Brahma Sutras

[Vaagmi]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sravna In#484:
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.

Dear Sravna,
Your world is indeed a simple one. You will tell a tree has grown 7 feet in 7 years and so it’s growth is one foot per year. No questions asked or answered. If someone says it is much more complicated than that, you wont take any of that. Now the questions in your above assertions are:
1. Reality may be non-dual according to advaita. But you have not yet proved it to our satisfaction here. In fact that stage has not even been reached yet in your exposition. Advaita is just advaita and it is not reality.
2. The knowledge of that truth is blissful-according to you. Please tell us “blissfull to whom’.
3. You said it is like being happy after finding a solution to a problem in hand. After finding a solution to a problem in hand and enjoying the success I look for more such problems and more such happiness. Do you get it?

 

[Garuda]

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.

Yes, the timelessness means he is above time , also meaning he knows and can control the past , present, future and Beyond, meaning he is present at all times and he is satyam . Even the Mandukya Upanishad says this while describing the BRAHMA by the sound OM, not there is difference b/w brahmaaa( the creator) and Brahma( the supreme) in sanskrit... Also formlessness does not mean he has no form, that just describes he is in every form but one should not again think here by limiting him to the form as he is beyond forms and that is unimaginable! Nirguna also means the same, he is above all gunas may be it sattvic, rajasic or tamasic and yet he is present in all these gunas and hence nirguna...Even upanishads say there is one supreme Brahma or para brahma tattvam from whom the world comes out from a point of no magnitude and even no point to this world we are seeing...

Sravna- Although it seems correct that if timelessness is destroyed when there is specific action, it might be countered by pausing of the time by Sri Krishna in bhagawadgita 2 times i suppose? so he created one timeline which is non-existent and the action of bringing out of the world can be attributed to such sort of time, so no one can say that he created the world at that point of time preserving timelessness.

One last statement is that whatever we know is insignificant and we should first understand that

 

[sravna]

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.

Dear Shri Nara,

We will first argue at the level of logic as logic is more important to you than blind faith. As said in one of my earlier posts, I will then try to show that how the logic is consistent with what is said in the vedas.

 

[sravna]

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.

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

I really do not understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean by giving an attribute called timelessness to God? Being beyond time and space imply that there are no attributes to God.

 

[sravna]

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?

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

Only when one becomes self realized one can experience bliss. So one being consummate in development, the bliss which is experienced is also something which doesn't change. So there is nothing like the opposite of it or anything that is less in it.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,
Your world is indeed a simple one. You will tell a tree has grown 7 feet in 7 years and so it’s growth is one foot per year. No questions asked or answered. If someone says it is much more complicated than that, you wont take any of that. Now the questions in your above assertions are:
1. Reality may be non-dual according to advaita. But you have not yet proved it to our satisfaction here. In fact that stage has not even been reached yet in your exposition. Advaita is just advaita and it is not reality.
2. The knowledge of that truth is blissful-according to you. Please tell us “blissfull to whom’.
3. You said it is like being happy after finding a solution to a problem in hand. After finding a solution to a problem in hand and enjoying the success I look for more such problems and more such happiness. Do you get it?

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

You look for more problems because you know you have more problems to solve. But when one is self realized the mind automatically sees that the goal of physical births has been realized and hence comes total happiness. So a person in that state is blissful just as NB is.

 

[renuka]

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 Sangom ji,

As long as we are deluded by Maya we can not say we are in the same state as NB isnt it ?

Cos if we are right now here itself the same as NB then in that case there is no difference at all..so that means there is right now..no male,no female, no Brahmin, No Sudra no nothing.

As long we exists under the influence of Maya we are not YET the same as NB.

 

[renuka]

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.

Dear Nara ji,

I fail to understand this..why does Sravna have to quote Vedas to substantiate his theory?

Does that mean that Vedas is the Gospel Truth?..I mean Pramanyam?

From what I can make out from your post..you always play by the rules of logic and prefer to deduce a final diagnosis using intellect instead of just accepting anything passed down without questioning....so why suddenly you want proof from the Vedas?

This is what I do not understand.

 

[Nara]

We will first argue at the level of logic as logic is more important to you than blind faith. As said in one of my earlier posts, I will then try to show that how the logic is consistent with what is said in the vedas.

I fail to understand this..why does Sravna have to quote Vedas to substantiate his theory?

....so why suddenly you want proof from the Vedas?

sravna and Renuka,

To have a meaningful argument there must be agreement with epistemology. This does not mean the opposing parties have to necessarily agree to the validity of the source of knowledge, all that is required is for them to agree to prove their point within the epistemology they have agreed to abide by, a priori. This is easy to understand, I hope.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I take it that sravna's arguments in defence of advaitam are anchored on the Vedas. If this is not correct let him say so and I won't ask for Vedic support for his positions. If he wishes to insist that his arguments are based on the Vedas, then I have the right to ask for Vedic verses that support his views, irrespective of whether I have faith in the Vedas or not.

In as much as sravna has not bothered to provide a single vedic verse in support of his arguments even after repeated pleas, I have to conclude he has conceded in effect, even though he is unwilling to fess up to it, he has no vedic leg to stand on, so to speak.

So, if this is agreed to, then we can move on to logical reasoning for Advaitam.

Logically, sravna says there must be a cause outside space and time and it must be NB. Why? Give us one logical explanation that the only way to have jagat is to have a conscious creator outside time and space and that entity must be NB. This is something you cannot simply assert, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For example, Ramanuja's VA asserts there are three eternal principles that always existed without a prior cause. To a logical person, Ramanuja's assertion makes as much sense or nonsense as the assertion that there is something called outside time and space and there exists an entity in that whatever, and that is the only way to explain jagat.

BTW, in Ramanuja's defence, he does not say his position is logical, he simply says it is what the Vedas say and for him Vedas are the fount of inerrant knowledge, and to that extent he is logically consistent within the confines of his own epistemology; we can challenge him on that and he is duty bound to answer with Vedic authority. If he refuses to answer, figuratively speaking of course, he is no more than our friend sravna in terms of Vedas and even simple rationality.

In summary, you guys have no Vedic leg to stand on, and neither do you stand on logical legs, it is all regurgitating some high sounding effluents like maya, NB, SB, etc., to delude oneself and others as well. Prove your point with Vedic statements if that is the source of knowledge from which you have developed your theory, or prove it with unassailable logic. Don't equivocate.

 

[sravna]

sravna and Renuka,

To have a meaningful argument there must be agreement with epistemology. This does not mean the opposing parties have to necessarily agree to the validity of the source of knowledge, all that is required is for them to agree to prove their point within the epistemology they have agreed to abide by, a priori. This is easy to understand, I hope.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I take it that sravna's arguments in defence of advaitam are anchored on the Vedas. If this is not correct let him say so and I won't ask for Vedic support for his positions. If he wishes to insist that his arguments are based on the Vedas, then I have the right to ask for Vedic verses that support his views, irrespective of whether I have faith in the Vedas or not.

In as much as sravna has not bothered to provide a single vedic verse in support of his arguments even after repeated pleas, I have to conclude he has conceded in effect, even though he is unwilling to fess up to it, he has no vedic leg to stand on, so to speak.

So, if this is agreed to, then we can move on to logical reasoning for Advaitam.

Logically, sravna says there must be a cause outside space and time and it must be NB. Why? Give us one logical explanation that the only way to have jagat is to have a conscious creator outside time and space and that entity must be NB. This is something you cannot simply assert, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For example, Ramanuja's VA asserts there are three eternal principles that always existed without a prior cause. To a logical person, Ramanuja's assertion makes as much sense or nonsense as the assertion that there is something called outside time and space and there exists an entity in that whatever, and that is the only way to explain jagat.

BTW, in Ramanuja's defence, he does not say his position is logical, he simply says it is what the Vedas say and for him Vedas are the fount of inerrant knowledge, and to that extent he is logically consistent within the confines of his own epistemology; we can challenge him on that and he is duty bound to answer with Vedic authority. If he refuses to answer, figuratively speaking of course, he is no more than our friend sravna in terms of Vedas and even simple rationality.

In summary, you guys have no Vedic leg to stand on, and neither do you stand on logical legs, it is all regurgitating some high sounding effluents like maya, NB, SB, etc., to delude oneself and others as well. Prove your point with Vedic statements if that is the source of knowledge from which you have developed your theory, or prove it with unassailable logic. Don't equivocate.

Dear Shri Nara,

I prefer to start with logic because even the vedas are open to different interpretations and so I would like to start with something that everyone can objectively agree upon and not be bogged down in defending a particular position. But I do stand by my position that I will try to show that the logic supports how the vedas were interpreted by Sankara.

 

[sravna]

sravna and Renuka,


Logically, sravna says there must be a cause outside space and time and it must be NB. Why? Give us one logical explanation that the only way to have jagat is to have a conscious creator outside time and space and that entity must be NB. This is something you cannot simply assert, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For example, Ramanuja's VA asserts there are three eternal principles that always existed without a prior cause. To a logical person, Ramanuja's assertion makes as much sense or nonsense as the assertion that there is something called outside time and space and there exists an entity in that whatever, and that is the only way to explain jagat.

Dear Shri Nara,

Let us discuss point by point. Let me take up the point that there has to be an entity outside space and time. Please refer post #481 and address my point mentioned there that there has to be a timeless entity.

 

[Nara]

.......But I do stand by my position that I will try to show that the logic supports how the vedas were interpreted by Sankara.

sravna, please go through my last post, I have addressed both vedic and logic concerns with your views. Be my guest, choose what you like. If logical arguments and not vedic that you want to resort to, then make your case, read my post again carefully and give your answer.

Please spare me your usual canned answers, make your rational case that you need an NB outside time and space for jagat, there is a place outside time and space -- an aximoron in its own right -- that an NB inhibits this place and is the material and instrumental cause of jagat, and that merely inhibiting this place outside time and space means this NB exists without an a priori cause.

Prove it logically sravna, don't just assert.....

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

I want to take one logical step at a time. So see post #535 and respond whether you agree with it or not and the reason. I have given my reason in #481.

The ball is in your court now.

 

[Nara]

........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.

sravna, I want to first emphasize that you are unable to provide a shred of vedic support for your arguments. Just admit it, that would be the honest thing to do.

As for your postulate, you obviously have the cart before the horse. You can't simply postulate there is an entity of your liking in order to avoid a problem in your argument. Who created this God is something you have to answer without simply conjuring up some place that is outside time and space, and that there is an entity there without a prior cause just because it is in that place.

There is lot to answer for.

Who created this place outside time and space?

Who created the entity you call NB in that place?

Why is such an entity necessary to create jagat, which can just as well exist without a prior cause if a place outside time and space can exist without prior cause?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

I will answer your first query.

There is lot to answer for.

Who created this place outside time and space?

The notion of "creation" is something that exists for something bound by space and time only. That is the reason why you are not able to answer what is the first cause. If you can free yourself of the notion of space and time, you will come to the conclusion, that something always existed and the idea that it has to be created is not required.

As you think, there need not be a place outside of space for something to exist. That is not correct. When I say space is not there, the existence and the experience of the entity also is without the space. There can be no other logical conclusion.

 

[auh]

As long as we are deluded by Maya we can not say we are in the same state as NB isnt it ?

Irrespective of what "we" are, the fact remains that the "we" is a deluded NB.

Cos if we are right now here itself the same as NB then in that case there is no difference at all..so that means there is right now..no male,no female, no Brahmin, No Sudra no nothing.

According to Sravna, from the pov of NB, nothing apart from itself IS. So the very evident contradiction that how come we ARE. To this Sravna has said (am paraphrasing) that NB projects SB, maya and the jagat and all the matter within. The jiva that experiences the worldly feelings is actually the NB (part or as a whole, whatever!) but it is unable to realize that since maya operates in the lower reality, ie., in the world. Once the jiva realizes that it is actually NB, then it is eternal bliss. So human salvation is only through self-realization.

All this can just be conjectures, as good as the FGFD theory, or personal beliefs but not a logical derivative.

As long we exists under the influence of Maya we are not YET the same as NB.

Now you are spinning a different version of advaita from what Sravna has been postulating. The word "not yet" is significant as it means we are not NB now, and that collapses the very fundamental pronouncements of Sankara that "jivas and brahman are not different".

If there indeed existed an NB, true to its name, there shouldn't have been any maya, SB, illusion, projection etc. as then it is NB no more. Hence the notion of an NB itself is a fallacy, imo.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

As long as we are deluded by Maya we can not say we are in the same state as NB isnt it ?

Cos if we are right now here itself the same as NB then in that case there is no difference at all..so that means there is right now..no male,no female, no Brahmin, No Sudra no nothing.

As long we exists under the influence of Maya we are not YET the same as NB.

Smt. Renuka,

The generally accepted position is that the jivAtma is, in its essence, the same as NB. And we have the saying jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ. Hence, I feel the argument to somehow differentiate thejīvātmā is just specious.The NB itself, through processes unknown, becomes the jīvātmās and hence what Shri auh says, viz., the NB deludes itself by covering itself with adhyāsa or māyā is, substantively true and correct.

 

[auh]

Now let us see why the following cannot be false, logically:

But first we have to believe that there is a concept which can be logically explained by saying that "there is something beyond time and space". Of course, this is the very basic principle which is easy to understand. A similar easy concept is that everything is not created. Proof? Why, isn't it obvious? Ok, this explanation of the obvious is for the thickskulls - we know that all living things are created by their parents but what about the non-living? Surely they don't need a creator ! Also that which you cannot see cannot be said to have been created, and thus it follows that not everything is created. So, we should throw the creation concept out of our mind as that is the path of logic.

Now that we have stated the obvious, we proceed (without heeding to the objections) to the logical conclusions.

1) FGFD always existed beyond time and space.

2) They existed even though there was no space.

3) Their experience was also without the space.

 

[sravna]

If there indeed existed an NB, true to its name, there shouldn't have been any maya, SB, illusion, projection etc. as then it is NB no more. Hence the notion of an NB itself is a fallacy, imo.

Dear Shri Auh,

The problem with your reasoning is that it ignores that we actually experience the physical world and hence have to take that into our account to explain our view. Since we do experience the physical world, we just have to understand that is the nature of reality and this is how it is structured. We also have the logical conclusion, you may rebut this by logic if such a conclusion is false, that there is an entity which is just timeless.

So the existence of physical reality is by direct perception and that of a timeless entity is by inference. Both are valid conclusions. So how do we reconcile a timeless reality and a time constrained reality. The timeless reality has to be the ultimate reality and all time bound realities have to begin and come to an end.

Where did the time bound realities come from? and Where can the time bound realities go once they end? They have to go into the only thing that is permanent which is the timeless reality.In other words the time bound realities such as the jivas actually become one with the timeless reality and we can reasonably conclude they are in essence the same as the timeless reality essence and their existence is in an absolute sense an illusion. This is because from the perspective of the timeless reality they could not have existed because it doesn't experience time but from the perspective of other jivas they existed. So the term rightly used is "illusory existence".

If you consider the NB is the timeless reality and the jivas as the time bound realities, I think you can relate it to what advaita says.

We are just trying to explain what we see and what we can infer coherently. Addressing the question why the reality is the way it is , is a different one. May be because the lower reality deserves to be existing as a separate existence.Let me come to that later.

 

[auh]

Dear Sravna,

The problem with your reasoning is that it ignores that we actually experience the physical world and hence have to take that into our account to explain our view. Since we do experience the physical world, we just have to understand that is the nature of reality and this is how it is structured. We also have the logical conclusion, you may rebut this by logic if such a conclusion is false, that there is an entity which is just timeless.

Reg. the highlighted, please note that we dont have any such logical conclusion, and I have rebutted your claims. Only thing is, you have not cared to reply point by point to my statements, but chose to jump onto other topics.

Having said this, I am not replying to the rest of your post as it is based on this assumption of a timeless entity, which existence is only your assumption.

 

[sravna]

Now let us see why the following cannot be false, logically:

But first we have to believe that there is a concept which can be logically explained by saying that "there is something beyond time and space". Of course, this is the very basic principle which is easy to understand. A similar easy concept is that everything is not created. Proof? Why, isn't it obvious? Ok, this explanation of the obvious is for the thickskulls - we know that all living things are created by their parents but what about the non-living? Surely they don't need a creator ! Also that which you cannot see cannot be said to have been created, and thus it follows that not everything is created. So, we should throw the creation concept out of our mind as that is the path of logic.

Now that we have stated the obvious, we proceed (without heeding to the objections) to the logical conclusions.

1) FGFD always existed beyond time and space.

2) They existed even though there was no space.

3) Their experience was also without the space.

Dear Shri Auh,

I am not able to make out whether you are trying to be humorous or are really serious. If it is a humour it is not a bad humour

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,Reg. the highlighted, please note that we dont have any such logical conclusion, and I have rebutted your claims. Only thing is, you have not cared to reply point by point to my statements, but chose to jump onto other topics.

Having said this, I am not replying to the rest of your post as it is based on this assumption of a timeless entity, which existence is only your assumption.

Dear Shri Auh,

Sorry for asking this. Can you give me the post # where you claim to have rebutted the argument?

 

[auh]

Dear Shri Auh,

Sorry for asking this. Can you give me the post # where you claim to have rebutted the argument?

Hi Sravna, it is not in this thread, but in another... have a look here - #150

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...wledge-projection-spiritual-knowledge-15.html

There was one other post where I have stated some obvious fallacies in advaitam, which was left unexplainet, but I cannot trace it now.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

I will answer your first query.


The notion of "creation" is something that exists for something bound by space and time only. That is the reason why you are not able to answer what is the first cause. If you can free yourself of the notion of space and time, you will come to the conclusion, that something always existed and the idea that it has to be created is not required.

As you think, there need not be a place outside of space for something to exist. That is not correct. When I say space is not there, the existence and the experience of the entity also is without the space. There can be no other logical conclusion.

My position is that we are probably misleading ourselves by repeatedly using phrases like "outside space and time". Can there not be something which is not "outside space and time" but is not "bound" or "affected" by "space and time"?

Second, what do we really, really, mean by Jagat, creation, etc? Have we any mathematically verified proof that this Jagat is for real and that it was "created" in the same manner as a mud pot is created by a potter?

Is it not possible that this Jagat itself is a make-believe, a dream-like mental experience, which our human mind and intellect are "conditioned", naturally, to accept and believe to be true and solid, because it (jagat) seems to function in accordance with very intricate and stable principles which obey the mathematical laws?

Perhaps, the time has come to move away from positing a 'creator' god and created jagat, etc., and to view the universe itself as a "relative" phenomenon (not absolute) which works or functions by being subject to the notions of space and time. If it is possible to think in this way, the notion of māyā will become clearer, I feel. The universe itself can be a mirage-like experience of each and every jīvātmā — can we not think on these lines? In this case, we, the jīvātmās, are ourselves the creators of the jagat and there is no need for a NB, SB, etc., to explain its creation.

 

[sravna]

According to Shri Auh,

The basic fallacy is that somehow time is taken to be finite (is there a proof for this in physics or whatever?) and thus by disproving that time is infinite you arrive at the conclusion that the world has a beginning. My query is - Why should time have a finite time frame when we dont know about what existed before? Big bang theories are not proven facts and you cannot take it as conclusive proofs. It is therefore mere speculation and hence cannot be logical.

Another fallacy is that space seems to have been emerged or created. We cannot comprehend this, and what cannot be comprehended, cannot be fit in a logic. The logical question, if we were to accept this statement, would then be, what existed before space emerged? It there wasn't anything then it would seem that space emerged out of nothing, which is a contradiction by itself, but if there was something (call it by any name), where did it reside? This is again another contradiction, because there is no space for it , you see

Dear Shri Auh,

Your first objection is that time need not be finite. I answered this objection. Anyway let me try to put it in another way. If as you think time is infinite. , How long back can you think time can go? 1 billion years, 1 trillion years or even uncountable number of years because it is infinite. For example you say time started at a point t and it has been n years from that point till now . I could always say that since you say it is infinite it could have started at point t-1 and we could not have reached the present since now it would take n+1 years to reach the present but only n years have elapsed since time was created. So I could always push back the point t further and further so that present could never be reached.

But from our experience of present we know that it is not what has happened. So time can only be finite and must have had a beginning.