Brahma Sutras

[auh]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

... Neither NB nor SB are influenced by maya....

OMG, I missed this

If only NB is, then how can maya exist, and if maya does not delude NB, how come we exist?

 

[sravna]

OMG, I missed this

If only NB is, then how can maya exist, and if maya does not delude NB, how come we exist?

Dear Shri auh,

Frankly I dont feel like arguing with you. I am sure you also have better things to do than wasting your time on this debate.

 

[auh]

Dear Sravna,

Frankly I dont feel like arguing with you. I am sure you also have better things to do than wasting your time on this debate.

I only come to this thread, to waste time, when I have nothing else to do; so there.

If you dont feel like "arguing", don't. This is a public thread and I will decide whether to post or not... irrespective of what you decide.

 

[auh]

I also feel that when Sravna feels stumped, he resorts to some lame excuse like others not having an open mind, not being mature enough, not patient enough, or that others dont understand the logic in what he says etc.

It is like the fox calling the grapes sour.

 

[renuka]

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

Yes..surely they exists...but everything changes so not one situation stays the same hence Vikara.

It is this everchanging impermanent state which is called Unreal.

 

[renuka]

It is like the fox calling the grapes sour.

BTW I kind of wonder why fox eats grapes??

Is a fox a vegetarian?

 

[renuka]

if maya does not delude NB, how come we exist?

When does Maya ever delude NB?

From where did you get this impression?

 

[auh]

Yes..surely they exists...but everything changes so not one situation stays the same hence Vikara.

It is this everchanging impermanent state which is called Unreal.

Then you are saying something different from what Sravna has been saying.

 

[auh]

BTW I kind of wonder why fox eats grapes??

Is a fox a vegetarian?

That was an analogy to the situation; I cant help it if you dont get it...

 

[auh]

When does Maya ever delude NB?

From where did you get this impression?

So what is this maya and how does this enter the equation when there is nothing other than the NB?

 

[sravna]

Then you are saying something different from what Sravna has been saying.

Dear Shri Auh,

If we are to be seriously engaging in an argument, I would say that we should not be going through the same thing again and again. That is the reason I asked you to read the whole thread and take out the points of disagreement and present your objections in a cogent manner. I am surely willing to answer them to the best of my ability. You need to show the same seriousness.

 

[renuka]

Then you are saying something different from what Sravna has been saying.

I dont think so..

 

[renuka]

So what is this maya and how does this enter the equation when there is nothing other than the NB?

Auh ji,

I can not be telling you this.I am sure you already know about the basic of the Maya principle.

This topic has been debated countless times in Forum.

But frankly speaking...only the influence of Maya is known..but what Maya really is..no one really knows.

 

[auh]

Auh ji,

I can not be telling you this.I am sure you already know about the basic of the Maya principle.

This topic has been debated countless times in Forum.

But frankly speaking...only the influence of Maya is known..but what Maya really is..no one really knows.

Hi Renuka, I have an objection to us using some variable that we dont know to establish a theory. It is such a basic fallacy that I am surprised that you and Sravna dont see it...

 

[auh]

I dont think so..

You may not think so, but you have been saying so...

 

[auh]

To continue on the philosophy of 5 gods and 5 devils (FGFD) - it is because of the influence of the power of "zuz" that FD exists, since they are actually the FD themselves. And there is this power called "yuy" that is the reason for the FG to create and the FD to destroy. this is the underlying principle of zuz and yuy, but what they are, nobody knows.

While futile debates about the origin of God and religion were raging in the world elsewhere, all these great and universal principles had been conveyed to the great saint, logician and philosopher Sri Sri himself who existed thousands of years ago who further made it such that only receptive minds were imparted this divine knowledge through telepathy. And thus, we have entered this year.

Come on Sravna, try to repudiate this, and I will engage you in a serious debate. No laughing matter.

 

[sravna]

To continue on the philosophy of 5 gods and 5 devils (FGFD) - it is because of the influence of the power of "zuz" that FD exists, since they are actually the FD themselves. And there is this power called "yuy" that is the reason for the FG to create and the FD to destroy. this is the underlying principle of zuz and yuy, but what they are, nobody knows.

While futile debates about the origin of God and religion were raging in the world elsewhere, all these great and universal principles had been conveyed to the great saint, logician and philosopher Sri Sri himself who existed thousands of years ago who further made it such that only receptive minds were imparted this divine knowledge through telepathy. And thus, we have entered this year.

Come on Sravna, try to repudiate this, and I will engage you in a serious debate. No laughing matter.

Dear Shri Auh,

Frankly it is not so mysterious. Since you seemed to be wanting to understand what is said , I wanted to respond. If you really are not inclined for that it is fine.

 

[auh]

Frankly it is not so mysterious. Since you seemed to be wanting to understand what is said , I wanted to respond. If you really are not inclined for that it is fine.

I was curious to see what the logical explanation would be for the obvious fallacies in advaita, and how you would augment your pov. Perhaps I expected too much, but it is alright... even you could not accept the challenge of the FGFD...

 

[sangom]

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.

This idea of 'bliss' or 'blissfulness' only gave rise to the Tantrik practice of "panchamakaras" and the erotic yogic sadhanas. It is, therefore, rather impossible, that Shankara would have subsribed to such an idea.

 

[sangom]

??? 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

Smt. Renuka,

Is it not the argument that every jiva is also NB in essence, but an NB deluded by maayaa?? If this is true, then how is Shri. auh's argument wrong?

 

[sravna]

Smt. Renuka,

Is it not the argument that every jiva is also NB in essence, but an NB deluded by maayaa?? If this is true, then how is Shri. auh's argument wrong?

Dear Shri Sangom,

Let me try a different explanation.

When a physical thing becomes disconnected it goes into parts. However in the case of spiritual thing the disconnected parts are actually the wholes but such a whole actually thinks it is a part. That is the delusion. The delusion is only when the disconnection happens and the delusion is only to the disconnected "parts". SB which actually uses the maya is not influenced by it. That is, what advaita says is that, the whole i.e., the SB which uses maya is not affected by maya but only the disconnected "parts" which are actually wholes but think they are parts. So in the two realities one which is free of maya and the other influenced by maya, the higher reality of SB is free of maya which is what should be given credence being the higher reality. NB of course is not deluded by maya.

 

[Nara]

.....Neither NB nor SB are influenced by maya. I think you first need to understand this truth of advaita before inferring.

Is this truth of advaita, i.e. "Neither NB nor SB are influenced by Maya"? If there was any lingering doubt, you have cleared it leaving no uncertainty, you have no idea of classic advaitam, you are so sure of your "spiritual" powers that you think whatever your mind conjures up IS advaitam.

BTW, I don't have to believe in the Vedas, let alone in its inerrancy, to point out your explanations are not consistent with them. It is in this context I am asking you to quote vedic verses to support your rather unorthodox views that you call advaitam.

First show that what you are saying is vedic, then we can argue at the level of logic independent of the Vedas. Your refusal to cite anything is quite revealing, I think you have nothing but reluctant to admit it.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sravna in 473
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.
Sravna in #482
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.

Dear Sravna,
You have covered every thing with a single line disclaimer that it is your understanding. Let it be. Now you are getting into the psychology of languages. Happiness, pleasure etc are all relative terms. Happiness means less of sadness in a scale of more sadness at one end and more happiness at the other end. Similarly pleasure is relative to pain. I can go into further details of this fact. But this is enough for the present. Now you have to tell me where do you place bliss and blissfulness. What is it that is absent or less in a state of bliss? If you say bliss is the opposite something like pain then it should mean soul can be in pain. Would you say yes to this?

 

[Vaagmi]

Ranuka in 480
Sunya as in Sunyavada does not really mean "Nothing" as far as I know.

….Yes it does sound very much like Nirguna Brahman.

I am unable to buy this for the reasons given.

Sunyata or void ness is the name for this indeterminable, indescribable real nature of things.

If something which is there is indescribable or indeterminable I would think it is the fault of the equipment I use. This will take us to the theory about khyatis discussed by our ancestors which beyond the scope here. I wont think being indeterminable or indescribable can itself be the attribute of “that”.

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.

This exactly describes the situation that existed before someone photographed a Higgs Boson in a Toroid accelerator. We are all travelers within the time dimension and so what we are going to see a 500 years hence will be indescribable etc. today. But to say that they do not exist is something else.

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

.
All this is a lot of playing with words. Do not really mean anything tangible or useful.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sravna in 481.
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?

Now my question to you is this:
Why create a complicated entity like NB with a number of upapannams like, beyond space time etc to escape the question of who created it. There is another simple way. You can have a God who has the attribute called being timeless, another called being beyond space, another called being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient etc.,etc., With all these he is simpler and easier to perceive rather you can even capture him in your imagination as some one with an anthropomorphous form for your convenience. When there is this easier and eminently suitable alternative to perceive the God entity why complicate things at all? And if some upstart like me comes and tell you that what you say has a better word called “emptiness or sunya” you have labour at explaining how sunya is not really sunya. What a waste of time and effort.