaitins who in our opinion might lack the willingness and maturity to appreciate them.
Note:
*I have not used the phrase locus standi in its legal sense. In its common sense, it only means 'a place to stand'. There is nothing illegitimate about a non-Advaitin criticising Advaita, only that the Advaitin has no obligation to prove anything about his knowledge to the other who can't have an inner-eye-to-inner-eye-vision about it.
I am glad that you have reiterated your stand, and I highly appreciate it.
All the questions I have asked about an atheist are only general,--not specifically addressed to you--but they have their own truth behind them.
Now that you have reiterated your position, let me state that I don't consider you to be a trouble maker at all; I respect your views just as you respect mine, although I am a bit concerned that you are not prepared to look into the subjective world at all, just as you are concerned that I am not prepared to think that only this objective world--which is repeatedly rediscovered by Science in different theories and postulations--is all there to Reality.
This is the 'East is East and the West is West' position I spoke of many posts back. The East and West are more in our minds, rather than in our heritage.
To put it in a nutshell,
• in your view "the so called self is nothing but the amygdala making sense...";
• In my view, the so called amygdala is jaDa--insentient/inert--whatever the glories Science seeks to amass on it--unless it is activated by the immanent Self, which is the Universal Consciousness; and, receving this activation of the Self, instead of being grateful about it, the naughty amygdala appropriates it as its personal self, and that is the crux of its inability to think beyond itself. And mind you, this monkey is completely sedated of its naughty, wayward and worldy thoughts in deep sleep by the immanent Self! And there is the final state of turIya from where the pranks of this monkey can be blissfully witnessed!
There are other, far better ways to make sense of the Reality of the World and the Reality behind it.
Just as a scientist has no obligation to make himself intelligible beyond his own group of scientists, I have no obligations beyond my group of Advaitins. All the discussions we hold and their logical derivations and conclusions we come to appreciate, are for our own clarity and convictions of the knowledge of Advaita. We have no obligations towards anyone who does not believe in Advaita to prove that the derivations of our knowledge are from nowhere else than the Vedas and are consistent in its own domain.
Unless you believe in the efficacy of Advaita, and have the willingness and empathy to consider the subjective views of Advaita which alone are relevant in its domain, you have no locus standi* to ask us of these aspects of our Advaitic knowledge.
Queries from non-Advaitins (such as you) are of course useful to us, are welcome, and we seek and provide answers for them, but it's only for our own conviction and betterment of knowledge, rather than to prove anything about the Vedic origin and consistency of Advaita to non-Advaitins who in our opinion might lack the willingness and maturity to appreciate them.
Note:
*I have not used the phrase locus standi in its legal sense. In its common sense, it only means 'a place to stand'. There is nothing illegitimate about a non-Advaitin criticising Advaita, only that the Advaitin has no obligation to prove anything about his knowledge to the other who can't have an inner-eye-to-inner-eye-vision about it.
tbs
0
hi saidevo...
yes .. u r rite...only advaithins can understand advaita....like
a moon in lake....many water pots looklike many moons...
but the ONLY ONE MOON relected in many pots....like nirguna
brahman reflected in many saguna roopa objects....
regards
tbs
N
nachi naga
Guest
re
sairam saidevo.thank you for this brilliant writing from you,and wish to thank nara too,as without his agnostic view,this gem from saidevo would not have got printed in the forum.
nara like ravana,has done his role.thank you nara.
naga nachi.
sairam saidevo.thank you for this brilliant writing from you,and wish to thank nara too,as without his agnostic view,this gem from saidevo would not have got printed in the forum.
nara like ravana,has done his role.thank you nara.
naga nachi.
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
Wanted Need of a Brahmin lady cook in AdambakkamRequire a Brahmin female cook in 40s to 60 to cook for a family of 4 adults +2 kids in...
- LakshmiRajesh (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Need Brahmin cook for homeBrahmin cook needed to make breakfast and lunch at home (Mylapore) for 4 people. Please text...
- ram1618 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
-
-
Announcement Hobby Classes.Hobby art classes are conducted by an experienced senior lady for high school children and adult...
- rckappu (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated: