"Complicatedism"

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Prasad, Pl refrain from your silly comments. if I give back, you will go back crying to the moderator/Praveen like the last time. Pl continue your comments if you can only take it back from me. anyways it is thoroughly pointless & useless to argue with you !!

If you care to notice, my comment was to Mr. KRS, and about his writing style. I have nothing to say to you.

 

[Anand Manohar]

Dear Doc

Your post # 125.

I just returned from the Indo-Burmese border town of Moreh [ pronounced Moora ] after spending
almost a week with a group of Tamil settlers there. Had a great time there with an innocent, un-assuming'
well knit community.

Much of what has transpired in this thread goes over my head - I am no intellectual. Forget Zen.
[ if I could, I would withdraw post # 2 of this thread ].

I have gone back to reading Amar Chitra Katha comics - you know, there is always a fair complexioned
good man [ named Punya Budhi or Dharma Budhi ] and a dark complexioned bad man [ named Papa Budhi or
Dushta Budhi ] - you'll never guess know who wins, always - it's a big suspense ! Shhh ! Don't tell anyone.

Would strongly recommend Amar Chitra Katha comics to everyone - will cause no animosity, no antagonism
no mud slinging and everyone will live happily ever after.

Sort of learning to avoid 'Complicatedism' .

Capt VT

 

[prasad1]

Dear Doc

Your post # 125.

I just returned from the Indo-Burmese border town of Moreh [ pronounced Moora ] after spending
almost a week with a group of Tamil settlers there. Had a great time there with an innocent, un-assuming'
well knit community.

Much of what has transpired in this thread goes over my head - I am no intellectual. Forget Zen.
[ if I could, I would withdraw post # 2 of this thread ].

I have gone back to reading Amar Chitra Katha comics - you know, there is always a fair complexioned
good man [ named Punya Budhi or Dharma Budhi ] and a dark complexioned bad man [ named Papa Budhi or
Dushta Budhi ] - you'll never guess know who wins, always - it's a big suspense ! Shhh ! Don't tell anyone.

Would strongly recommend Amar Chitra Katha comics to everyone - will cause no animosity, no antagonism
no mud slinging and everyone will live happily ever after.

Sort of learning to avoid 'Complicatedism' .

Capt VT

Subtle and simple.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sarang ji,

I had asked a question in Forum today but yet to receive an answer from the member may be he had not seen the question yet.

I admit that my knowledge in VA is close to nothing but I have a doubt here and I am pasting this question again.

I hope you can help clear my doubt.



It's about Nithya Suris..

When God created everything...everything was pure and equal.

What was the determining factor to decide who became a human and who became a Nithya Suri when at creation Karma had not yet started kicking in.

If God had randomly made Humans and some Nithya Suris without any criteria that would mean that God is unfair and more like a Non Hindu concept of God who yields a magic wand and Lo Behold..He creates Angels, Humans and Demons.

BTW is Nithyasuri a fixed postion that is sole monopoly of a person or is it a position to be held and anyone can be appointed ? like the position of Indra(Devendra) is not the sole property of a person and he is only Indra for a specific period of time till the next round of elections when the parliament is dissolved(Pralaya)

Smt Renuka,

Islam has similarities not only with VA but also with advaitam, according to me. Both advaitam and Islam say that there is only one ultimate, supreme god; the former calls it parabrahmam while the latter names it as 'alLAh'. This word comprises al (the) + iḷāh (god, deity) making the whole meaning as "the only god". Both Parabrahman and alḷāh are without shape and without discernible attributes but both have all the powers. (advaita, however, does not talk about the 'power' of Brahmam explicitly but this may be inferred since Brahman is the sole reality according to advaita.)

advaita got into trouble because of the importation of the concept and the term of "adhyāsa" which is now commonly known as "māyā". imho, what Shankara wanted to convey was that all this universe is so perceived only during our lifetimes here in this world, after which all of this simply vanishes to our experiences. Hence he tried to convey the idea thru the simile of a sleeping (dreaming) person waking up to see that all his dreamworld vanishes suddenly, etc. But a little amount of confusion was created because of the rajju-sarpa simile; this gave scope for the tenet that though the snake is unreal, there is an underlying rope, nevertheless.

VA also posits a only supreme god Narayana but does not admit the adhyāsa concept and holds that all this universe and its perception by us through our senses is real and not at all illusory. Hence there is closer similarity to Islam here, imo. But religion being a potential breeding ground for zealotry, I feel such a view may not go well with those who follow the VA tenets, though the advaitins may be lukewarm to the above comments regarding advaita.

Nitya suri concept poses a seeming conundrum to you, mainly because you propound absolute equality among all that "god" created; this is just your desire, and may not be the truth. There is hardly any equity or equality in nature. One devours another and that is how nature sustains itself. According to VA tenets, the Nitya Suris are a special class which includes garuda, Adisesha, Vishvaksena and the other paraphernalia of Narayana are termed as Nitya Suris. They are exempt from Karma, rebirth and all that. Something akin to the "Lords" of England, according to me. It is a position only to the awardees, not transferable or inheritable, I feel.

 

[prasad1]

Smt Renuka,

Islam has similarities not only with VA but also with advaitam, according to me. Both advaitam and Islam say that there is only one ultimate, supreme god; the former calls it parabrahmam while the latter names it as 'alLAh'. This word comprises al (the) + iḷāh (god, deity) making the whole meaning as "the only god". Both Parabrahman and alḷāh are without shape and without discernible attributes but both have all the powers. (advaita, however, does not talk about the 'power' of Brahmam explicitly but this may be inferred since Brahman is the sole reality according to advaita.)

advaita got into trouble because of the importation of the concept and the term of "adhyāsa" which is now commonly known as "māyā". imho, what Shankara wanted to convey was that all this universe is so perceived only during our lifetimes here in this world, after which all of this simply vanishes to our experiences. Hence he tried to convey the idea thru the simile of a sleeping (dreaming) person waking up to see that all his dreamworld vanishes suddenly, etc. But a little amount of confusion was created because of the rajju-sarpa simile; this gave scope for the tenet that though the snake is unreal, there is an underlying rope, nevertheless.

VA also posits a only supreme god Narayana but does not admit the adhyāsa concept and holds that all this universe and its perception by us through our senses is real and not at all illusory. Hence there is closer similarity to Islam here, imo. But religion being a potential breeding ground for zealotry, I feel such a view may not go well with those who follow the VA tenets, though the advaitins may be lukewarm to the above comments regarding advaita.

Nitya suri concept poses a seeming conundrum to you, mainly because you propound absolute equality among all that "god" created; this is just your desire, and may not be the truth. There is hardly any equity or equality in nature. One devours another and that is how nature sustains itself. According to VA tenets, the Nitya Suris are a special class which includes garuda, Adisesha, Vishvaksena and the other paraphernalia of Narayana are termed as Nitya Suris. They are exempt from Karma, rebirth and all that. Something akin to the "Lords" of England, according to me. It is a position only to the awardees, not transferable or inheritable, I feel.

I am not a scholar, but Allah has his opposition and is not able to contain 'Saitan', which is akin to Devil. That is the limitation of Abrahamic religions. They worship a god who is limited.
Parambrahman or Atman is everything, it is like infinity.

Your comparison runs similar to the argument that:
A table has four legs, and a horse has four legs so a horse is a table.

 

[prasad1]

Prasad, Pl refrain from your silly comments. if I give back, you will go back crying to the moderator/Praveen like the last time. Pl continue your comments if you can only take it back from me. anyways it is thoroughly pointless & useless to argue with you !!

You talking to me? Why?
My comment was to Mr. KRS.
Why do you think you are so important that others will talk about you, it must be your ego (ahankar). I ignore people who I have nothing to say.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

With all due respect, I do not think any of us knows the Truth. I do not think that what we perceive through our senses can be trusted either. There are ample examples to prove this.

Science can not in the ultimate answer the big question either, given it's own limitations and methods.

I think spiritual aspect of the man is in built and not taught - atheists children turn to become theists in later life, be it in any form. The complex nature of this yearning of whence we came from is a strong natural force that can not go away. Religions came in to being to satisfy this aspect.

Even if religions are wiped out, there will be a religion called non-religion, that will again come out with it's own theology to answer the big question. I do not think that dialectic materialism will take hold in that circumstance.

Regarding Advaitha, please go through this if you can get it:
THE SEVEN GREAT UNTENABLES: SAPTA VIDHA ANUPAPATTI - A Critical Study
in Vedanta Dialectics. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, India, l990

The above book is by one John Grimes, who got his Ph.D. from the University of Madras. He systematically and scholarly goes through the objections one by one in detail, and at least to my satisfaction has proved that Shankara's views stand on their own, and the doubts are not valid and can be cleared.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS & Shri Jaykay,

The truth is that none of the religions or religious beliefs will lead anyone to heaven, liberation or self-realization, etc. But when a human being has spent almost his entire life believing in one or more religions — successively or simultaneously also — the ego or "ahamkAra" inbuilt into the human psyche will not allow him/her to admit his/her folly. Like the fox in the fable which got its tail cut and then fell into a tub of dye, the human psyche will try to project that whatever he/she has so far done regarding god, religion, liberation, salvation, self-realization etc., had been the best of choices and this will induce the gullible people to follow the beaten track. I don't consider that even Ramakrishna or Vivekananda (or for that matter any of the so-called gurujis) were exceptions to this rule.

If there is a God, it is that which makes you a live being and sustains that life in your body. All of us - with no exceptions - including the great sages and acharyas come here to experience the karmaphalas of their accumulated Karmas. All of us play our roles according to a script, and having played out our respective roles thus scripted out, the personality or ego in each one of us perishes without trace. This is true of Hitler or Ashoka. What remains is only the balance of karma carried forward to the new page (birth) as some x,y or z.

Religions are the culprits which create the notion of continuity of the "I" ness, propose hell and heaven (which is very close to our Rigvedic pitruloka) or souls and transmigration, etc. Only when people get out of this trap of mAyA created by religions will humanity be progressing really.

 

[palindrome]

Even if religions are wiped out, there will be a religion called non-religion, that will again come out with it's own theology to answer the big question.

I disagree. Religion is institutionalized faith, and is defined by a set of beliefs, rules, laws, practices, codes of conduct. All religions are marked by exclusivity, such that believers of one religion canonize laws for their self-benefit and institutionalize laws to demean and/or avoid believers of an other religion. To answer any question, big or not, religion is not required.

 

[palindrome]

Shri KRS & Shri Jaykay,

The truth is that none of the religions or religious beliefs will lead anyone to heaven, liberation or self-realization, etc. But when a human being has spent almost his entire life believing in one or more religions — successively or simultaneously also — the ego or "ahamkAra" inbuilt into the human psyche will not allow him/her to admit his/her folly. Like the fox in the fable which got its tail cut and then fell into a tub of dye, the human psyche will try to project that whatever he/she has so far done regarding god, religion, liberation, salvation, self-realization etc., had been the best of choices and this will induce the gullible people to follow the beaten track. I don't consider that even Ramakrishna or Vivekananda (or for that matter any of the so-called gurujis) were exceptions to this rule.

If there is a God, it is that which makes you a live being and sustains that life in your body. All of us - with no exceptions - including the great sages and acharyas come here to experience the karmaphalas of their accumulated Karmas. All of us play our roles according to a script, and having played out our respective roles thus scripted out, the personality or ego in each one of us perishes without trace. This is true of Hitler or Ashoka. What remains is only the balance of karma carried forward to the new page (birth) as some x,y or z.

Religions are the culprits which create the notion of continuity of the "I" ness, propose hell and heaven (which is very close to our Rigvedic pitruloka) or souls and transmigration, etc. Only when people get out of this trap of mAyA created by religions will humanity be progressing really.

You may like this book very much (the neuroscience behind belief and how the brain works at it), [h=1]The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths -- The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths: Michael Shermer: 9781250008800: Amazon.com: Books[/h]
For those who cannot acquire the book, this synopsis can help: Michael Shermer » The Believing Brain

 

[sangom]

I am not a scholar, but Allah has his opposition and is not able to contain 'Saitan', which is akin to Devil. That is the limitation of Abrahamic religions. They worship a god who is limited.
Parambrahman or Atman is everything, it is like infinity.

Your comparison runs similar to the argument that:
A table has four legs, and a horse has four legs so a horse is a table.

I am not also claiming to be a scholar but Parabrahman and mAyA are contradictory in nature and the advaitins have not been able to answer the question ( by VA) of the locus of mAyA and whether it forms part of Parabrahman for the last 13 centuries. Advaita itself has split based on the different interpretations. Hence, just as the Abrahamic religions have a satan our advaita has a mAyA which is also akin to devil.

My comparison is : A table has four legs, and a horse has four legs so a horse and a table are similar in that respect.

I am not an expert in delivering sarcastic punch dialogues like you, but to me your attempt at snubbing looks like காளை பெத்துது, கயறெ எடு (kāḷai pettutu, kayaṟe eṭu - one fellow hears "the bull has delivered" and immediately orders a piece of rope to tie the calf

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear Sangom,

I am not sure how you arrived at the decision that Religion& religious beliefs will not lead the faithful to liberation, selfrealization.

Radical right wingers in all religions have taken over thediscourse & hence many seem to have this view.

This has nothing to do with a life long belief of religion& hence it is difficult to let go.

If anyone can prove to me/us that religion/path of God willnot lead us to salvation, I will gladly agree.

Cheers,

 

[tbs]

hi renu,

The same is also seen in Vishistadvaita which in my opinion eventually leads to Fundamentalism.

these lines makes a lots of criticism......be prepared for criticism......lol

 

[palindrome]

Dear Sangom,

I am not sure how you arrived at the decision that Religion& religious beliefs will not lead the faithful to liberation, selfrealization.

Radical right wingers in all religions have taken over thediscourse & hence many seem to have this view.

This has nothing to do with a life long belief of religion& hence it is difficult to let go.

If anyone can prove to me/us that religion/path of God willnot lead us to salvation, I will gladly agree.

Cheers,

Hope this may help (by Jiddu Krishnamurthy): Jiddu Krishnamurti on God & Self Realized Beings, Self Realized Souls

Additionally, these may be worth while reading:
1) Jiddu Krishnamurti on Existence of God, Krishnamuri on Existence of God & Prayer
2) Jiddu Krishnamurti on Immediate Realization of Truth Instant Self Realization

The neuroscience of belief, as per Shermer's research, shows how we are designed for belief; but so far no one knows why we are designed so.

My hypothesis is belief is linked to the crux of evolution; ie., survival. Lets put it this way -- very few people love Christ for what he is or for his teachings. But a lot of people love to love (or believe in) Christ because they believe they will be saved.

All the same, the human brain is largely unexplored. One human's self-realization may not be the same self-realization as the other.

The teachings of Buddha were created into a religion by his followers. However, lets view the teachings of Buddha, alone, without the involvement of religion -- you will find religion / path of God do not lead us to salvation.

There is no such thing as self-realization. No such thing as Nirvana, Moksham, Salvation. There is only the method and means to understand the self. Herein, self, means, to understand the way we think what we think and why we think. To explore the root of our thoughts, where they come from. For this, one does not require religion or God.

All said, my manasikaguru is Perumal. He is my guru. And hence a God (to me). A guide, a mentor. To meditate upon; and then explore the self. When within that blank there is nothing, not even Perumal (i do not know how long that point lasts, but looking at the clock pre and post meditation, i feel it must be only for a few seconds). No idea how religion can help in this.

 

[Jaykay767]

Religion also helps to establish order, morality & ethics in our society. It guides people on the path of Goodness.

It also warns rascals who deliberately meddle/create problems for others by the Hiranyakashipu example, where Goddess Durga cuts off the head of mahishasuran. So religion serves many purposes in this world to establish order.

Cheers

 

[KRS]

Institutionalized religion comes after Faith, in my opinion. Religion may not be required, but by it's presence shows that man requires it today. My opinion is it will never go away, as spirituality is a part of human condition and for most people, religion serves as an outlet.

Regards,
KRS

I disagree. Religion is institutionalized faith, and is defined by a set of beliefs, rules, laws, practices, codes of conduct. All religions are marked by exclusivity, such that believers of one religion canonize laws for their self-benefit and institutionalize laws to demean and/or avoid believers of an other religion. To answer any question, big or not, religion is not required.

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear Palindrome,

How do you know there is nothing call Moksha, self realization,Nirvana, Salvation etc.. Also how are usaying people don’t love Christ for what he is, it is because they believe theywill be saved ?

Also are you saying God & Religion are not linked ?.& when you meditate there is nothing, etc… - who taught you meditation ?

If you can prove that these things don’t exist, I willrest my case.
Cheers,

 

[palindrome]

Institutionalized religion comes after Faith, in my opinion. Religion may not be required, but by it's presence shows that man requires it today. My opinion is it will never go away, as spirituality is a part of human condition and for most people, religion serves as an outlet.

Regards,
KRS

Faith is intrinsic (i feel it happens to be so for an evolutionary edge; but besides that why it happens, no one knows). Institutionalizing faith involves a system. An entire system of creating, reinforcing a set of beliefs aided with a set of laws and codes. I agree Institutionalized religion came after Faith.

Religion did not exist in the past. It is an artificial structure that also prevents mating across man made boundaries. I feel, humans are designed to mate anywhere and everywhere to create as many copies of genetic or biological diversity as possible so nature can experiment; for selection and propagation of the fittest. Anything that goes against such an intrinsic biology, imo, will cease to exist, over time. So will religion.

Religion, imo, has nothing to do with spirituality and faith; for the forms of spirituality and faith always changed over time. For example, at one time, Shiva did not exist, Rudra did, the Linga did. Then came Shiva, through the puranas, who became linked and identified as Rudra, the Linga, the God of the Pashupatas, the God of Siddhanta literature, and so on.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi palindrome Ji,

Religion came about because man needed it. It exists because man needs it. It may not exist in it's current form tomorrow, but I doubt it.

Gods come and go. Religions may come and go. But the true nature of man will never change, though mores will change.

Science can explain how something works the way it does. It can ultimately can not explain why something works the way it does and why it came about being.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
KRS

Faith is intrinsic (i feel it happens to be so for an evolutionary edge; but besides that why it happens, no one knows). Institutionalizing faith involves a system. An entire system of creating, reinforcing a set of beliefs aided with a set of laws and codes. I agree Institutionalized religion came after Faith.

Religion did not exist in the past. It is an artificial structure that also prevents mating across man made boundaries. I feel, humans are designed to mate anywhere and everywhere to create as many copies of genetic or biological diversity as possible so nature can experiment; for selection and propagation of the fittest. Anything that goes against such an intrinsic biology, imo, will cease to exist, over time. So will religion.

Religion, imo, has nothing to do with spirituality and faith; for the forms of spirituality and faith always changed over time. For example, at one time, Shiva did not exist, Rudra did, the Linga did. Then came Shiva, through the puranas, who became linked and identified as Rudra, the Linga, the God of the Pashupatas, the God of Siddhanta literature, and so on.

 

[Jaykay767]

I am not an expert in delivering sarcastic punch dialogues like you, but to me your attempt at snubbing looks like காளை பெத்துது, கயறெ எடு (kāḷai pettutu, kayaṟe eṭu - one fellow hears "the bull has delivered" and immediately orders a piece of rope to tie the calf

Dear Sangom,
Nice retort !. I remembered this statement, you may find this useful in handling such situations J J J .
One fine crappy day, the idiots went to Angel & asked why are we like this ?. even when we attempt to snub people, we fail. Angel said u are a Shakada (sewage) & your head is filled with Crap, how can u win any argument ?
Cheers,

 

[palindrome]

Religion also helps to establish order, morality & ethics in our society. It guides people on the path of Goodness.

It also warns rascals who deliberately meddle/create problems for others by the Hiranyakashipu example, where Goddess Durga cuts off the head of mahishasuran. So religion serves many purposes in this world to establish order.

Cheers

Every religion seeks to establish what its believers think to be order, morality and ethics. This differs from region to region, religion to religion. The thaatti chettu pilla theyyam is devil to us. However, all forms of theyyam is divine to certain communities.

Each religion has its own morality, ethics, linked around its own sense of divinity. Bride-kidnapping, and Child brides are good in morality to some; a sin to others.

Morality also depends on reasoning. See the reasoning for menstrual blood in Vashista dharmashastra V.7 (it is based on the episode of Indra murdering the naga-brahmin Vritra). Other religions will not accept such a reasoning. So you see morality is not an absolute entity common to all. Nor is divinity.

Each religion had to demonize (ie., portray) gods of other or older faiths (in a particular manner). Here demonize means that which will harm the worshiper or send the worshiper to hell. No one knows if such things are true. However, such beliefs are propagated because some think their own way is the way; and those of others is not their way; and so want to establish what they think is morality, order, ethics and so on.

God Baal became demonized. Varuna became demonized. Mitra religion became demonized (by Romans to establish Christianity).

In Srilanka, there is a difference between two types of Demons. One is a set of angry beings, which need to be appeased to deliver good results (same way as we pray to Shani Bhagavan to not harm us). This is called Demonism. Another is a set of Demons which are considered Devas (Gods). Note this. All those we think of Devas today were once not considered Devas by a group of people. There is a lot of historical context in all this, the way it all evolved.

So you see, there is no such thing as a Satan, a Demon; or an entity that is considered evil. It is simply the way things were portrayed. Each one's goodness (from the religion pov) is different from the other.

As for Durga and Mahishasura, do note the Asura (aka Asur) tribe goes into mourning:
a) Here, kids behead lions and Durga Puja is a period of mourning - Times Of India and
b) Indian Royalty, Maharajas and more........: Asuras of Today: The Bloodline of Mahishasura

There were no rascals. Only the strongest won and got to write history (and portray things as per their wish. If they did not demonize their opponent or the opponent's Gods, even if they won, people of the defeated territory would have continued to eulogize their king or worship their gods -- a huge source of strength; which the victors wud not want).

For what we think to be self-realization, all this (which is part of religion) is not required.

 

[palindrome]

Dear Srimathi palindrome Ji,

Religion came about because man needed it. It exists because man needs it. It may not exist in it's current form tomorrow, but I doubt it.

Gods come and go. Religions may come and go. But the true nature of man will never change, though mores will change.

Science can explain how something works the way it does. It can ultimately can not explain why something works the way it does and why it came about being.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
KRS

I agree Sir.

 

[palindrome]

Dear Palindrome,

How do you know there is nothing call Moksha, self realization,Nirvana, Salvation etc..

Everyone is searching for what they think to be the truth, or what they assume is nirvana, moksham, etc based on others' experiences. They may search for their own experiences by themselves. Or based on what their scriptures say. Be it the Torah, the Gita, the Bible, the Quran, the Guru's Grantha, and so on.

Each Shramana (seeker), whether he became a Jain, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Christian, presented a varying experience (also in the historical context). So did their scriptures. A Christian's Salvation is different from a Buddhist's Nirvana. A Buddhist's experience is different from a Jew's experience. And so on.

Since each one has a different experience from the other, it is obvious divinity depends on variables. It depends on the priori; such that one assumes, as a believer of a particular faith, his or her end has to be like that. A believer superimposes his concept on a null. A null. That's all.

The only thing 'constant', which some faiths propagate, is a universal consciousness. The concept of universal consciousness too has its limitations. It is dependent on consciousness, and is limited to the experience of each person. And is therefore not really a constant, but a variable.

If there be a constant, applicable to all humans despite the varying nature of their faiths, despite the varying nature of their consciousness, then perhaps we could say Moksha exists.

Also how are usaying people don’t love Christ for what he is, it is because they believe theywill be saved ?

I like Christ's teachings. I worship Christ. But Christians insist I need to convert. They quote John 14:6 (I am the way, and the truth...). A Christian believes I will be saved if I converted. Obviously it all narrows down to interpretation. If they loved Christ (alone) for what he is and for his teachings, they would not be fearful of not being saved themselves, or insist on others being saved. They may of course love Christ. However, the concept of being saved, is what forms the crux of being a Christian. A concept of self-survival.

Also are you saying God & Religion are not linked ?.

Religion got developed over time, as primitive faith forms evolved, into a systematic structure, which also includes explanations on the origin of universe and the need for God in that context. It all boils down to the definition of God.

& when you meditate there is nothing, etc… - who taught you meditation ?

Learnt here and there. Finally gave up all learnt forms. 'Unlearnt' everything. Then just started exploring the thought process. Try it, you too will find your mind goes blank after a while. It can be quite rejuvenating for some people.

If you can prove that these things don’t exist, I willrest my case.

A friendly sisterly suggestion -- please do not rest anything, listen within, sort it out, explore, seek, find, and finally you may find, like an onion after all the peeling and experiencing there is nothing. Just nothing.

Best wishes.

 

[prasad1]

I am not also claiming to be a scholar but Parabrahman and mAyA are contradictory in nature and the advaitins have not been able to answer the question ( by VA) of the locus of mAyA and whether it forms part of Parabrahman for the last 13 centuries. Advaita itself has split based on the different interpretations. Hence, just as the Abrahamic religions have a satan our advaita has a mAyA which is also akin to devil.

My comparison is : A table has four legs, and a horse has four legs so a horse and a table are similar in that respect.

I am not an expert in delivering sarcastic punch dialogues like you, but to me your attempt at snubbing looks like காளை பெத்துது, கயறெ எடு (kāḷai pettutu, kayaṟe eṭu - one fellow hears "the bull has delivered" and immediately orders a piece of rope to tie the calf

Pray tell me what the sarcastic punch dialogues in my statement. Your comment about me is attracting a Jalara group for you.
Maya is not opposed to Brahman. Maya is not outside of Brahman. Maya is our ignorance.

Maya is usually quoted as "illusion", centered on the fact that we do not experience the environment itself but rather a projection of it, created by us.

In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, māyā is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Māyā is held to be an illusion, a veiling of the true, unitary Self—the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman. The concept of māyā was introduced by the ninth-century Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara. He refuses, however, to explain the relationship between Brahman and māyā.
Many philosophies and religions seek to "pierce the veil" of māyā in order to glimpse the transcendent truth from which the illusion of a physical reality springs, drawing from the idea that first came to life in the Hindu stream of Vedanta.

As per Wikipedia.

 

[Govinda]

Dear Sarang ji,

I had asked a question in Forum today but yet to receive an answer from the member may be he had not seen the question yet.

I admit that my knowledge in VA is close to nothing but I have a doubt here and I am pasting this question again.

I hope you can help clear my doubt.

It's about Nithya Suris..

When God created everything...everything was pure and equal.

What was the determining factor to decide who became a human and who became a Nithya Suri when at creation Karma had not yet started kicking in.

If God had randomly made Humans and some Nithya Suris without any criteria that would mean that God is unfair and more like a Non Hindu concept of God who yields a magic wand and Lo Behold..He creates Angels, Humans and Demons.

BTW is Nithyasuri a fixed postion that is sole monopoly of a person or is it a position to be held and anyone can be appointed ? like the position of Indra(Devendra) is not the sole property of a person and he is only Indra for a specific period of time till the next round of elections when the parliament is dissolved(Pralaya)

RenukaJi,

Referring to Purusha Sukta/Sruti verses

padosya vishva bhutani tripadasya amritam divi
All the beings form only a quarter (part of) Him. The three-quarter part of His, which is eternal, is established in the spiritual domain. (Text Three)

So, Only one part of the space undergoes creation/evolution and the other 3 parts are eternal/avikAra (never changing/permanent/imperishable).
There must exist some eternal suris (omniscient and powerful ambassadors) that serve Him and assist in the creation. And, those liberated
in the created samsaric karmic world must reach an eternal place, and that must be His abode. This is called the Transcendence, which is
beyond the reach of karmic selves.

That doesnot mean, He isolates Himself from the created world, He also pervades this created (1 part) world through His immanence.
He is the controller, supporter, nourisher, justice giver etc.

Once we baddha jivas attain mOksha, they will become muktAs, and attain the Omnisicence( JnYana) of the Lord Himself and
perceive/enjoy things like Him [eating with the King at His hosted banquet]. But, these muktAs will not have powers like the King. But,
nitya-suris are like the king's ministers and the body-guards, and at any time have more access to Him vyapAram/wealth].

His ministers and body-guards in the created world, are the devAs, demons (devas' progeny to execute karmic results). I read in some
commentary for Brh. Upa, that Agni is the Brahmana God/deva, Indra/Rudra/Chandra/varuna are kshatriya gods, Vasus/Rudras/Adityas/maruts
are vaishya gods, pusan/prithvi are sudra gods/goddess, depending on the nature of assistance/power they provide in the evolution of the Universe/creation.
So, DevAs are also like nithya-suris of the created world. Their positions, though have a long-standing, may change depending on their end-results of their karmAs.

Demons[asuras/rakshasAs/yakshAs] are also powerful devAs, but execute the negative actions, thus help in the evolution. For example, Vritra, the
thunder-cloud-demon or some ozone like layer, was destroyed or scared away by Indra, to save the Sun, thus promoting rain/evaporation etc. So, all
those are regents that help in the evolution and the business of the Lord/Creator. All, work in their own mind, will and skill, thus working towards emancipation,
knowingly and unknowingly [but supported by the Will of the Lord].

 

[renuka]

There is no such thing as self-realization. No such thing as Nirvana, Moksham, Salvation. There is only the method and means to understand the self.

Dear Palindrome,

In the deeper sense your words remind me of this stanza..in true sense that is no such thing and being bound or being released.

[TABLE="width: 85%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 93%"]Aham Nirvikalpo Nirakara Roopo
Vibhur Vyapya Sarvatra Sarvendriyanam
Sada Me Samatvam Na Muktir Na Bandhah
Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

​

​

I am devoid of any variation and devoid of any form,​

I exist everywhere, pervading all senses,
I am neither attached, neither free nor captive,
I am the form of conciousness and bliss,
I am the eternal auspiciousness…



taken from Atma Shatakam / Nirvana Shatikam of Adi Shankara
Nirvana Shatakam - in sanskrit with meaning - Mano Buddhi Ahamkara