Brahma Sutras

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Nara,

If I can shut you up by citing verses of vedas in support of my arguments it means you indeed accept vedas as inerrant. I really do not have to convince you by citing the verses. You can do that yourself.

On the other hand if you want to argue based on logic alone, all you have to do is to counter what I have presented in a logical manner. Of course if you think why my arguments have no logical basis, you need to logically show that rather than simply asserting.

So it is up to you to acknowledge that the vedas are inerrant or if that for some unknown reason is not your real position, rebut the arguments in a logical manner.

BTW see my post #472 for why NB exists.

 

[sangom]

I have no doubt sravna that in your own mind you are convinced you are not saying that, but, nevertheless, what you are saying does amount to something akin to a person is both his own father and his own son, SB is reflection, jagat is projection, and all that jazz is not even supported by the supposedly inerrant Vedas.

So, sravna, let us cut to the chase, forget about everything else, please cite a reference from the Vedas that SB is a reflection of NB or whatever that you are arguing. In other words, even the authority to which you appeal, namely the Vedas, does not support your views. Do me a favor and prove me wrong by citing Vedic verses, and you will shut me up for ever.

Your plea that I need to think logically is really ironic, all your claims have no basis even in the scriptures, let alone logic. Please think, what is the purpose of attributeless NB? Forget we jIvas, we are supposed to be just worthless nonentities from the perspective of NB, so what is the raison d'etre of NB?

It makes a lot more sense, in a perverse way, to have an almighty God who cares for jIvas, like the God SVs and Christians share, but to have an almighty God as NB to whom none of us even exists, is the ultimate of delusion, not that an almighty God who cares for our puny lives is any less delusional.

Dear Shri Nara,

To my limited knowledge and reading of advaita philosophy from various sources, it has appeared as though Shankara, during his times, was successful in explaining the Brahma Sutras in the light of the māṇḍūkyakārikā of gauḍapādācārya, a text which had great affinity to the Buddhist doctrine of śūnyavāda. The śūnya concept (concept of 'nothingness' - as the ultimate truth or reality) has been modified into the nirguṇa parabrahman idea which is central to advaita philosophy.

In this way, Shankara probably succeeded in bringing many of the buddhist philosophers/thinkers back into the vaideeki fold, although the Shankara Vijayam accounts do not mention this except as a passing reference to one episode of live transmigration of Shankara's soul into the (dead) body of a buddhist king, etc.

Hence, the concept of a nirguṇa parabrahman was necessary; it was not a conclusion arrived at through a normal, logical reasoning. I view that this also was the reason for the subsequent ideas of VA and Dvaita becoming acceptable to a large number of hindus, and consequently, giving rise to the schisms, and so on.

Despite all the above, Shankara's logic had its own merit and strength and, if at all, we would like to appreciate the Brahma Sutras interpreted in accordance with Shankara's own logic and derivations, then the first thing to be avoided is the import of modern science into it. But here Shri Sravna who is fully convinced of the correctness of advaita, is not giving us Shankara's logic and/or arguments but his (Sravna's) own validation of Shankara's advaita, it appears to me. Shri Sravna desires that advaita should be accepted as correct and brilliant etc., based on Sravna's own arguments.

Shri Sravna, obviously, is unable to provide any vedic evidence to the effect that "SB is a reflection of NB or whatever that you are arguing" simply because, to the best of my knowledge, our vedas did not view this world as ethereal or unreal in any sense. But then he is trying to win an argument by asking whether you (Shri Nara) consider the vedas as inerrant, etc. I feel the discussions are veering into kutarkkam. Hence, I request Shri Nara to stop expecting Shankara's explanation of the Brahma Sutras here and to expect merely Shri Sravna's validation of advaita.

 

[Vaagmi]

Let me sum up, if I may:

Sravna for some strange reasons, which he is not revealing, starts with two levels of reality and goes on to answer questions about these two realities. He thinks he has understood Sankara's mind well and does not think there is any need to go to vedas or even Sankara for proof of the existence of these two reality levels.

Nara wonders why there is any need for two levels at all. Just one level is enough to explain every thing that Sravna is explaining. If two levels are indeed needed, Sravna should provide reasons and scriptural evidence for that. Sravna's logic does not stand scrutiny because with just one reality level every thing about reality is well explained by other schools of thought. Why create a NB beyond space, time and every other imaginable dimension at all and then a SB and maya to take care of the reality as perceived by jivas, is his question.

Sangom says it is all to counter the Budhdhists that the NB was created in the first place. It is just an attempt to be inclusive of the tantalising sunyavada. Sunyavada has an attraction for thinkers because it says there is nothing ultimately and that gives a lot of comfort and puts an end to intractable arguments about the reality. So Sankara and Sravna are just budhdhists.

Sravna can go to Sankara and answer Nara and Sangom. But for some reason is not interested in that. He keeps arguing from what he has perceived. That is the problem here.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Shri Nara,

I would think of NB as something which is consummate and so which doesn't need to act or think but purely experiences with the experience said to be a blissful one. So it is the final destination of every jiva. Think logically. Why do we act or think? To achieve goals and so be happy. So to reach a state where one can be eternally blissful is the ultimate goal.

Dear Sravna,

You have been using the term 'bliss' and 'blissful' freely. Please let us know what is this bliss or the blissfullness? Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

 

[renuka]

Sunyavada has an attraction for thinkers because it says there is nothing ultimately and that gives a lot of comfort and puts an end to intractable arguments about the reality.

Dear Vaagmi ji,

Sunya as in Sunyavada does not really mean "Nothing" as far as I know.

This link gives a good explanation..Yes it does sound very much like Nirguna Brahman.

Sunyata or void ness is the name for this indeterminable, indescribable real nature of things.
Things appear to exist, but when we try to understand the real nature of their existence, our intellect is baffled. It cannot be called either real or unreal, or both real and unreal, or neither real nor unreal.

More closely, we come to realise that the Madhyamika view is not really nihilism, as ordinaily supposed, and that it does not deny all reality, but only the apparent phenomenal world perceived by us.

The Madhyamika approaches very close to Advaita Vedanta as taught in some Upanisads and elaborated later by Gaudapada and Sarikaracarya.

taken from Notes on the Madhyamika School of Sunya-vada

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara, Shri Sangom, Shri Vaagmi,

Let us first argue based on logic alone. I will then try to provide the reasons why the NB as postulated by Sankara is necessary and a Saguna brahman along with maya are also necessary.

My first postulate is it is necessary to have an entity which is beyond space and time because only that can avoid the problem in questions like "Who created God?". With a timeless entity we can say no one need to create God because he is beyond the notion of time.

Any of you willing to debate on that?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

You have been using the term 'bliss' and 'blissful' freely. Please let us know what is this bliss or the blissfullness? Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

Just as pleasure is for the physical, happiness is for the mind, bliss is for the soul. It is spiritual happiness. It is a permanent state of happiness as it is spiritual and is the one experienced by NB.

Also animals can have pleasure, criminals can have happiness but only a realized person can have bliss. This is my understanding.

 

[auh]

...
I would think of NB as something which is consummate and so which doesn't need to act or think but purely experiences with the experience said to be a blissful one...

So NB does all this for its own bliss... deluding itself so that some kind of blissful experience results. Ha... this is similar to masturbation - of the mental kind.

 

[sravna]

So NB does all this for its own bliss... deluding itself so that some kind of blissful experience results. Ha... this is similar to masturbation - of the mental kind.

Dear Shri Auh,

One can make such perverse comments on any notion of reality. The point is reality is non-dual according to advaita and mere knowledge of that truth provides that blissful experience. The details of how that bliss results is there for one to see in the physical world when one after a number of false notions finally realizes the truth that reality is non-dual and their holistic experiences as experienced by the soul is a blissful one . It is like you are happy after finding a correct solution to a problem after a lot of struggle.

 

[auh]

Dear Sravna,

One can make such perverse comments on any notion of reality.

Kindly elucidate how my comment is perverse.

The point is reality is non-dual according to advaita and mere knowledge of that truth provides that blissful experience. The details of how that bliss results is there for one to see in the physical world when one after a number of false notions finally realizes the truth that reality is non-dual and their holistic experiences as experienced by the soul is a blissful one . It is like you are happy after finding a correct solution to a problem after a lot of struggle.

When you say that somebody has to be happy, it implies that there exists a counter situation of unhappiness. If a problem exists and a solution too exists, then it is no more illusory. Perhaps, what is illusory may be only the notion that advaita is truth.

Too many illogical constructs have been heaped in the name of brahman, maya, NB, SB, more real, illusory, relatively real, non-existent, lower reality, higher reality, spiritual reality, physical reality... phew.

The only point that is clearly evident is that advaita cannot fully explain the mysteries of the creation of the universe, except perhaps, instill by blind faith that all we see is maya.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,Kindly elucidate how my comment is perverse.



When you say that somebody has to be happy, it implies that there exists a counter situation of unhappiness. If a problem exists and a solution too exists, then it is no more illusory. Perhaps, what is illusory may be only the notion that advaita is truth.

I do not understand what you mean by the above. Can you elaborate?

Too many illogical constructs have been heaped in the name of brahman, maya, NB, SB, more real, illusory, relatively real, non-existent, lower reality, higher reality, spiritual reality, physical reality... phew.

you need to show more logic and maturity than this while being critical of something.

The only point that is clearly evident is that advaita cannot fully explain the mysteries of the creation of the universe, except perhaps, instill by blind faith that all we see is maya.

Maya is not blind faith . It is something that is necessary if what we see and what we can infer has to be reconciled. By the way, even Science makes assumptions that are similar to blind faith.

 

[renuka]

So NB does all this for its own bliss... deluding itself so that some kind of blissful experience results. Ha... this is similar to masturbation - of the mental kind.

The mental kind?

Let me think..this is only possible if there is some visual or auditory stimuli.

That too the so called Seventh Heaven feeling only last for a short time and then back to baseline...it is Vikara..it undergoes changes.

In case of Nirguna Brahman there is no need of any Visual/Auditory stimuli cos Nirguna Brahman is that which causes the eyes to see..that causes the ears to hear etc..and NB does not undergo any changes of any sort..Nirvikara.

So for all practical purposes the analogy of mental masturbation and the bliss of Nirguna Brahman is not accurate.

 

[auh]

The mental kind?

Let me think..this is only possible if there is some visual or auditory stimuli.

That too the so called Seventh Heaven feeling only last for a short time and then back to baseline...it is Vikara..it undergoes changes.

In case of Nirguna Brahman there is no need of any Visual/Auditory stimuli cos Nirguna Brahman is that which causes the eyes to see..that causes the ears to hear etc..and NB does not undergo any changes of any sort..Nirvikara.

So for all practical purposes the analogy of mental masturbation and the bliss of Nirguna Brahman is not accurate.

Your comparison does not seem to be valid.

When NB deludes itself through maya into believing that it is a different person and attains happiness/bliss by realizing that it is not different, it is similar to mental masturbation. The NB itself becomes the organ of perception, the object of stimulation and the perceiver.

 

[sravna]

Your comparison does not seem to be valid.

When NB deludes itself through maya into believing that it is a different person and attains happiness/bliss by realizing that it is not different, it is similar to mental masturbation. The NB itself becomes the organ of perception, the object of stimulation and the perceiver.

Dear Shri Auh,

I strongly suggest that you take some pains to reproduce correctly what has been said and not misrepresent them. What you have stated about NB has not been said by me or to my knowledge by Smt.Renuka. Otherwise I think it is not worthwhile responding to your posts.

 

[auh]

I do not understand what you mean by the above. Can you elaborate?

Sravna,

1) when you say that NB is a state of bliss, then it is NB no more.
2) on my counter, you suddenly equate this to the struggles of humans and liken the ultimate goal to a blissful state.
3) so even if i were to extend the case as per your statement, it obviously means that there is a state of happiness and unhappiness.

Now, can you please elaborate on how my earlier statement was perverse?

you need to show more logic and maturity than this while being critical of something.

well, if this is the best you could come up with, I hae nothing to say.

Maya is not blind faith . It is something that is necessary if what we see and what we can infer has to be reconciled. By the way, even Science makes assumptions that are similar to blind faith.

Your logic is flawed. You start with the assumption that there has to be someone who is the source. Consider this grand statement - "There are 5 gods which created the unverse and 5 devils that destroy what was created." In what way is this different from what advaita says except that the latter is claimed to be derived from the vedas?

If science makes assumptions, it is only to ascertain the truth, and no more. In case an assumption is found to be erroneous, it is discarded. I dont know why you mentioned them here, really.

 

[auh]

I strongly suggest that you take some pains to reproduce correctly what has been said and not misrepresent them. What you have stated about NB has not been said by me or to my knowledge by Smt.Renuka. Otherwise I think it is not worthwhile responding to your posts.

Please tell me where I am wrong... will you?

 

[renuka]

Your comparison does not seem to be valid.

When NB deludes itself through maya into believing that it is a different person and attains happiness/bliss by realizing that it is not different, it is similar to mental masturbation. The NB itself becomes the organ of perception, the object of stimulation and the perceiver.

??? What?

When did NB become the organ of perception, the object of stimulation and the perceiver?

When does NB ever need to delude itself??

Your idea of NB sounds like a person who is high of marijuana..one gets a mental high of the masturbatory kind when one puffs marijuana.

Next you might say NB is singing "Dancing with myself"!LOL

 

[sravna]

Please tell me where I am wrong... will you?

Dear Shri Auh,

I do not want to keep repeating myself. Kindly patiently go through the whole thread and see if anywhere I have said NB is deluding itself?

 

[auh]

Hi Renuka,

This is what you said earlier

Let me think..this is only possible if there is some visual or auditory stimuli.

That too the so called Seventh Heaven feeling only last for a short time and then back to baseline...it is Vikara..it undergoes changes.

In case of Nirguna Brahman there is no need of any Visual/Auditory stimuli cos Nirguna Brahman is that which causes the eyes to see..that causes the ears to hear etc..and NB does not undergo any changes of any sort..Nirvikara.

If what you say in #192 is true, then the above post is wrong. You statements are all contradictory. If NB is, then there is nothing else, isn't it, from the pov of NB? So where comes this seventh heaven? where comes the stimuli? where exists the eyes?

 

[renuka]

Hi Renuka,

This is what you said earlierIf what you say in #192 is true, then the above post is wrong. You statements are all contradictory. If NB is, then there is nothing else, isn't it, from the pov of NB? So where comes this seventh heaven? where comes the stimuli? where exists the eyes?

All that experiences are felt by the embodied ones eg humans.

 

[auh]

I do not want to keep repeating myself. Kindly patiently go through the whole thread and see if anywhere I have said NB is deluding itself?

That is what is implied, if you say that there are different levels of realities - one for NB and the other for the lesser NBs; that too, for no apparent reason but to experience bliss. Just as you infer from Sankara's philosophy, I too infer from yours.

 

[auh]

All that experiences are felt by the embodied ones eg humans.

so, do these embodied ones, like the humans, exist?

 

[auh]

For general info, merriam-webster defines delude as

[h=2]de·lude[/h] transitive verb \di-ˈlüd, dē-\ : to cause (someone) to believe something that is not true


de·lud·edde·lud·ing



[h=2]Full Definition of DELUDE[/h]1
: to mislead the mind or judgment of : deceive, trick

2
obsolete

 

[sravna]

That is what is implied, if you say that there are different levels of realities - one for NB and the other for the lesser NBs; that too, for no apparent reason but to experience bliss. Just as you infer from Sankara's philosophy, I too infer from yours.

Dear Shri Auh,

That is not a valid inference. How is NB deluded because of different levels of realities? To repeat what I actually said was, something is deluded only when influenced by maya. Neither NB nor SB are influenced by maya. I think you first need to understand this truth of advaita before inferring.

 

[auh]

That is not a valid inference. How is NB deluded because of different levels of realities? To repeat what I actually said was, something is deluded only when influenced by maya. Neither NB nor SB are influenced by maya. I think you first need to understand this truth of advaita before inferring.

If NB or SB were not deluded, we wouldn't be... isn't it so?

IF advaita says that only NB is, then an apparent illusory jagat or jivas itself proves that such an advaita is wrong. So, to hold that an NB exists, and that it is somehow dreaming of a jagat that would get whisked in a nanosecond can only prove that the NB is under a delusion.