bhaja govindam

[a-TB]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

1. While observer driving evolution in atomic, chemical and biological domains is science, a detached internal observer or sAksi in driving evolution is coming from saMkhya and all the sruti literature as in Rg veda, ashtavakra gita, chandogya upanishad etc etc. At some level, yes, this is a belief. I accept.

2. The whole strange point here is how a detached observer helps evolve..? But that's how it all functions. For eg. catalysts help influence the environment of chemical reactants triggering reactions. Dark matter bends space more than what matter could, creating more gravitational heating and evolution of newer elements, while not interacting with matter at all.

3. In the same way, a manas-sAksi which is detached, which help us see our actions as equal to other's actions (or able to think from other person's shoes) helps us see multiple perspective and take more informed decisions, thus evolving us in a better way. (is one way of looking at it)

Thank you, Mr TBT

If you read ‘Why I am not a christian‘ by Bertrand Russel’ he makes A compelling point that many unknown things unexplained and somehow used to justify a God’s action cease their appeal when the phenomena is later explained. I thought not much is known about dark matter yet. They are just models for now. We cannot conclude much from examples and they are not proofs

Point 3 comes under the domain of psychology. Sakshi is not needed for such a conclusion. This evolution idea is problematic when one considers the sutra Tat Tvam ASI which is unconditional.

 

[renuka]

1. While observer driving evolution in atomic, chemical and biological domains is science, a detached internal observer or sAksi in driving evolution is coming from saMkhya and all the sruti literature as in Rg veda, ashtavakra gita, chandogya upanishad etc etc. At some level, yes, this is a belief. I accept.

2. The whole strange point here is how a detached observer helps evolve..? But that's how it all functions. For eg. catalysts help influence the environment of chemical reactants triggering reactions. Dark matter bends space more than what matter could, creating more gravitational heating and evolution of newer elements, while not interacting with matter at all.

3. In the same way, a manas-sAksi which is detached, which help us see our actions as equal to other's actions (or able to think from other person's shoes) helps us see multiple perspective and take more informed decisions, thus evolving us in a better way. (is one way of looking at it)

The Manas-Sakshi is more of an experience.
Its actually hard to explain this unless one has experienced this state.

I do understand that you explained it perfectly..its at this state where its in the mode of Viveka.
We are able to perceive the big picture and also perceive the psychological make up of others all because we have no stake in the outcome.

Its at this stage that the shad ripus of kama, krodha, lobha, moha, mada and matsarya are not " functioning" and our dealings with people are in the most conducive mode.

Harsh truth might not be revealed if the person we are dealing with doesnt have the ability to withstand it.
So we go slow and help the person step by step.

One may ask " who is the sakshi?"

Well, the answer is evident.
The "Aham" is the Sakshi.
The Aham is never a problem..its only when Aham becomes Ahamkara all sukha and dukha starts.

As long as Aham is Aham thats the state where its said " Tat Tvam Asi"

One may still ask..." but why is Aham still witnessing?
That would mean that there is the act of witnessing, the object that is being witnessed and the witness.
Yes! It surely is because we are still in the phenomenal world.

So is there a state where there is no witness or object to witness or the act of witnessing?
That is the state of unmanifest...a state that currently most of us have no access.

 

[sravna]

The unmanifest is most intriguing. I am sure its depth is unfathomable. Nobody can know for sure what's there in it.

There is an imbalance between the masculine and the feminine aspects with regard to depth and that is set right by the projection of the material world.

 

[thebigthinkg]

Thank you, Mr TBT

If you read ‘Why I am not a christian‘ by Bertrand Russel’ he makes A compelling point that many unknown things unexplained and somehow used to justify a God’s action cease their appeal when the phenomena is later explained. I thought not much is known about dark matter yet. They are just models for now. We cannot conclude much from examples and they are not proofs

Point 3 comes under the domain of psychology. Sakshi is not needed for such a conclusion. This evolution idea is problematic when one considers the sutra Tat Tvam ASI which is unconditional.

Sure, there will be always unexplained things in the Universe. But the point was 'observer driving evolution' is a common phenomena and I explained it with an example of dark matter bending space to kick-start gravitational heating. Pretty much similar things happen when a catalyst drives a chemical reaction or an enzyme drives biological evolution or even when neutron masses contribute to atomic interactions.

“sa ya eSo aNima aitad AtmyaM idaM sarvam tat satyam sa Atma tat tvam asi Svetaketu”

That which minuteness, that 'self', the satyam (existence), that Atman - that is in you Svetaketu'.

Uddalaka explains it with salt dissolved in water. One can't separate that taste of salt in water without giving up the form of water (evaporation). That Atman is present in you as that minuteness says Uddalaka.

The saltiness has become the sAksi or observer of water. Characteristics of water is changed because of the saltiness and that saltiness will remain in the water whether we drink a drop or cup, as an unchanging witness to all that happens to water, while remaining inside it ever.

In chandogya upanishad it is further explained with an example of a story of dying man. You ask the dying man, do u recognize me..? His manas guides the prAnA, prAnA guides the organs and they work together. he responds yes yes. But that Atman is present in his manas as salt dissolved in water. At some point of time, this salt evaporates out of the water or Atman settles down like a cream of butter dissolves into curd that is not stirred. The manas no longer remains what it is without that Atman and it can't guide the prAnA and hence the organs. We say person has died.

This Atman is the sAksi. Why do we call that a sAksi or observer..? There is another story for it in Chandogya Upanishad.

Someone is kidnapped blindfolded from gAndhAra nation. He is left out somewhere and has to return to gAndhAra. How does he return back..? He uses prchhan (enquiry) to ask people the way back, medhavi (judgement) to decide if what they are saying is right and panditam (third party expertise) of people who seem to know the way better than others. All three are observers, outside, unconnected to him.

We are born like this, blindfolded, kidnapped from somewhere. As we grow up we use prcchan (enquiry) to understand where we are, medhavi (judgement) to understand which is the right way to grow and go back to where we came from. This is possible only when we have a detached observer or witness inside us,(sAksi) who guides us like third party observers of the previous story. This is our detached observing manas-sAksi in us. Then we have external people with expertise (panditam) who can guide us totally detached in this pursuit. They are the 'guru'. The ultimate guru is our manas-sAksi.

Just some ramblings.. that's all...

 

[thebigthinkg]

The Manas-Sakshi is more of an experience.
Its actually hard to explain this unless one has experienced this state.

I do understand that you explained it perfectly..its at this state where its in the mode of Viveka.
We are able to perceive the big picture and also perceive the psychological make up of others all because we have no stake in the outcome.

Its at this stage that the shad ripus of kama, krodha, lobha, moha, mada and matsarya are not " functioning" and our dealings with people are in the most conducive mode.

Harsh truth might not be revealed if the person we are dealing with doesnt have the ability to withstand it.
So we go slow and help the person step by step.

One may ask " who is the sakshi?"

Well, the answer is evident.
The "Aham" is the Sakshi.
The Aham is never a problem..its only when Aham becomes Ahamkara all sukha and dukha starts.

As long as Aham is Aham thats the state where its said " Tat Tvam Asi"

One may still ask..." but why is Aham still witnessing?
That would mean that there is the act of witnessing, the object that is being witnessed and the witness.
Yes! It surely is because we are still in the phenomenal world.

So is there a state where there is no witness or object to witness or the act of witnessing?
That is the state of unmanifest...a state that currently most of us have no access.

"So is there a state where there is no witness or object to witness or the act of witnessing?
That is the state of unmanifest...a state that currently most of us have no access"

That's called shUnya vAd, which is what Buddhism and Jainism preached, which is similar to atheism, which says out of nothing came something. Finally there is nothing.

Shankara refuted this. He theorized (from vedic scriptures) that a detached witness or sAksi is eternal, unchanging, the baseless base (niraadhara aadharA) for everything that is evolving. Hence this model of detached witnessing is the self-realization to be achieved (pattratra agam) in us. That detached witness or sAksi is there in our self, but it has to be 'realized'. This is the brahma jnAnA.

With unmanifest or shunyavAd theory, we claim everything is futile, nothing is there in living, finally it's all empty and the only way is give up everything in life. But if everyone gives up their life or working way of life, then there is no society.

With detached witnessing of self in us theory (there is this witness and that witness is in us and hence a-dvaita), we can be brahmachari, grhastha, vanaprasthin, saMyasin - but all of us can realize that detached witnessing self in them and keep evolving. We don't need to give up anything. We just need to realize the temporal nature, realize this detached witness in us and use it guide our evolution.

 

[a-TB]

Sure, there will be always unexplained things in the Universe. But the point was 'observer driving evolution' is a common phenomena and I explained it with an example of dark matter bending space to kick-start gravitational heating. Pretty much similar things happen when a catalyst drives a chemical reaction or an enzyme drives biological evolution or even when neutron masses contribute to atomic interactions.

“sa ya eSo aNima aitad AtmyaM idaM sarvam tat satyam sa Atma tat tvam asi Svetaketu”

That which minuteness, that 'self', the satyam (existence), that Atman - that is in you Svetaketu'.

Uddalaka explains it with salt dissolved in water. One can't separate that taste of salt in water without giving up the form of water (evaporation). That Atman is present in you as that minuteness says Uddalaka.

The saltiness has become the sAksi or observer of water. Characteristics of water is changed because of the saltiness and that saltiness will remain in the water whether we drink a drop or cup, as an unchanging witness to all that happens to water, while remaining inside it ever.

In chandogya upanishad it is further explained with an example of a story of dying man. You ask the dying man, do u recognize me..? His manas guides the prAnA, prAnA guides the organs and they work together. he responds yes yes. But that Atman is present in his manas as salt dissolved in water. At some point of time, this salt evaporates out of the water or Atman settles down like a cream of butter dissolves into curd that is not stirred. The manas no longer remains what it is without that Atman and it can't guide the prAnA and hence the organs. We say person has died.

This Atman is the sAksi. Why do we call that a sAksi or observer..? There is another story for it in Chandogya Upanishad.

Someone is kidnapped blindfolded from gAndhAra nation. He is left out somewhere and has to return to gAndhAra. How does he return back..? He uses prchhan (enquiry) to ask people the way back, medhavi (judgement) to decide if what they are saying is right and panditam (third party expertise) of people who seem to know the way better than others. All three are observers, outside, unconnected to him.

We are born like this, blindfolded, kidnapped from somewhere. As we grow up we use prcchan (enquiry) to understand where we are, medhavi (judgement) to understand which is the right way to grow and go back to where we came from. This is possible only when we have a detached observer or witness inside us,(sAksi) who guides us like third party observers of the previous story. This is our detached observing manas-sAksi in us. Then we have external people with expertise (panditam) who can guide us totally detached in this pursuit. They are the 'guru'. The ultimate guru is our manas-sAksi.

Just some ramblings.. that's all...

Dear Mr TBT :

One can take a phenomena not well known and say that there is action is driven by observation. When the phenomena gets known better then the observer driving the evolution model is refuted, From Googling

" A catalyst works by providing a different pathway for the reaction, one that has a lower activation energy than the uncatalyzed pathway. This lower activation energy means that a larger fraction of collisions are successful at a given temperature, leading to an increased reaction rate."

I do not understand the science fully but there is some explanation. One can simply say presence of catalyst drive the reaction and turn into a philosophical statement. Even if it is considered true (which it is not), it cannot be generalized to state the universe with billions of galaxies and such variety of species are created because I am witnessing.

Witnessing by its very meaning has to be detached. If it is attached it would be a corrupt witness. Actually I enjoyed reading your so called rambling. Many here I have come across cannot stay with the topic, generally confused and start rambling to sort of justify and propagate this confusion. Your post is not in that category.

I understand your description of Sakshi and it makes sense. So long we keep it at that level and not try to make it into a cosmological explanation it all works.

 

[a-TB]

"So is there a state where there is no witness or object to witness or the act of witnessing?
That is the state of unmanifest...a state that currently most of us have no access"

That's called shUnya vAd, which is what Buddhism and Jainism preached, which is similar to atheism, which says out of nothing came something. Finally there is nothing.

Shankara refuted this. He theorized (from vedic scriptures) that a detached witness or sAksi is eternal, unchanging, the baseless base (niraadhara aadharA) for everything that is evolving. Hence this model of detached witnessing is the self-realization to be achieved (pattratra agam) in us. That detached witness or sAksi is there in our self, but it has to be 'realized'. This is the brahma jnAnA.

With unmanifest or shunyavAd theory, we claim everything is futile, nothing is there in living, finally it's all empty and the only way is give up everything in life. But if everyone gives up their life or working way of life, then there is no society.

With detached witnessing of self in us theory (there is this witness and that witness is in us and hence a-dvaita), we can be brahmachari, grhastha, vanaprasthin, saMyasin - but all of us can realize that detached witnessing self in them and keep evolving. We don't need to give up anything. We just need to realize the temporal nature, realize this detached witness in us and use it guide our evolution.

Good response to dispel some confused 'ramblings' LOL
To even declare Shunyam there has to be a living being.

 

[renuka]

Good response to dispel some confused 'ramblings' LOL
To even declare Shunyam there has to be a living being.

Dear a TB,

we are all entitled to our opinions and we learn through sharing.

Its strange that you seem to not understand simple manners.

May God guide you to help what you could not learn.

 

[renuka]

"So is there a state where there is no witness or object to witness or the act of witnessing?
That is the state of unmanifest...a state that currently most of us have no access"

That's called shUnya vAd, which is what Buddhism and Jainism preached, which is similar to atheism, which says out of nothing came something. Finally there is nothing.

Shankara refuted this. He theorized (from vedic scriptures) that a detached witness or sAksi is eternal, unchanging, the baseless base (niraadhara aadharA) for everything that is evolving. Hence this model of detached witnessing is the self-realization to be achieved (pattratra agam) in us. That detached witness or sAksi is there in our self, but it has to be 'realized'. This is the brahma jnAnA.

With unmanifest or shunyavAd theory, we claim everything is futile, nothing is there in living, finally it's all empty and the only way is give up everything in life. But if everyone gives up their life or working way of life, then there is no society.

With detached witnessing of self in us theory (there is this witness and that witness is in us and hence a-dvaita), we can be brahmachari, grhastha, vanaprasthin, saMyasin - but all of us can realize that detached witnessing self in them and keep evolving. We don't need to give up anything. We just need to realize the temporal nature, realize this detached witness in us and use it guide our evolution.

Dear TBT ji,

Thank you for your reply..

When I wrote Unmanifest ,I meant Nirguna Brahman.

Nirguna Brahman is a state of Unmanifest where nothing so called relatively " exist" but it has the full potential to manifest...I did not mean a nothing as total void as some Shunyavadins might feel.

So who is the witness here?
It has to be only Nirguna witness Himself isnt it that its Ekam Advitiyam Brahman.
But does that happen?
I might be wrong to say that Nirguna remains the only witness to the state of Nirguna.
I would not want to sound too Quranic to state that

God ˹Himself˺ is a Witness that there is none but Him.

Anyway thank you for a detail reply.
Learning day by day.

Regards

 

[renuka]

Dear TBT ji,

Thank you for your reply..

When I wrote Unmanifest ,I meant Nirguna Brahman.

Nirguna Brahman is a state of Unmanifest where nothing so called relatively " exist" but it has the full potential to manifest...I did not mean a nothing as total void as some Shunyavadins might feel.

So who is the witness here?
It has to be only Nirguna witness Himself isnt it that its Ekam Advitiyam Brahman.
But does that happen?
I might be wrong to say that Nirguna remains the only witness to the state of Nirguna.
I would not want to sound too Quranic to state that

God ˹Himself˺ is a Witness that there is none but Him.

Anyway thank you for a detail reply.
Learning day by day.

Regards

Cant seem to edit my post.

Correction..

Nirguna Brahman is a state of Unmanifest where relatively nothing
" exist" but it has the full potential to manifest...I did not mean a nothing as total void as some Shunyavadins might feel.

 

[thebigthinkg]

Dear Mr TBT :

One can take a phenomena not well known and say that there is action is driven by observation. When the phenomena gets known better then the observer driving the evolution model is refuted, From Googling

" A catalyst works by providing a different pathway for the reaction, one that has a lower activation energy than the uncatalyzed pathway. This lower activation energy means that a larger fraction of collisions are successful at a given temperature, leading to an increased reaction rate."

I do not understand the science fully but there is some explanation. One can simply say presence of catalyst drive the reaction and turn into a philosophical statement. Even if it is considered true (which it is not), it cannot be generalized to state the universe with billions of galaxies and such variety of species are created because I am witnessing.

Witnessing by its very meaning has to be detached. If it is attached it would be a corrupt witness. Actually I enjoyed reading your so called rambling. Many here I have come across cannot stay with the topic, generally confused and start rambling to sort of justify and propagate this confusion. Your post is not in that category.

I understand your description of Sakshi and it makes sense. So long we keep it at that level and not try to make it into a cosmological explanation it all works.

Well, this 'lower activation energy' that a catalyst (which by definition means that it is not taking part in any interactions, but just 'witnesses' these interactions) is the 'model' in which evolution happens in multiple stages in the Universe, was the point I made. A neutron or dark matter also provide the same 'lower activation energy' in a different form for interactions to take place and thus enable interactions of others without getting involved in it (this is what i call as just by witnessing or being an observer).

The question you put rightly is, can these be generalized across scales of Universe. I think it can be, from what I read and understand, but it is pseudo-science at this point of time.

 

[a-TB]

Well, this 'lower activation energy' that a catalyst (which by definition means that it is not taking part in any interactions, but just 'witnesses' these interactions) is the 'model' in which evolution happens in multiple stages in the Universe, was the point I made. A neutron or dark matter also provide the same 'lower activation energy' in a different form for interactions to take place and thus enable interactions of others without getting involved in it (this is what i call as just by witnessing or being an observer).

The question you put rightly is, can these be generalized across scales of Universe. I think it can be, from what I read and understand, but it is pseudo-science at this point of time.

Thank you, Mr TBT

 

[a-TB]

Dear a TB,

we are all entitled to our opinions and we learn through sharing.

Its strange that you seem to not understand simple manners.

May God guide you to help what you could not learn.

.....
Dear Renuka Madam:

The above is yet another rambling post.

An aspect of rambling is not being able to focus and bring in extraneous items
Like you want to talk about my manners LOL

Another aspect of rambling is confused thinking. Your view of God is that God is there to guide and help. That is a sophomoric understanding for someone who wants to talk about Advita LOL

I have no desire to dissect your posts but this had to be done to explain with an example why I called your prior post rambling..

If it is therapeutic to your sense of well being you can dole out insults at me .. I will not respond

 

[sravna]

Fake people and professing to learn are sent with the purpose of speaking ill about hinduism and india and bring down its image. If you notice these people they try to promote western ideas and idiosyncrasies however rotten they are and never ever agree with any thing that hinduism teaches even though the professed intention of these people is to learn.

Their arguments are shallow but they don't care. They know they can't prevail with logic and so use provocative remarks to achieve their objectives.

I suggest that people should take them as just diversions and members not be taken in by their professed objectives.

 

[renuka]

.....
Dear Renuka Madam:

The above is yet another rambling post.

An aspect of rambling is not being able to focus and bring in extraneous items
Like you want to talk about my manners LOL

Another aspect of rambling is confused thinking. Your view of God is that God is there to guide and help. That is a sophomoric understanding for someone who wants to talk about Advita LOL

I have no desire to dissect your posts but this had to be done to explain with an example why I called your prior post rambling..

If it is therapeutic to your sense of well being you can dole out insults at me .. I will not respond

Alhamdullilah!

 

[renuka]

Fake people and professing to learn are sent with the purpose of speaking ill about hinduism and india and bring down its image. If you notice these people they try to promote western ideas and idiosyncrasies however rotten they are and never ever agree with any thing that hinduism teaches even though the professed intention of these people is to learn.

Their arguments are shallow but they don't care. They know they can't prevail with logic and so use provocative remarks to achieve their objectives.

I suggest that people should take them as just diversions and members not be taken in by their professed objectives.

Dear Sravna,

I find it strange that Advaita is often divorced from the idea of guidance from God/Brahman.


But lets get down to facts.

The fact is Brahman is the ultimate in Advaita.

If everything projected from Brahman it only makes sense there is some connectivity which lies deep that we may receive guidance.

We mostly are not able to log into guidance because we havent undone our vasanas and kleshas.

So with all this obscuring our connection surely we cant get access to guidance.

Even then there are Gurus/Avatars/ Realized souls / Prophets/Messengers who walk this world to guide us who have not yet gained access to divine knowledge.

So how can we say God does not guide?
Guidance is all around us.
The problem is some feel God is just in a particular location and just cant see His guidance all around us.




If Advaita is sans connectivity with Brahman and just dry logic as some think..it would be sans logic that everything came to existence in the first place.

Advaita is a double edged sword, it can sharpen your intellect if you connect to God or dry logic sans connectivity with God could behead us.

Cant help quoting a book I love.
The likeness of those who disbelieve is as the likeness of one who calleth unto that which heareth naught except a shout and cry. Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense.

 

[sravna]

Well said Renuka. Guidance from God is very intimately there. Everything that happens around us has the signature of God. We don't chose to see or we are blinded by distractions. Most focus only on the distractions and build their lives around it as if it is reality. They go very funnily to the extent of thinking that those who are perceptive to God's presence are deluding themselves.

Sometimes I feel they are helpless and running through a basic course by maya. Maya as time is a teacher par excellence and all these people also will see the truths eventually. Till then the tension will continue. It is also by design.

To conclude everything indeed flows from nirguna brahman and I will make the assertion that its stamp is written all over the mundane reality.

 

[prasad1]

Shrutis as the Final Authority​

For those who feel that Shankara may have invented any new set of concepts or teachings or borrowed any concepts from other schools like Buddhism, their notions would get dispelled when they examine how Shankara clearly considers Shruti to be the final authority. In all his commentaries he has held the word of the shrutis as the gold standard of truth against which conflicting claims are examined, resolved or discarded. As a proof I am presenting two quotes from his Brahmasutra Bhashya.

“…for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone” (Bs.Bh. II.i.27).” This Supreme and sublime Brahman is to be known from the Veda alone, but not from reasoning” (Bs.Bh. II.i.29)

Ultimate Truth of the Shrutis – Non-Dual Brahman​

Upanishadic texts proclaim non-duality: the unity of Brahman or Atman in the most unmistakable terms. This means that the world of plurality that we experience is not real. What is real is non-duality even though we are seemingly seeing plurality.

For example, we have ‘O Gargi, this the knowers of the Absolute call the Indestructible. It is not gross, not subtle, not short, not long, neither red (like fire) nor fluid (like water), neither shadow nor darkness, neither wind nor ether, not adhesive, not taste, not odour, without eyes, without ears, without voice, without mind, without brilliance, without the vital principle, without an orifice, without a measure, having nothing within and nothing without. It consumes nothing, nor does anything consume it’ (Brhad.III.viii.8), ‘‘Imperceptible, inapprehensible, having no source from which it proceeds and having no colours or features, without eyes, ears, hands or feet’ (Mund.1.i.6), and ‘Without sound, impalpable, without form, beyond decay, without taste, constant, without odour, without beginning or end, fixed, beyond Mahat (the cosmic mind)’ (Katha I.iii.15).

When Shankara tells that reality is non-dual Brahman, he is not creating his own fiction. As shown above, the Shrutis are declaring the attributeless, indestructible, non-dual Brahman as the Absolute reality. So we can now appreciate the following words from him, which speak of non-dual Brahman as the final reality: “There is no appropriate way of describing (It) other than this, hence ‘not this, not that’. (To explain For, indeed, there is no description of Brahman other than the negation of the phenomenal manifold.” [Bs.Bh. 3-2-22]

Shankara: Not The Founder of Advaita Vedanta But A Link in the Timeless Tradition

There is a widespread notion that Shankara is the founder of Advaita Vedanta. Still, others think that he may have introduced some personal innovations in Vedanta by borrowing teachings from other …

neevselfinquiry.in

 

[renuka]

Shrutis as the Final Authority​

For those who feel that Shankara may have invented any new set of concepts or teachings or borrowed any concepts from other schools like Buddhism, their notions would get dispelled when they examine how Shankara clearly considers Shruti to be the final authority. In all his commentaries he has held the word of the shrutis as the gold standard of truth against which conflicting claims are examined, resolved or discarded. As a proof I am presenting two quotes from his Brahmasutra Bhashya.

“…for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone” (Bs.Bh. II.i.27).” This Supreme and sublime Brahman is to be known from the Veda alone, but not from reasoning” (Bs.Bh. II.i.29)

Ultimate Truth of the Shrutis – Non-Dual Brahman​

Upanishadic texts proclaim non-duality: the unity of Brahman or Atman in the most unmistakable terms. This means that the world of plurality that we experience is not real. What is real is non-duality even though we are seemingly seeing plurality.

For example, we have ‘O Gargi, this the knowers of the Absolute call the Indestructible. It is not gross, not subtle, not short, not long, neither red (like fire) nor fluid (like water), neither shadow nor darkness, neither wind nor ether, not adhesive, not taste, not odour, without eyes, without ears, without voice, without mind, without brilliance, without the vital principle, without an orifice, without a measure, having nothing within and nothing without. It consumes nothing, nor does anything consume it’ (Brhad.III.viii.8), ‘‘Imperceptible, inapprehensible, having no source from which it proceeds and having no colours or features, without eyes, ears, hands or feet’ (Mund.1.i.6), and ‘Without sound, impalpable, without form, beyond decay, without taste, constant, without odour, without beginning or end, fixed, beyond Mahat (the cosmic mind)’ (Katha I.iii.15).

When Shankara tells that reality is non-dual Brahman, he is not creating his own fiction. As shown above, the Shrutis are declaring the attributeless, indestructible, non-dual Brahman as the Absolute reality. So we can now appreciate the following words from him, which speak of non-dual Brahman as the final reality: “There is no appropriate way of describing (It) other than this, hence ‘not this, not that’. (To explain For, indeed, there is no description of Brahman other than the negation of the phenomenal manifold.” [Bs.Bh. 3-2-22]

Shankara: Not The Founder of Advaita Vedanta But A Link in the Timeless Tradition

There is a widespread notion that Shankara is the founder of Advaita Vedanta. Still, others think that he may have introduced some personal innovations in Vedanta by borrowing teachings from other …

neevselfinquiry.in

There is something strange here.

The article states this..

This Supreme and sublime Brahman is to be known from the Veda alone, but not from reasoning” (Bs.Bh. II.i.29)


But the Brahmasutra Bhasya
(Bs.Bh. II.i.29) is
स्वपक्षदोषाच्च||
Which means
And the opponent's own point of view is equally vitiated.


Some error somewhere.
Dont seem to find what the writer of the article stated.

 

[sravna]

Spirituality requires practice. Unlike science where understanding alone is enough. Practice is difficult because mind needs to make the body put up with pressures and temptations of outside reality. Only when you are able to do that truths get imprinted in the mind. Scientific practice simply follows from the truths.

So the reason why personal practice is required in learning spiritual truths is because mere understanding comes with little effort which is not good enough.

 

[renuka]

for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone” (Bs.Bh. II.i.27).

In Sanskrit this sutra is as follows:

Shrutestu shabdamoolatvaat II.1.27

which breaks down to

tu : but/for
shruteH : on the shruti
shabda-moolatvaat : shabdha originates

Well if we get technical the meaning can be as :

"for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone”
or
"But(this has to be accepted) on the authority of the Upanishads, for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone."


If we get less technical but a bit more intuitive, we could decipher this sutras as follows.


tu : but/for
shruteH : on that which is heard
shabda-moolatvaat : word(of God/Brahman) originates.

shruti has more than one meaning.
It literally means that which perceived by the ear.
It can also mean that which is heard and also mean The Vedas.

shabda also has many meanings;
Ranging from sound to word to Brahman as in shabda Brahman.

So what if this sutra has an esoteric meaning of :

"For the word of God stems from that which is heard within"

At an esoteric level many saints/sages/gurus/prophets do get revelations that flash in the mind(sans agitations) and heard within.

Who knows?

 

[sravna]

for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone” (Bs.Bh. II.i.27).

In Sanskrit this sutra is as follows:

Shrutestu shabdamoolatvaat II.1.27

which breaks down to

tu : but/for
shruteH : on the shruti
shabda-moolatvaat : shabdha originates

Well if we get technical the meaning can be as :

"for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone”
or
"But(this has to be accepted) on the authority of the Upanishads, for Brahman is known from the Upanishads alone."


If we get less technical but a bit more intuitive, we could decipher this sutras as follows.


tu : but/for
shruteH : on that which is heard
shabda-moolatvaat : word(of God/Brahman) originates.

shruti has more than one meaning.
It literally means that which perceived by the ear.
It can also mean that which is heard and also mean The Vedas.

shabda also has many meanings;
Ranging from sound to word to Brahman as in shabda Brahman.

So what if this sutra has an esoteric meaning of :

"For the word of God stems from that which is heard within"

At an esoteric level many saints/sages/gurus/prophets do get revelations that flash in the mind(sans agitations) and heard within.

Who knows?

Yes revelations only. They are intuitions on a large and deeper scale. It is the most authentic knowledge. Different revelations possible and underlying all is the unifying purpose. Different possible in accordance with space and time by God's design but underlying truths same.

 

[renuka]

Yes revelations only. They are intuitions on a large and deeper scale. It is the most authentic knowledge. Different revelations possible and underlying all is the unifying purpose. Different possible in accordance with space and time by God's design but underlying truths same.

Ever wondered why religious text have no commentary but only sutras or shlokas?

Shree Krishna did not give a Bhashyam.
Neither do the Upanishads have bhashyam.
Or the Vedas for the matter.

Its only Gurus that give bhashyams.

Why?

What say you?

Krishna only gave the shlokas but it was others who gave various commentaries.

Any idea why Krishna didnt give a commentary?

 

[sravna]

They are meant to have multiple and contextual interpretation may be? I have my personal experiences where I interpret the same thing differently at different times.

 

[renuka]

They are meant to have multiple and contextual interpretation may be? I have my personal experiences where I interpret the same thing differently at different times.

Exactly!
So all Bhasyams should come with disclaimers that the commentary is a personalized revelation and it might not be the same for another person.

I totally get it why Buddha says in Kalama Sutra that just do not accept everything given if it doesnt seem to fit our perception.

Imam Ali himself said " Do not inherit your religion"

Even Native American tribes have an understanding that you accept the teachings of the elders but you weave your own story.


Its so clear that there is no rigidity and everything has multiple interpretations.


So now it would all seem so futile to debate with anyone.
Its of no use.

Finally Krishna says in the Gita to surrender to Him and He will deliver us and lead us to moksha.

So obvious right?
Cos He would be revealing to us a personalized revelation which might not be found in any book.

One who does not surrender does not get the shower of revelation but would remain in the ocean of the intellect.

One who surrenders, transcends the intellect and enjoys the revelations.