Atman and its adjectives

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Brother Saidevo, Greetings!

...unless it is activated by the immanent Self, which is the Universal Consciousness; and, receving this activation of the Self,

Here I would like to invoke the principle of logic called Occam's razor. When we are faced with insufficient knowledge about a question, then an answer that requires fewest assumptions is usually the correct one. So, an answer that requires a non-physical entity cannot be logically accepted unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Until such time it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is illogical to just assume it anyway.

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.

I agree that there is no obligation, nobody can be forced to have a dialog. But the scholars of yore never took this stand. They debated with anyone who showed up and challenged them.

For a reasonable debate to occur all we need to do is define the boundaries, not restrict it to the extent that a debate cannot occur. In our exchanges here, the boundary is the Vedas. In as much as you claim to derive your position on the authority of the Vedas this boundary must be acceptable to you. My locus standi comes from the fact I am ready to accept any evidence you provide from the Vedas, the source material from which Advaitam is derived.

If Advaitam will be debated only within the Advaitees, then what would be the point, it would just be like mutual admiration society having a group meeting.

Of course there is no obligation, but the questions remain, where is the Vedic authority for Vyavaharika satyam, for Nirguna/Saguna Brahman, why would all knowing unitary brahman take the trouble of teaching himself what he already should know, and so on.

Thank you dear brother, my pranams to you...

 

[nachi naga]

re

nara,

I just don't believe in them, that is all.
So, an answer that requires a non-physical entity cannot be logically accepted unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Until such time it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is illogical to just assume it anyway.

what propels life in a human being and a dead corpse?why a dead corpse cannot be brought alive?consistently?
what propels earth to spin on its own axis,with a wobble?
what propels the light to radiate from poorva phalguni nakshatram to bhu-lokam?why there is time lag fro the light from sun to earth?
why with naked eyes we cannot see the aura around our body?but see it via kirilian photography!!
a simplicitic answere,just like electricity,can be used to power,a radio,a tape,a video,a fridge,a tv....etc the brahman powers the sentient and insentient.to realise such a nirgunam brahman,advaitha vedantham,hepls in the process of realisation.adi shankara acharaya,provided the tools,to understand the vedantha using bhagavath gita,brahma sutras,upanishads.
advaita asserts that the real, essential identity of the jIva of the jivan, the individual self of the beings, is nothing other than brahman Itself. its non-dual.as there is one only.tat twamasi,aham brahmasmi....ayam athma brahman...
While commenting on the mantra सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ‘’satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says: satyam = vyavaharavishayam since this is being mentioned in the context of ’sRishti’ of the world. He adds: this is not paramArthasatyam (absolute reality) since Brahman alone indeed is paramArtha satyam. This vyavaharavishayam satyam is only Apekshikam, relative, empirical.
He explains: when compared to the water in a mirage, the water (that we actually use for drinking, etc.) is real. This is what is meant by ‘vyavaharika satyam’.
That which is not thus real is anRtam, unreal.
PARAMARTHIKA & VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM Adbhutam's Blog
there is no single founder of advaitha,as upanishads are rooted in vedas and vedas are apoureshyam.this is the criteria to vadamfy vedantham.for an atheist or agnostic,proof is required,but inference is not good enough.so be it.
nachi naga.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nachi Naga, and Nara.

Nachi Naga, the link you have given has excellent information, thank you!

Paramarthika & Vyavaharika Satyam
PARAMARTHIKA & VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM Adbhutam's Blog

And here are two more links (there is bound to be more):

01. The Status and Role of Scripture in Advaita
http://www.advaitin.net/Subrahmanian/StatusRoleofScriptureAdvaita.pdf

This essay explains Shankara's concepts in the light of the shRuti, with daily life examples. Of special interest are the following passages in the essay:

• [A book titled ‘Mata-traya-sameekshaa’ (kannada) authored by Dr. Anandatirtha VyshampAyanAcharya Nagasampige, a noted Madhwa Scholar, contains a section on ‘the common features of the three schools, advaita, vishishtadvaita and dvaita.’ Herein is mentioned first and foremost: all the three Acharyas have held the scripture (Veda) to be the basic foundation for the structures that they have raised.]

• Shankaracharya’s are the oldest extant commentaries for the ten principal
Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and the Bhagavadgita. It is based on these
commentaries that the later Acharya’s formulated their systems, although not in
agreement with him. He established matha-s in various parts of the country for the
propagation of the vedic wisdom. If, as the objector contends, Shankara had ‘killed
his mother, the Veda’, all these activities of his would be unaccountable.

*****

02. Vichara on 'Swatantra and Paratantra' (Independent and dependent Realities)
A Vichara on Swatantra and Paratantra (Independent and dependent Realities) : subrahmanian v blogs on sulekha, General blogs, subrahmanian v blog from india

This article explains how even the Dvaida of MAdhvAchArya addresses two levels of reality, and how they are similar to Shankara's three levels--sattA-traividhyam.

*****

03. There is a third link:
A Focused Study Of The 'antaryaami' Of The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
by an Anonymous author
http://www.advaitin.net/Subrahmanian/'AntaryAmi' in Brihadar.pdf

This article talks about the two Atmans and their reality, with shRuti pramANa, from Advaita's point of view.

*****

Prof.Nara, with my scanty reading and knowledge of the shRuti, I can't do anything more than the excellent (IMO) work done by the authors of the above links. I would therefore request you to read them and give us your opinion on them, since you said you have an open mind which is ready to accept "Noble Thoughts ... from all sides". But IMHO, one thing you need to understand: unless you are in a position to admit a metaphysical reality--the reality of the Atman, you can't get around to appreciate the knowledge about them.

 

[Nara]

... I would therefore request you to read them and give us your opinion on them,..

Dear brother Saidevo, I will try to go through the links as time permits, but I am not very optimistic. In the course of my life journey, I have been interested in these matters for a while now and, if I may be permitted a brief indulgence in immodesty, I wouldn't consider myself a complete ignoramus with respect to these polemics.

From what I gather, of the three types of shruti vakyas, bheda, abheda, and ghataka shrutees, abedha shruti appears the fewest times. But, the proponents of Advaitam elevated the abedha shruti to the status of "Mahavakyam" and downgraded the other two to be overruled by the Mahavakyas. Mahavakyas are claimed to supersede the other vakhyas that seem to contradict the so called Mahavakyas. This goes against the very basic principle of inerrancy of Shruthi that all Vaideekas hold.

There is no shruthi pramanam for Vyavaharika satyam. There is no shruthi pramanam for two versions of brahman nirguna and saguna. These are given as explanations for force fitting a square peg into a round hole. Some say Adi Sankara did this to gently nudge the Buddist soonyavadaees to accept Vedas. Whatever may be the case, I have not seen a cogent presentation that satisfactorily answers the charge that there is a disconnect between Advaitam and complete inerrancy of the Vedas.

... unless you are in a position to admit a metaphysical reality--the reality of the Atman, you can't get around to appreciate the knowledge about them.

Dear brother, my world-view is not germane to whether the claims of Advaitam are consistent with the Vedas. Vedic support for the questions I raised either exists, or does not exist, irrespective of whether I believe in the Vedas or not. Is Advaitam truly vedic? The prima facie answer is, it is not.

Cheers and best regards...

 

[nachi naga]

re

nara,

Is Advaitam truly vedic? The prima facie answer is, it is not.

gravitation existed much before newton expounded the laws.similiarly adavitham is the only existance propunded by adi-shankara acharyal,even though advaitham vedantham existed much before adi-shankara acaharyal bhagavathpada.but the credit goes to acharyal,without whom today,hinduism would not exist with such vibrancy.
a professor need not neccessarily understand vedas,and vedas being apoureshyam.the grasp is for enlightened beings not for agnostic beings.as that is your qualification in this forum,we are happy at your level of ignorance and popping samskritham words now and then to confuse us folks,is sure ,a nice try.
plz dont take it personal,its only the agnostic tatva that i am battling,not you as pancha bhootha deham.

Vedic support for the questions I raised either exists, or does not exist, irrespective of whether I believe in the Vedas or not. Is Advaitam truly vedic? The prima facie answer is, it is not.

its like saying,i believe the birth of the child,but NOT the seeding giving father and the egg producing mother?unfortunately people do not understand,that there was never a time or never will be in the future,as in present time,things people beings existed will exist and will continue to exist,as its brahman alone,whose reflections we see with our sense preceptors.in a circle,which already exists as before,now,and in future,where do you have a start middle end?as its cyclic in nature.the same body before takes a new body now and further again is born in a newer body in future.such cycles of life-death of body happens continuously,without any aadi or antham.parat para parmeshwara....we only have the present time,hold the feet of lord hari,get moksham...bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudha mathay...
nachi naga.

 

[sapthajihva]

I have an opinion:

Why is the vakyam phrased as 'tat tvam asi'? The sage intented to convey that there is a substance that pervades all beings, which is why the use of tat (to denote the ever pervading substance) and tvam to denote the gross/atman.

When we say 'dhanyosmi', it does not mean that we become 'dhanyan' per se, but it is an acknowledgement/expression of the feeling that we experience. Similarly, the mahavakyam could very well be taken to construe that the essence is in you, but you are not the essence. The story in which the sage instructs this piece of information, to his son, is also crucial to an understanding of this sentence.

In this way, ramanujacharya's example of 'whiteness' in a dhoti is more fitting, I would think so....

If athman were brahman, the sage could very well have said 'sarvam tvam asi' or 'tat sarvam sTha'...

Peace

 

[sapthajihva]

<<duplicated>>

 

[nachi naga]

re

I have an opinion:

Why is the vakyam phrased as 'tat tvam asi'? The sage intented to convey that there is a substance that pervades all beings, which is why the use of tat (to denote the ever pervading substance) and tvam to denote the gross/atman.

When we say 'dhanyosmi', it does not mean that we become 'dhanyan' per se, but it is an acknowledgement/expression of the feeling that we experience. Similarly, the mahavakyam could very well be taken to construe that the essence is in you, but you are not the essence. The story in which the sage instructs this piece of information, to his son, is also crucial to an understanding of this sentence.

In this way, ramanujacharya's example of 'whiteness' in a dhoti is more fitting, I would think so....

If athman were brahman, the sage could very well have said 'sarvam tvam asi' or 'tat sarvam sTha'...

Peace

different schools of vedanta interpret uniquely

Tat Tvam Asi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

to some advaitic school,is correct.

one truth being interpreted by scholars differently.

whichever appeals to ones mind,is the choice,i guess.

nachi naga.

 

[tbs]

different schools of vedanta interpret uniquely

Tat Tvam Asi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

to some advaitic school,is correct.

one truth being interpreted by scholars differently.

whichever appeals to ones mind,is the choice,i guess.

nachi naga.

hi nach naga sir,
ekam sat viprah bahuda vadanthi.........truth is one....wise men
call it differently....

regards
tbs

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI TBS.

In the Advaitin's view, tat and tvam are not just essentially the same but are identical, or might become identical with the right sAdhana.

Adi Shankara in his work 'dashashlokI' has described this status of identity, and madhusUdana sarasvati in his 'siddhAnta binduH' has treated the subject extensively. I have started reading the English translation by S.N.Sastri, but it takes so much to understand. This book can be downloaded here:

Scribd

I have an opinion:

Why is the vakyam phrased as 'tat tvam asi'? The sage intented to convey that there is a substance that pervades all beings, which is why the use of tat (to denote the ever pervading substance) and tvam to denote the gross/atman.

When we say 'dhanyosmi', it does not mean that we become 'dhanyan' per se, but it is an acknowledgement/expression of the feeling that we experience. Similarly, the mahavakyam could very well be taken to construe that the essence is in you, but you are not the essence. The story in which the sage instructs this piece of information, to his son, is also crucial to an understanding of this sentence.

In this way, ramanujacharya's example of 'whiteness' in a dhoti is more fitting, I would think so....

If athman were brahman, the sage could very well have said 'sarvam tvam asi' or 'tat sarvam sTha'...

Peace

 

[tbs]

namaste shrI TBS.

In the Advaitin's view, tat and tvam are not just essentially the same but are identical, or might become identical with the right sAdhana.

Adi Shankara in his work 'dashashlokI' has described this status of identity, and madhusUdana sarasvati in his 'siddhAnta binduH' has treated the subject extensively. I have started reading the English translation by S.N.Sastri, but it takes so much to understand. This book can be downloaded here:

Scribd

hi saidevo sir,
namasthe, i studied madhusudana saraswati's siddhanta bindu
very extensively...in fact my ph.d thesis based on sri madhusudana
saraswati's vedantakalpalatika....in a critical study...even adi
sankara's brahmasutra bhashya deals about tatvamasi extensively..

regards
tbs

 

[RVR]

hi nach naga sir,
ekam sat viprah bahuda vadanthi.........truth is one....wise men
call it differently....

regards
tbs

TBS sir,

Can you explain the in further.

I accept that there is only one truth.

But how it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Can you explain further on this

All the best

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI TBS.

I am impressed by your scholarship. Probably I may approach you for any doubts in my own reading the 'siddhAnta binduH', although I am reading only the English translation.

hi saidevo sir,
namasthe, i studied madhusudana saraswati's siddhanta bindu
very extensively...in fact my ph.d thesis based on sri madhusudana
saraswati's vedantakalpalatika....in a critical study...even adi
sankara's brahmasutra bhashya deals about tatvamasi extensively..

regards
tbs

 

[renuka]

TBS sir,

Can you explain the in further.

I accept that there is only one truth.

But how it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Can you explain further on this

All the best

Dear RVRJi,

I would like to give a simple example for your question to TBSji...


See take yourself as an example....

You are firstly a son,
Then a husband,
Then a father,
Then a employer etc....Bahuda Vadanti(Multiple roles)

In reality RVRji is Ekam Only...hence Ekam Sat...

Well now we have Ekam Sat and Bahuda Vadanti...but we have no Viprah(wiseperson) here...so I am going to "play" that role and presto..we have Ekam Sat Viprah Bahuda Vadanti...


renu

 

[RVR]

Sister Renuka,

After posting my query to TBS sir, I was further thinking on the topic.

Suddenly it struck me about the `bashyam' for Bagavath Geetha written by three great personalities, Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva.

Bagavath Geetha is just one document and we Hindus believe it as `ultimate Truth' delivered by Baghavan Himself.

But three great intellectuals have written bashyam in their own way. But the bashyams have developed into three great philosophies of Hindu religion.

Hope my thinking is correct and it is in full conformity with TBS sir statement.

All the best

 

[renuka]

Sister Renuka,

After posting my query to TBS sir, I was further thinking on the topic.

Suddenly it struck me about the `bashyam' for Bagavath Geetha written by three great personalities, Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva.

Bagavath Geetha is just one document and we Hindus believe it as `ultimate Truth' delivered by Baghavan Himself.

But three great intellectuals have written bashyam in their own way. But the bashyams have developed into three great philosophies of Hindu religion.

Hope my thinking is correct and it is in full conformity with TBS sir statement.

All the best

Dear RVR anna,

You know I used to wonder if those wise man(viprah) just called the
Truth as the Truth and nothing but the Truth...there would have been less problem in the world today.

renu

 

[nachi naga]

re

hi nach naga sir,
ekam sat viprah bahuda vadanthi.........truth is one....wise men
call it differently....

regards
tbs

sir hi tbs.

despite such an erudite scholar like you,sir you are 'nera kodam' (full of knowledge) ambal maha saraswathi anugraham is so poornam on you.just love your short and sweet replies.wonder how you obtained this grace,maybe poorva janma poonyam.thank you.

nachi naga.

 

[nachi naga]

re

Dear RVRJi,

I would like to give a simple example for your question to TBSji...


See take yourself as an example....

You are firstly a son,
Then a husband,
Then a father,
Then a employer etc....Bahuda Vadanti(Multiple roles)

In reality RVRji is Ekam Only...hence Ekam Sat...

Well now we have Ekam Sat and Bahuda Vadanti...but we have no Viprah(wiseperson) here...so I am going to "play" that role and presto..we have Ekam Sat Viprah Bahuda Vadanti...


renu

sister renu :clap2:

only doctor can write such a genuinely masterpiece

nachi naga

 

[nachi naga]

re

Dear RVR anna,

You know I used to wonder if those wise man(viprah) just called the
Truth as the Truth and nothing but the Truth...there would have been less problem in the world today.

renu

sister renu,

the acharyals did write truth thru their deham,manas and budhi.becoz its individuals it appears as many.problem of today is a problem,only if we consider it as a problem.how about as bhagavan sathya sai baba says,life is a challege face the challenge and be successful....'ellamay numbo eduthikkira vidathil thaan irrukiradhu' bhagavans vaaaku.

nachi naga.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

It seems to me that sages like Sankara, RAmAnuja and MAdhva had widely different definitions and paths for the mokSha, not because they perceived it differently, but because of the Ishvara Adesha--divine orders, of the necessity to cater to the jIvas--human souls of different capabilities. And in Bhagavad GItA, the Lord himself brings about a union of the three streams of liberation.

Similarly, the ShaD-dharshanas are also complementary to the VedAnta of the Uttara MImAMsa. Rishis who authored the six systems of Hindu Philosophy were those treated on par with the Veda Rishis, so it can't be that they did not perceive the Advaitic Unity of Brahman; only that it was their Adesha to play different roles in their teachings.

As KAnchi ParamAchAryAL explains there is no Shiva-ViShNu-BrahmA abheda too. ViShNu always meditates on Shiva's ajapa-haMsa naTanam in his hRdaya, Shiva in turn is a devotee of ViShNu, BrahmA as VAkIsha of the Vedas, along with his consort SarasvatI DevI are forever adored by the other TrimUrtis and so on.

In the Ishvara lIlA, we humans play our roles as he has scripted them. The only difference between us and the above people/Gods is that they knew it was all role play in their drama of samsAra, while with us, ignorance dominates even our intellectual knowledge about our roles.

 

[nachi naga]

re

namaste everyone.

It seems to me that sages like Sankara, RAmAnuja and MAdhva had widely different definitions and paths for the mokSha, not because they perceived it differently, but because of the Ishvara Adesha--divine orders, of the necessity to cater to the jIvas--human souls of different capabilities. And in Bhagavad GItA, the Lord himself brings about a union of the three streams of liberation.

Similarly, the ShaD-dharshanas are also complementary to the VedAnta of the Uttara MImAMsa. Rishis who authored the six systems of Hindu Philosophy were those treated on par with the Veda Rishis, so it can't be that they did not perceive the Advaitic Unity of Brahman; only that it was their Adesha to play different roles in their teachings.

As KAnchi ParamAchAryAL explains there is no Shiva-ViShNu-BrahmA abheda too. ViShNu always meditates on Shiva's ajapa-haMsa naTanam in his hRdaya, Shiva in turn is a devotee of ViShNu, BrahmA as VAkIsha of the Vedas, along with his consort SarasvatI DevI are forever adored by the other TrimUrtis and so on.

In the Ishvara lIlA, we humans play our roles as he has scripted them. The only difference between us and the above people/Gods is that they knew it was all role play in their drama of samsAra, while with us, ignorance dominates even our intellectual knowledge about our roles.

Shabash saidevo :clap2:,nirgunam brahman potri potri potri.

nachi naga.

 

[tbs]

sir hi tbs.

despite such an erudite scholar like you,sir you are 'nera kodam' (full of knowledge) ambal maha saraswathi anugraham is so poornam on you.just love your short and sweet replies.wonder how you obtained this grace,maybe poorva janma poonyam.thank you.

nachi naga.

hi nachi naga sir,
thank u so much....still im a humble learner....i learned advaitha
more than 20 years....still im learning advaitha...im not poornam....
life is short.....i have to learn till my mortal death...i know i have
to change my life as a old cloth into new cloth....death is journey..
not an end....idhu oru thodar kathai....idhuvum kadanthu pogum...

regards
tbs

 

[tbs]

namaste shrI TBS.

I am impressed by your scholarship. Probably I may approach you for any doubts in my own reading the 'siddhAnta binduH', although I am reading only the English translation.

hi saidevo,
namasthe, thank u very much...i did siddhanta bindhu in original
sanskrit with sanskrit tika/translation...i never try to do english...
sometimes original meaning cannot explain in english..so i read
bhashya in sanskrit only...sometimes i personally feel that
i like sri madhusudana saraswati more than adi sankara in advaitha..
in ADVAITHA SIDHHI, sri madhusudana saraswati beautifully
described about advaitha....

regards
tbs

 

[SuryaKasyapa]

Sri Nachi naga,Sri tbs,

Knowledge is also like wealth.

The more we possess, we feel not full, and yearn for more.There is no end.

However, just like wealth, knowledge also, if not distributed , is useless.The owner is called a miser, he gets cursed by others when they know that he possesses so much, and still keeps it to himself.

Unlike wealth, knowledge cannot be stolen ,it grows more on giving to others...


So request is -- be free in sharing your knowledge with all; many can benefit from that.

Regarding English, let us not have an adamant attitude to that.Even a diluted version is better than not knowing anything at all.. Moreover as per the capacity of a person , as a beginner, an abridged version functions as an inspirational inducement for learning further, and he himself will end up only after getting the original.Till then , the proxy, miniature is useful.


Greetings.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

On my invitation Prof.Nara has joined the Hindu Dharma Forums to discuss his outlandish ideas about Advaita and other Hindu concepts vis-a-vis those of Science. I had already started a thread in HDF for my more learned friends there to find answers to Nara's queries. We have arrived at the answers with counter queries to him, which is why Nara's participation was desired.

Prof.Nara has started posting from page 16 of the thread at this link:
How do we counter this argument? - Page 16 - Hindu Dharma Forums

and some interesting things have started happening...

If any members from here wish to join HDF to partake the debate, I welcome them. It may please be noted that HDF is a bit strict about its contents which are geared towards positive presentation of Hindu Dharma, and the initial posts of new members will be moderated. Reading the FAQ is a must for anyone joining the Forum.