Brahma Sutras

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

There are people who keep telling that something is wrong with others but when asked the reason they are not able to give any. And they call themselves rational

 

[Vaagmi]

........Further, if we examine these prerequisites -- which are quite vague to begin with -- one will readily see that it is a prescription for getting indoctrinated.

When it comes to religious teachings, such as Vedanta, here is what the prerequisites actually mean:

right attitude = Don't question the validity of the scriptures
background = Brahmin, accepts the supremacy of brahmanical texts, White man who thinks Hinduism is great, anyone who agrees with you
preparation = another vague criterion, means very little
guidance from right teacher = guidance from an already indoctrinated vedic scholar, not anyone who questions vedanta, however learned he/she may be

That is just your understanding of the matter. There is a lot of negativism loaded into that view. There are other students in this universe apart from you who have studied vedanta and their understanding of the prerequisites is different. If you can keep aside your pet peeves and prejudices for a while and look at it with a clear mind you will find the truth:

right attitude = Dont trash the scriptures just because they are old or because you do not understand them. Have an open mind to study them.
background = accept that you do not know anything about vedanta and be sincere about your status as far as the knowledge you seek is concerned. Have respect for the teacher because he knows that, which you do not know. If you think he does not know go to another teacher or do not venture into knowing vedanta at all. Be happy with whatever you have. For your own sake please do not bring in the muck of your victimhood or 'championing victim's rights' prejudices to your teacher.
preparation = prepare yourself with essential basic knowledge because vedanta is not for kids like rocket dynamics is not for my servant maid. They are unprepared.
guidance from right teacher = the teacher will only tell you how to think effectively. He will not do the thinking for you. He will expect you to arrive at your own conclusions. If you have time and the inclination please just read the brikuvalli of Taitreeya upanishad to get an idea of the relationship between a good teacher and an interested student and the mental processes involved in learning.

I am writing this not in support of any member of this forum but to rebut the unnecessary and uncouth swipe taken at the vedanta and its rich teaching traditions.

 

[Vaagmi]

There are people who keep telling that something is wrong with others but when asked the reason they are not able to give any. And they call themselves rational

sravna,

Why this siege phobia? When people here tell you bluntly that What you are telling has a number of flaws, they are asking you to be more clear in your presentations. No two members in this forum(unless they have met in real life too) know each other well. So the scope for your accusation that they are finding fault with another member does not stand the test of reason. Please do not become hypersensitive to criticism. Thank you.

 

[sravna]

Sutra 2: Definition of brahman

English Translation: Brahman is that from which the the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of this world proceed.

Scriptures are to be taken as the primary authority for this definition of brahman. Reason cannot play that role. However reasoning has a place in that it can be used to supplement what is said in the scriptures but not contradict it. The reasoning can be done by first listening to the religious texts, thinking about their meaning and meditation on them. This leads to the intuition that helps in removing the ignorance about brahman.

 

[sravna]

sravna,

Why this siege phobia? When people here tell you bluntly that What you are telling has a number of flaws, they are asking you to be more clear in your presentations. No two members in this forum(unless they have met in real life too) know each other well. So the scope for your accusation that they are finding fault with another member does not stand the test of reason. Please do not become hypersensitive to criticism. Thank you.

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

I am willing to correct myself. I was receptive to your ideas when you said how the presentation could be better. One can for sure say that there are flaws in others arguments. But it would be a great service to other members if they can spell them out and say why they consider them as flaws.

 

[auh]

... But it would be a great service to other members if they can spell them out and say why they consider them as flaws.

Everyone have spelled and spilled it out, but perhaps due to maya, you are, ultimately, unable to view the flaws.

 

[sravna]

Dear Auh,

I know you are the one who figured out the flaws. I do not want to deny you the credit for them if that can make you happy.

 

[auh]

... I do not want to deny you the credit for them if that can make you happy.

Dear Sravna, do you mean that if that makes me unhappy you would deny the credit? :-O

Please dont be condescending.

 

[ozone]

But it takes a certain level of maturity to [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]admit[/COLOR] to oneself that he/she cannot be 100% certain. It takes a level of humility to realize that those who have a different POV are no less dedicated in [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]the search[/COLOR] for truth.

Calling Advaitins a fraud is surely a best way of leading by that example for some champions out here

 

[sravna]

Folks,

Should I carry on with the rest of the sutras? Is there really enough interest?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna, do you mean that if that makes me unhappy you would deny the credit? :-O

Please dont be condescending.

Is that what follows from what I said?

 

[sangom]

Folks,

Should I carry on with the rest of the sutras? Is there really enough interest?

Dear Shri Sravna,

It should be clear to you from your life's experience that people (i.e., humans) cannot abide by strict advaitam. Legend has it that even AdiShankara pleaded for forgiveness of his three sins in looking at god as deity in temples. Advaitam, therefore, cannot be anything more than an exercise to display one's skill in dry philosophy (வறட்டு வேதாந்தம்) and will not be appreciated as anything more than that. Advaitam may be relevant to a group of people when they are ready to completely eschew idol worship, temples, pilgrimages and so on. But hindu society of today is not anywhere near to such a state of affairs.


I have understood your take on this subject is that there is something called "spiritual" and by going up the spiritual ladder one will automatically attain brahmaananda and as a corollary to that, liberation or moksha. Millions and billions of people have lived (and died and vanished completely from the face of the earth) harbouring such unfounded notions. Hence there is absolutely no harm if you and a few hundreds/thousands more live and die and go away with such notions. The world and this universe is likely to go on for a much longer time than humanity itself.

But, as I tried to indicate, Gaudapada interwove some tenets of buddhism including its shunyavaada and composed his maandookya kaarikaa. Govinda Bhagavatpada possibly did not feel it was time to give publicity to such a thing (when the influence of buddhism had not yet completely vanished from people's minds) and handed over the task (of building up on Gaudapada's philosophy) to Sankara, who, came up with a nirguna parabrahman in the place of shoonyata. (It was like replacing zero by a valueless quantity, kind of thing, imho.)

I therefore feel that the less we discuss advaitam, the better.

 

[Nara]

If the validity of a text such as the Vedantic ones is simply asserted based on some notion of inerrancy, then it is nothing more than a religious text. If resolute faith in the text is a prerequisite to understand it properly, then it is nothing more than a religious text. If to be guided by someone who views the text in this way is a prerequisite for fully understanding it, then it is a religious text. In case a question arises in your mind about something written in the text, and in such instances if you are required to firmly believe that a valid answer exists and the reason you can't find it is your own inadequacy, then it is a religious text. All these are unmistakable marks of a religious text.

Vedanta deserves an open-minded and critical study, nothing more, nothing less. If questions are raised they need to be answered in a satisfactory manner, or the questioned idea must be jettisoned, that is the intellectual way. Simply saying that the questioner is inadequate to understand without knowing anything about him/her is the way of religious totalitarianism.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

It should be clear to you from your life's experience that people (i.e., humans) cannot abide by strict advaitam. Legend has it that even AdiShankara pleaded for forgiveness of his three sins in looking at god as deity in temples. Advaitam, therefore, cannot be anything more than an exercise to display one's skill in dry philosophy (வறட்டு வேதாந்தம்) and will not be appreciated as anything more than that. Advaitam may be relevant to a group of people when they are ready to completely eschew idol worship, temples, pilgrimages and so on. But hindu society of today is not anywhere near to such a state of affairs.


I have understood your take on this subject is that there is something called "spiritual" and by going up the spiritual ladder one will automatically attain brahmaananda and as a corollary to that, liberation or moksha. Millions and billions of people have lived (and died and vanished completely from the face of the earth) harbouring such unfounded notions. Hence there is absolutely no harm if you and a few hundreds/thousands more live and die and go away with such notions. The world and this universe is likely to go on for a much longer time than humanity itself.

But, as I tried to indicate, Gaudapada interwove some tenets of buddhism including its shunyavaada and composed his maandookya kaarikaa. Govinda Bhagavatpada possibly did not feel it was time to give publicity to such a thing (when the influence of buddhism had not yet completely vanished from people's minds) and handed over the task (of building up on Gaudapada's philosophy) to Sankara, who, came up with a nirguna parabrahman in the place of shoonyata. (It was like replacing zero by a valueless quantity, kind of thing, imho.)

I therefore feel that the less we discuss advaitam, the better.

I think the interest is not there. I will stop this discussion now folks.

 

[Nara]

Calling Advaitins a fraud is surely a best way of leading by that example for some champions out here

[/COLOR]

sigh, plain English apparently is a little too much for some people to properly comprehend.

Here is what I said in post #77:

"sravna, what am I fit enough for? Let me not be presumptuous enough to think I am fit for anything at all. But, if everything outside of Nirguna Brahman is maya, in what logical way can you claim Shankara's teachings are outside maya? If it is indeed outside maya, then advaitam is a fraud."
​

For you convenience Mr. ozone, I have highlighted the critical words that you have so obviously didn't take into account. Just to clear the confusion due to careless reading, all I was trying to do was to point out a logical error that could end up meaning advaitam is a fraud. Even if my argument is flawed, one thing is clear enough, I did not say advaitam is a fraud.

 

[Govinda]

I think the interest is not there. I will stop this discussion now folks.

Sravna,

It is not your fault. People are not ready yet. They should mature over many births themselves The topic should rather have been about basic reality .

Ravi is right. We have seen many smaller sub-threads within this one topic. Even if you retained the same topic, you should have created 2 similar threads, one for the atheistic debate and one on theistic/hinduism grounds.

 

[C RAVI]

I think the interest is not there. I will wind up this discussion folks.

That seems better..Sorry to say that..

Either Atheists find the thread nothing more than a thrash or some theists find the thread useless because the thread is not reproducing the same, text by text from the Sutras. In all, you are demotivated.

 

[auh]

Either Atheists find the thread nothing more than a thrash or some theists find the thread useless because the thread is not reproducing the same, text by text from the Sutras.

But is that not what a debate/discussion is all about? esp when the topic is of such nature, then there are bound to be strong views. If anybody feels that opposing views are demotivating, then yes, I have to agree with you that it is better to close this topic and you may also make a request to close all other threads where there are any opposing views.

I find that you never respond to my posts directly, but that is another matter for some other day.

 

[auh]

It is not your fault. People are not ready yet. They should mature over many births themselves The topic should rather have been about basic reality .

But birth itself is maya according to Sravna, and in this context your suggestion seems to be far from either physical reality, spiritual reality or ultimate reality .

 

[C RAVI]

That seems better..Sorry to say that..

Either Atheists find the thread nothing more than a thrash or some theists find the thread useless because the thread is not reproducing the same, text by text from the Sutras. In all, you are demotivated.

But is that not what a debate/discussion is all about? esp when the topic is of such nature, then there are bound to be strong views. If anybody feels that opposing views are demotivating, then yes, I have to agree with you that it is better to close this topic and you may also make a request to close all other threads where there are any opposing views.

I find that you never respond to my posts directly, but that is another matter for some other day.

Where I said that there should not be strong views, counter arguments etc?? Read my post properly.

This is one among many reasons that I don't chose to respond to your post directly.

 

[auh]

Where I said that there should not be strong views, counter arguments etc?? Read my post properly.

This is one among many reasons that I don't chose to respond to your post directly.

You know what - pls re-read the thread once more and perhaps you might find that there are only views expressed here. That the topic is redundant is also a counter view; challenge it if you can instead of making judgemental observations.

But hey, that may be your only opinion.

Quite strange that you see a reason there for not replying to my posts, but that is your prerogative...

Cheers

 

[Govinda]

But birth itself is maya according to Sravna, and in this context your suggestion seems to be far from either physical reality, spiritual reality or ultimate reality .

auh,

pardon me , I didnt read the whole thread.

Acc. to Sankara advaita, Creation/world is illusory(mayic), hence birth, rebirth inclusively are maya. So, how is he wrong? Are there different factions of Sankara/Other advaitas? If so, Sravna, needs 2 more threads

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

Thank you for addressing my message in post #41. I am not really in debate with anyone. so, personally I not too concerned about any 'meeting pint'. I am happy with sharing opinions and point-of views.

"There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the ultimate truth. — Verse 2.32, Mandukya Karikaa"

I did see your post but thought that we may not have any meeting ground when you insist that "One has to realise 2:32 against one just believes 2:32", etc.

[FONT=&quot]It is true, Sir. Just blindly believing something would not really help. When I said ‘realise’ I meant more about understanding. My expression in English Language may have many misgivings. Sorry. When I said ‘realise’ I meant ‘understand’.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]My view is that it is not always possible to "realize" everything but it is much easier to understand. Understanding leads one gradually to the stage where one will partially realize the illusory nature of this world. For full realization, it is absolutely necessary that ordinary people like us are dead - i.e., it is not posssible to fully realize or experience this.

[FONT=&quot]Sir, I am not too sure about the ‘illusory nature of this world’. Personally I don’t see any illusion about this world. In my opinion, I am the illusion. Also, I don’t think one has to die before one understands the full impact of one on this world/universe. Secondly any knowledge acquired after death, if any, may not be very useful for this life! I don’t subscribe to after life phenomenon either.

[/FONT]Liberation or Moksha was a candy which was dangled in front of householder brahmins by the pundits, nothing more. Believing what the pundits said, most brahmins (and many NBs who liked to dabble in religion & philosophy etc.,) observed all the religious injunctions and even went to the extent of accepting "sanyaasa" etc., under the mistaken notion that all these would lead "one" to a highly blissful state of existence without even an iota of trouble or suffering or pain, etc., called the state of brahmaanandam. But there is no evidence for the existence of any such state; hence, this liberation is a religious myth, that's all.

[FONT=&quot]Again, kindly excuse my English language skills ( or lack of it). For the word ‘liberation’ I took the meaning of ‘freedom’. ‘Heaven’ or Moksha did not enter my mind. Understanding a concept improves knowledge which in turn would direct one away from bigotry ideas and bigotry thoughts. The Liberation I mentioned does not refer to moksha is not exactly the moksha mentioned by the pundits.

[/FONT]Humans are born every second and the world population of humans is increasing. If many people had attained Moksha, the world population should naturally have declined at least marginally and not increased. We do not as yet know why the population is increasing and is forecasted to increase as years pass. Let us not therefore confuse ourselves with the ambition of getting Moksha. That is my view.

I shall pass this, please. I can’t get my head around this.

Cheers!




[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

 

[Raghy]

auh,

pardon me , I didnt read the whole thread.

Acc. to Sankara advaita, Creation/world is illusory(mayic), hence birth, rebirth inclusively are maya. So, how is he wrong? Are there different factions of Sankara/Other advaitas? If so, Sravna, needs 2 more threads

Sri. Govinda,

This thread is not a discussion about Advaita. It is about 'Brahma Sutra'. Many acharyals have written commentry on this subject. So, the discussion need not be restricted to Sankara or Advaitham.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Vaagmi,

So what? Why this obsession with spans of time? Even if it is just a storm in a teacup, for the ant sitting on the edge of the cup it is a full scale gale. I get only one life to live here. I dont like to be told that it is just a trivial one nano second divided a million times in the larger scheme of things. I am not bothered about it. So let us forget about this world being just phenomenal. Each such phenomena stays long enough for me to wonder what is behind that and it is worth the effort to find out that. Or else you should say that whenever I see the computer before me it is not the computer that I am seeing but it is my existence here that I am seeing/realising. But that would start another chain of questions.

Sri. Vaagmi,

I had to mention about the age of earth only to compare it to our life span. I was mentioning our life span is very brief compare to the age of this planet. I mentioned this to reiterate ‘I” am the maya but not this world. But that does not reduce the importance of each life.

Cheers!