• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Let's try to understand atheism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Sravna,

Check out this video..Curiosity: Something of Nothing : Video : Discovery Channel

The video says this at the last few seconds.

particles such as protons behave according to to the laws of nature we call quantum mechanics.
It is possible for them to spontaneous appear at random stick around for a while and then vanish and reappear at another place.

So its possible that the universe could have just popped up into existence without violating the known laws of nature.


Ok Sravna,

Dont you think the part where its says that protons can appear, hang around for a while, vanish and reappear somewhat like drishti-srishti-laya concept of Hinduism?

One more thing...the video says that the law of nature is not violated when the universe came into existence.

I find this statement sort of contradicting cos since creation was yet to take place but there already seems to be some pre existing law of Nature to follow.

What is that law according to science and why does it have to be followed?
I wonder what is the answer of science to that.

To me that law of nature appears to be Prakirti.What do you feel?

Link on creation:

Ramana Maharshi on Creation

Dear Renuka,

The problem with the interpretation of protons appearing out of nothing, is that our concept of nothing is limited to that which cannot be perceived by the physical senses and physical instruments. So protons do indeed seem to be coming out of nothing. It needs a mind to see through that. btw, can you explain what is dristi-shristi-laya concept?
 
[h=2]Ramana Maharshi on Creation[/h]Sri Ramana adopted three different standpoints when he spoke about the nature of the physical world. He advocated all of them at different times but it is clear from his general comments on the subject that he only considered the first two theories given below to be either true or useful.

1. Ajata vada or the theory of non-causality. This is an ancient Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of the world never happened at all. It is a complete denial of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's (Man who is Self-realised) experience that nothing ever comes into existence or ceases to be because the Self alone exists as the sole unchanging reality. It is a corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and effect, essential components of all creation theories, exist only in the minds of ajnanis (ignorant) and that the experience of the Self reveals their non-existence.

This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only of the creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking from his own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that the world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting matter and energy, but as an uncaused appearance in the Self. He enlarged on this by saying that because the real nature or substratum of this appearance is identical with the beingness of the Self, it necessarily partakes of its reality. That is to say, the world is not real to the jnani simply because it appears, but only because the real nature of the appearance is inseparable from the Self.

The ajnani on the other hand, is totally unaware of the unitary nature and source of the world and, as a consequence, his mind constructs an illusory world of separate interacting objects by persistently misinterpreting the sense-impressions it receives. Sri Ramana pointed out that this view of the world has no more reality than a dream since it superimposes a creation of the mind on the reality of the Self. He summarised the difference between the jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is unreal if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in the Self.

2. Drishti-srishti vada. If his questioners found the idea of ajata or non-causality impossible to assimilate, he would teach them that the world comes into existence simultaneously with the appearance of the `I' –thought and that it ceases to exist when the `I' –thought is absent. This theory is known as drishti-srishti, or simultaneous creation, and it says, in effect, that the world which appears to an ajnani is a product of the mind that perceives it, and that in the absence of that mind it ceases to exist. The theory is true in so far as the mind does create an imaginary world for itself, but from the standpoint of the Self, an imaginary `I' creating an imaginary world is no creation at all, and so the doctrine of ajata is not subverted. Although Sri Ramana sometimes said that drishti-srishti was not the ultimate truth about creation he encouraged his followers to accept it as a working hypothesis. He justified this approach by saying that if one can consistently regard the world as an unreal creation of the mind then it loses its attraction and it becomes easier to maintain an undistracted awareness of the `I'-thought.
3. Srishti-drishti vada (gradual creation). This is the common-sense view which holds that the world is an objective reality governed by laws of cause and effect which can be traced back to a single act of creation. It includes virtually all western ideas on the subject from `big bang' theory to the biblical account in Genesis. Sri Ramana invoked theories of this nature when he was talking to questioners who were unwilling to accept the implications of the ajata and drishti-srishti theories. Even then, he would usually point out that such theories should not be taken too seriously as they were only promulgated to satisfy intellectual curiosity.

Literally, drishti-srishti means that the world only exists when it is perceived whereas srishti-drishti means that the world existed prior to anyone's perception of it. Although the former theory sounds perverse, Sri Ramana insisted that serious seekers should be satisfied with it, partly because it is a close approximation to the truth and partly because it is the most beneficial attitude to adopt if one is seriously interested in realising the Self.]

thinrain.gif

Question: How has srishti (creation) come about? Some say it is predestined. Others say it the Lord's leela or sport. What is the truth?


Sri Ramana Maharshi: Various accounts are given in books. But is there creation? Only if there is creation do we have to explain how it came about. We may not know about all these theories but we certainly know that we exist. Why not know the '`I'' and then see if there is a creation?


Question: In the Vedanta of Sri Sankaracharya the principle of the creation of the world has been accepted for the sake of beginners, but for the advanced the principle of non-creation is put forward. What is your view on this matter?


Maharshi: "There is no dissolution or creation, no one in bondage, nor anyone pursuing spiritual practices. There is no one desiring liberation nor anyone liberated. This is the absolute truth." This sloka (verse) appears in the second chapter of Gaudapada's Karika. One who is established in the Self sees this by his knowledge of reality.


Question: Is not the Self the cause of this world we see around us?


Maharshi: Self itself appears as the world of diverse names and forms. However, Self does not act as the efficient cause (nimitta karana), creating, sustaining and destroying it. Do not ask `Why does the confusion of Self, not knowing the truth that it itself appears as the world arise?' If instead you enquire `To whom does this confusion occur?', it will be discovered that no such confusion ever existed for Self.


Questioner: You seem to be an exponent of ajata doctrine of advaita Vedanta.


Maharshi: I do not teach only the ajata doctrine. I approve of all schools. The same truth has to be expressed in different ways to suit the capacity of the hearer.
The Ajata doctrine says, `Nothing exists except the one reality. There is no birth or death, no projection or drawing in, no seeker, no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists.'
To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth and who ask, `How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?', the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, `All that you see depends on the seer. Apart from the seer, there is no seen.' This is called the drishti-srishti vada or the argument that one first creates out of one's mind and then sees what one's mind itself has created. Some people cannot grasp even this and they continue to argue in the following terms:
`The dream experience is so short, while the world always exists. The dream experience was limited to me. But the world is felt and seen not only by me, but by so many others. We cannot call such a world non-existent.'
When people argue in this way they can be given a srishti-drishti theory, for example, `God first created such and such a thing, out of such and such an element, and then something else was created, and so on.' That alone will satisfy this class. Their minds are otherwise not satisfied and they ask themselves, `How can all geography, all maps, all sciences, stars, planets and the rules governing or relating to them and all knowledge be totally untrue?' To such it is best to say, `Yes, God created all this and so you see it.'


Question: But all these cannot be true. Only one doctrine can be true.


Sri Ramana Maharshi: All these theories are only to suit the capacity of the learner. The absolute can only be one.
The Vedanta says that the cosmos springs into view simultaneously with the seer and that there is no detailed process of creation. This is said to be yugapat-srishti (instantaneous creation). It is quite similar to the creations in dream where the experiencer springs up simultaneously with the objects of experience. When this is told, some people are not satisfied for they are deeply rooted in objective knowledge. They seek to find out how there can be sudden creation. They argue that an effect must be preceded by a cause. In short, they desire an explanation for the existence of the world which they see around them. Then the srutis (scriptures) try to satisfy their curiosity by theories of creation.
This method of dealing with the subject of creation is called krama-srishti (gradual creation). But the true seeker can content with yugapat-srishti, instantaneous creation.
There may be any number of theories of creation. All of them extend outwardly. There will be no limit to them because time and space are unlimited. They are however only in the mind. If you see the mind, time and space are transcended and the Self is realised.
Creation is explained scientifically or logically to one's own satisfaction. But is there any finality about it? Such explanations are called krama-srishti (gradual creation). On the other hand, drishti-srishti (simultaneous creation) is yugapat-srishti. Without the seer there are no objects seen. Find the seer and the creation is comprised in him. Why look outward and go on explaining the phenomena which are endless?
Where are you now? Are you in the world or is the world within you? You must admit that the world is not perceived in your sleep although you cannot deny your existence then. The world appears when you wake up. So where is it? Clearly the world is your thought. Thoughts are your projections. The "I" is first created and then the world. The world is created by the "I" which in its turn rises up from the Self. The riddle of the creation of the world is thus solved if you solve the creation of the "I". So I say, find your Self.
Again, does the world come and ask you `Why do "I" exist? How was "I" created?' It is you who ask the question. The questioner must establish the relationship between the world and himself. He must admit that the world is his own imagination. Who imagines it? Let him again find the "I" and then the Self. Moreover, all the scientific and theological explanations do not harmonise. The diversities in such theories clearly show the uselessness of seeking such explanations. Such explanations are purely mental and intellectual and nothing more. Still, all of them are true according to the standpoint of the individual. There is no creation in the state of realisation. When one sees the world, one does not see oneself. When one sees the Self, the world is not seen. So see the Self and realise that there has been no creation.


Question: "Brahman is real. The world is illusion" is the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say, "The world is reality." Which is true?


Sri Ramana Maharshi: Both statements are true. They refer to different stags of development and are spoken from different points of view. The aspirant starts with the definition, that which is real exists always. Then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is changing. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the reality, the world also is real. There is only being in Self-realisation, and nothing but being.


Question: Sri Bhagavan (Ramana Maharshi) often says that Maya (illusion) and reality are the same. How can that be?


Sri Ramana Maharshi: Sankara was criticised for his views on Maya without being understood. He said that
1. Brahman is real, 2. The universe is unreal, and 3. The universe is Brahman.
He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence May and reality are one and the same.


Question: So the world is not really illusory?


Sri Ramana Maharshi: At the level of the spiritual seeker you have got to say that the world is an illusion. There is no other way. When a man forgets that he is a Brahman, who is real, permanent and omnipresent, and deludes himself into thinking that he is a body in the universe which is filled with bodies that are transitory, and labours under that delusion, you have got to remind him that the world is unreal and a delusion. Why? Because his vision which has forgotten its own Self is dwelling in the external, material universe. It will not turn inwards into introspection unless you impress on him that all this external material universe is unreal. When once he realises his own Self he will know that there is nothing other than his own Self and he will come to look upon the whole universe as Brahman.
There is no universe without the Self. So ling as a man does not see the Self which is the origin of all, but looks only at the external world as real and permanent, you have to tell him that all this external universe is an illusion. You cannot help it. Take a paper. We see only the script, and nobody notices the paper on which the script is written. The paper is there whether the script on it is there or not. To those who look upon the script as real, you have to say that it is unreal, an illusion, since it rests upon the paper. The wise man looks upon both the paper and script as one. So also with Brahman and the universe.


Question: So the world is real when it is experienced as the Self and unreal when it is seen as separate names and forms?


Sri Ramana Maharshi: Just as fire is obscured by smoke, the shining light of consciousness is obscured by the assemblage of names and forms, the world. When by compassionate divine grace the mind becomes clear, the nature of the world will be known to be not the illusory forms but only the reality.
Only those people whose minds are devoid of the evil power of Maya, having given up the knowledge of the world and being unattached to it, and having thereby attained the knowledge of the self-shining Supreme Reality, can correctly know the meaning of the statement "The world is real." If one's outlook has been transformed to the nature of real knowledge, the world of the five elements beginning with space (akasha) will be real, being the Supreme Reality, which is the nature of knowledge.
The original state of this empty world, which is bewildering and crowded with many names and forms, is bliss, which is one, just as the egg-yolk of a multi-coloured peacock is only one. Know this truth by abiding in the state of Self.
 
Dear Members,

Here's something we can ponder over. Brahman is considered the highest reality. Therefore the physical world which exists is the lower reality. The entities at this lower level are in essence brahman. Pleasures and pains are experiences at this level. When an experience of pleasure is balanced by an experience of pain, is the salanamatra ( i am not sure what English word or other tamil word aptly describes this state) state which is the state of bliss. We know according to PJK this balancing happens.

Thus the lower level brahmans have this dual experiences whereas the higher brahman sees the balanced state as a whole and hence experiences bliss.
 
Dear Members,

Here's something we can ponder over. Brahman is considered the highest reality. Therefore the physical world which exists is the lower reality. The entities at this lower level are in essence brahman. Pleasures and pains are experiences at this level. When an experience of pleasure is balanced by an experience of pain, is the salanamatra ( i am not sure what English word or other tamil word aptly describes this state) state which is the state of bliss. We know according to PJK this balancing happens.

Thus the lower level brahmans have this dual experiences whereas the higher brahman sees the balanced state as a whole and hence experiences bliss.

Sri Sravana -

Could you please define reality and provide authoritative source for your theories of lower and higher reality?

If you have made them up then you that is fine too provided you share that.

Thanks
 
Shri TKS,

I have explained my concept of reality before. But for your benefit here it is:

Reality is something that is perceived and perceived in the same way by all who are at a certain stage of evolution.

For example all humans perceive the physical world and perceive it in the same way. But animals or may be plants though they perceive the physical world probably perceive it in a different way than humans and for them we may call the world of humans a higher reality just like brahman is the higher reality for humans.
 
Last edited:
Shri Sravna,

Sometimes I wonder how wrong I am. I presumed that Hindus who are all at least in spirituality would understand what is Higher reality and lower reality. But now I feel, I was wrong all the while. Contradictions may exist among Hindus who have fair ideas of Supreme Brahman.

As you have explained above in your post #131, and in many of your posts in many other threads, this physical reality is perceived as reality only to the extent of human understanding, while experiencing in this physical world of MAYA and obviously would be lower in standard than that of Higher reality.

As you said, and Science too understands and accepts, animals sense of reality of this same physical world can not be the same as that of Humans. Animals are stuck with their standard in-build qualities and tendencies and does not know other than consuming (as per their common determined habits), procreating, self protecting, sleeping and to some extent nurturing their offspring. For them these alone are the ways of survival, with what they could sense and find around. And that there is nothing else to be bothered.

Whereas Humans perception of this physical world is incomparable with that of any other species and thus Humans could have a better understanding of life and better standards of survival , taping the energies present in this physical world.


Now the problem here is, humans having achieved many progress with the help of SET, by way of taping the energies prevalent in this physical world, are coming to the conclusion that, there is no other supreme reality other than the reality existing in this physical world, where they are dwelling and endeavoring towards explorations and advancements.

They are refusing that a strongest/purest/perfect Spiritual energy a.k.a Brahman, is the highest and absolute reality from which/whom a Natural force of survival has manifested, accommodating everything that we could experience in this physical world, limited to time and space. And refusing to accept that, it has a total control/influence on the forces of survival in this physical world, which some humans tend to consider as the only reality, existing without any consciousness.

They are refusing to accept that - Spiritual Energy is the only omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient force, that forms the basis for all sorts of forces viz. chemistry, physics, mathematics, electrical, biology, botany etc..etc. as part and parcel of the spiritual energy itself and that, this absolute spiritual energy can well interchange & manipulate all such forces of this physical world. And refusing to accept that, this absolute spiritual energy is the absolute reality, having the overall control and that's how can facilitate certain happenings in this physical world of lower reality, WITHOUT ANY CAUSE for it, contradicting the very foundation of Science and even the perceived law of the nature (the karma theory, by which a innocent victim in his/her present life may not be really innocent AND a real culprit goes Scot Free until his/her death)
 
Shri TKS,

I have explained my concept of reality before. But for your benefit here it is:

Reality is something that is perceived and perceived in the same way by all who are at a certain stage of evolution.

For example all humans perceive the physical world and perceive it in the same way. But animals or may be plants though they perceive the physical world probably perceive it in a different way than humans and for them we may call the world of humans a higher reality just like brahman is the higher reality for humans.

Sri Sravana :

This definition, in my view, is made up by you and is full of logical holes. My sense is that you may have repeated your own concept often enough that you start to believe in it. Those professing to be atheists have been identifying issues all along in this forum.

The words like high and low are arbitrary. They have meaning only with respect to a reference.
Vedic teaching is very precise and reality translated as Sathyam has no connection to your concept.

Regards
 
Dear Members,

Here's something we can ponder over. Brahman is considered the highest reality. Therefore the physical world which exists is the lower reality. The entities at this lower level are in essence brahman. Pleasures and pains are experiences at this level. When an experience of pleasure is balanced by an experience of pain, is the salanamatra ( i am not sure what English word or other tamil word aptly describes this state) state which is the state of bliss. We know according to PJK this balancing happens.

Thus the lower level brahmans have this dual experiences whereas the higher brahman sees the balanced state as a whole and hence experiences bliss.


Dear Sravna,

Is there really something as Higher and Lower Brahman?

As far as I know its only classified as Nirguna and Saguna Brahman.

In the Bhagavad Geeta(Chapter 7 Stanza 4-5)only Maya is classified into

Para Prakirti(Higher)
Apara Prakirti(Lower)

Apara Prakirti is the Karana for Jagat.
Para Prakirti is the Karana for Jeeva.


I stand corrected anyway cos as far as I know I am not really aware of a Higher Brahman and a Lower Brahman.
 
Dear Sravna,

Is there really something as Higher and Lower Brahman?

As far as I know its only classified as Nirguna and Saguna Brahman.

In the Bhagavad Geeta(Chapter 7 Stanza 4-5)only Maya is classified into

Para Prakirti(Higher)
Apara Prakirti(Lower)

Apara Prakirti is the Karana for Jagat.
Para Prakirti is the Karana for Jeeva.


I stand corrected anyway cos as far as I know I am not really aware of a Higher Brahman and a Lower Brahman.

Dr Renu

Great points indeed!

Even Saguna and Nirguna are not adjectives or attributes to non-dual Brahman.

True nature of ourselves is defined by Para Prakrti understanding of which leads to liberation. The Apara Prakrti which is taken as the cause of everything else manifested can lead us away from realization of our nature. In that sense Para Prakriti is viewed as 'Higher' ..Sri Sankara has provided excellent commentaries on these verses
 
Dear Sravna and TKS,


Just got this info..a coincidence cos the booklet I was reading just now titled
A brief study of the Brahmasutras by Swami Harshananda touches on this point.

Its says:

Adi Shankara categorizes Brahman into two aspects : Para Brahman and Apara Brahman.
Where the Upanishadic statements deny all limiting adjuncts like name and form,created by avidya or ignorance of his essential nature to Brahman, he is Para, the higher Brahman.

On the other hand,where the statements described him as endowed with name,form and several attributes, it is Apara or the lower Brahman that is referred to.
It is the latter that is the cause for creation of the this world,its sustenance and its dissolution.



So Sravna and TKS..I guess Nirguna Brahman is also known as the Higher Brahman and Saguna Brahman is known as the Lower Brahman.


Dear Sravna..since now the doubt has been cleared about a Higher and Lower Brahman is your understanding of a Higher and Lower Brahman on the same lines too?
 
Sri Sravana :

This definition, in my view, is made up by you and is full of logical holes. My sense is that you may have repeated your own concept often enough that you start to believe in it. Those professing to be atheists have been identifying issues all along in this forum.

The words like high and low are arbitrary. They have meaning only with respect to a reference.
Vedic teaching is very precise and reality translated as Sathyam has no connection to your concept.

Regards

Dear Shri TKS,

I would like to know from you the logical holes in the definition. Let us set aside the vedic definition for now.
 
Dear Sravna and TKS,


Just got this info..a coincidence cos the booklet I was reading just now titled
A brief study of the Brahmasutras by Swami Harshananda touches on this point.

Its says:

Adi Shankara categorizes Brahman into two aspects : Para Brahman and Apara Brahman.
Where the Upanishadic statements deny all limiting adjuncts like name and form,created by avidya or ignorance of his essential nature to Brahman, he is Para, the higher Brahman.

On the other hand,where the statements described him as endowed with name,form and several attributes, it is Apara or the lower Brahman that is referred to.
It is the latter that is the cause for creation of the this world,its sustenance and its dissolution.



So Sravna and TKS..I guess Nirguna Brahman is also known as the Higher Brahman and Saguna Brahman is known as the Lower Brahman.


Dear Sravna..since now the doubt has been cleared about a Higher and Lower Brahman is your understanding of a Higher and Lower Brahman on the same lines too?

Renu - Since *Prakrti is Brahman* also what you have stated is consistent with what I stated earlier.
There is a definition for use of the words lower and higher. This definition has nothing to do with human, animals, plants etc
 
Dear Sravna and TKS,


Just got this info..a coincidence cos the booklet I was reading just now titled
A brief study of the Brahmasutras by Swami Harshananda touches on this point.

Its says:

Adi Shankara categorizes Brahman into two aspects : Para Brahman and Apara Brahman.
Where the Upanishadic statements deny all limiting adjuncts like name and form,created by avidya or ignorance of his essential nature to Brahman, he is Para, the higher Brahman.

On the other hand,where the statements described him as endowed with name,form and several attributes, it is Apara or the lower Brahman that is referred to.
It is the latter that is the cause for creation of the this world,its sustenance and its dissolution.



So Sravna and TKS..I guess Nirguna Brahman is also known as the Higher Brahman and Saguna Brahman is known as the Lower Brahman.


Dear Sravna..since now the doubt has been cleared about a Higher and Lower Brahman is your understanding of a Higher and Lower Brahman on the same lines too?

Dear Renuka and Shri TKS,

I think the important point is whether you understand what is being conveyed. If that happens the import of the terms would be understood. btw, the context makes it clear that by lower brahman I mean the jivas.
 
Dear Renuka and Shri TKS,

I think the important point is whether you understand what is being conveyed. If that happens the import of the terms would be understood. btw, the context makes it clear that by lower brahman I mean the jivas.

Sri Sravana -

Not sure what 'important point' you are trying to convey that I don't understand. You are making things up in my view and using (Vedic) terms loosely.

Words like lower and higher as described by Sri Sankara (for prakrti /Brahman) have nothing to do with your arbitrary use of the words higher and lower. Plus it happens to be opposite to what Sri Sankara is saying.

Jiva is Brahman ... Brahman by definition is without adjectives and without attributes.

Words like higher and lower need a point of reference against which the relative words mean something.
Brahman as defined is absolute (not relative) and is without second!
 
Sri Sravana -

Not sure what 'important point' you are trying to convey that I don't understand. You are making things up in my view and using (Vedic) terms loosely.

Words like lower and higher as described by Sri Sankara (for prakrti /Brahman) have nothing to do with your arbitrary use of the words higher and lower. Plus it happens to be opposite to what Sri Sankara is saying.

Jiva is Brahman ... Brahman by definition is without adjectives and without attributes.

Words like higher and lower need a point of reference against which the relative words mean something.
Brahman as defined is absolute (not relative) and is without second!

Dear Shri TKS,

I do not understand what you mean by needing to have a point of reference. The terms lower and higher are relative to each other and this is not inconsistent with the higher reality being the absolute reality. . The usage of the terms "higher" and "lower" in the context is in the way it is normally used in the English language and when referring to the realities I thought it was self explanatory.

I have also clarified explicitly in what sense I used the term lower. When I said I mean lower brahman is jiva I meant I have used the terms interchangeably.
 
Dear Shri TKS,

I do not understand what you mean by needing to have a point of reference. The terms lower and higher are relative to each other and this is not inconsistent with the higher reality being the absolute reality. . The usage of the terms "higher" and "lower" in the context is in the way it is normally used in the English language and when referring to the realities I thought it was self explanatory.

I have also clarified explicitly in what sense I used the term lower. When I said I mean lower brahman is jiva I meant I have used the terms interchangeably.

In post #135 I gave reasons why Sri Sankara calls what is higher and that is with respect to the reference point of how one can get enlightened.

Without attributes to compare against and an absolute reference point in a given context there is no meaning to terms that are used for relative comparison using words like higher and lower.

Brahman by definition is absolute!

English words can be used loosely and there are underlying assumptions that are inherent in the usage of these words. For example, there is a notion of attributes that are needed to declare one is higher than the other. If I say a word abracadabra and arbadacarba and ask you which one is higher you will have to come up with a criteria and use a frame of reference to answer. It could be an alphabetical order as the criteria and that one starting with a is higher etc. Here the alphabet itself form the absolute frame of reference within this narrow context.

I assume you have read science in high school and are probably teaching (for your SAT/GRE classes). The concepts of absolute space/time of Newton, frames of reference, Galilean transformation, theory of relativity etc all go into in depth discussion of how to define basic terms. Such a rigor is needed to have meaningful discussions in my view.
 
English words can be used loosely and there are underlying assumptions that are inherent in the usage of these words. For example, there is a notion of attributes that are needed to declare one is higher than the other. If I say a word abracadabra and arbadacarba and ask you which one is higher you will have to come up with a criteria and use a frame of reference to answer. It could be an alphabetical order as the criteria and that one starting with a is higher etc. Here the alphabet itself form the absolute frame of reference within this narrow context.

Your analogy is misplaced and you don't seem to understand the point I was trying to make. I am not using any new terms here and implying one is higher and the other is lower. Jiva is considered to be a lower reality and brahman a higher reality relative to jiva and the latter also happens to be the absolute reality.

I assume you have read science in high school and are probably teaching (for your SAT/GRE classes). The concepts of absolute space/time of Newton, frames of reference, Galilean transformation, theory of relativity etc all go into in depth discussion of how to define basic terms. Such a rigor is needed to have meaningful discussions in my view.

Rigor is needed but more important is that one understands the message. As I said in one of my posts that it is necessary that one understands the gist of an argument so that he doesn't get sidetracked by the details
 
English words can be used loosely and there are underlying assumptions that are inherent in the usage of these words. For example, there is a notion of attributes that are needed to declare one is higher than the other. If I say a word abracadabra and arbadacarba and ask you which one is higher you will have to come up with a criteria and use a frame of reference to answer. It could be an alphabetical order as the criteria and that one starting with a is higher etc. Here the alphabet itself form the absolute frame of reference within this narrow context.

Your analogy is misplaced and you don't seem to understand the point I was trying to make. I am not using any new terms here and implying one is higher and the other is lower. Jiva is considered to be a lower reality and brahman a higher reality relative to jiva and the latter also happens to be the absolute reality.

I assume you have read science in high school and are probably teaching (for your SAT/GRE classes). The concepts of absolute space/time of Newton, frames of reference, Galilean transformation, theory of relativity etc all go into in depth discussion of how to define basic terms. Such a rigor is needed to have meaningful discussions in my view.

Rigor is needed but more important is that one understands the message. As I said in one of my posts that it is necessary that one understands the gist of an argument so that he doesn't get sidetracked by the details

Sri Sravana -

There is no argument being presented by you. You are simply making things up and it is not possible to have discussions around topic that requires critical thinking & understanding.

If you want to have a conversation around theory of relativity and its application you will be required to fully understand what is taught instead of making things up loosely and make claims. There is no logic or basis for any of your statements.

It is not detail or gist , just confusion and you want to engage atheists with statements like this?

Sorry, I cannot respond anymore ..

Regards
 
Sri Sravana -

There is no argument being presented by you. You are simply making things up and it is not possible to have discussions around topic that requires critical thinking & understanding.

If you want to have a conversation around theory of relativity and its application you will be required to fully understand what is taught instead of making things up loosely and make claims. There is no logic or basis for any of your statements.

It is not detail or gist , just confusion and you want to engage atheists with statements like this?

Sorry, I cannot respond anymore ..

Regards

Dear Shri TKS,

You seemed to perceive some logical holes in my argument but when asked for elaboration you did not respond. And now you say there is no argument. It is only right that one who criticizes something comes up with a sound criticism.
 
Dear Renuka and Shri TKS,

I think the important point is whether you understand what is being conveyed. If that happens the import of the terms would be understood. btw, the context makes it clear that by lower brahman I mean the jivas.

Dear Sravna,

I understand that everything is eventually Brahman and nothing is outside of Brahman but for descriptive purposes we have terminologies that help us understand the Supreme Parliament better.

Ok Sravna "Lower" Brahman is Saguna Brahman(with attributes and names and forms)

Para Prakirti is the Karana for Jeeva.

Therefore for description purposes "Lower" Brahman is NOT Jeevas isnt it?
 
Last edited:
Dear Sravna,

I understand that everything is eventually Brahman and nothing is outside of Brahman but for descriptive purposes we have terminologies that help us understand the Supreme Parliament better.

Ok Sravna "Lower" Brahman is Saguna Brahman(with attributes and names and forms)

Para Prakirti is the Karana for Jeeva.

Therefore for description purposes "Lower" Brahman is NOT Jeevas isnt it?

Dear Renuka,

If Sankara had used that term with a specific meaning then yes you are right.
 
Dear Renuka,

If Sankara had used that term with a specific meaning then yes you are right.

Dear Sravna,


Sravna, AdiShankara is a Jagadguru..His words can only convey the Truth.
Surely each terminology had a specific meaning isnt it?

Ok I will give a simple example: A red blood cell can only mean a red blood cell and a white blood cell can only mean a white blood cell.
 
Last edited:
Dear Shri TKS,

You seemed to perceive some logical holes in my argument but when asked for elaboration you did not respond. And now you say there is no argument. It is only right that one who criticizes something comes up with a sound criticism.

I took your initial statements as a serious intent to discuss and I started to show you the flaws about use of relative terms such as 'higher' and 'lower' without attributes for comparison . If you cannot understand that just one point there cannot be further discussions. Plus one cannot take terms that have very specific meaning and use them loosely. I find that you are responding without trying to understand what is presented to you.

All the best in your quest to learn ..
 
I took your initial statements as a serious intent to discuss and I started to show you the flaws about use of relative terms such as 'higher' and 'lower' without attributes for comparison . If you cannot understand that just one point there cannot be further discussions. Plus one cannot take terms that have very specific meaning and use them loosely. I find that you are responding without trying to understand what is presented to you.

All the best in your quest to learn ..

Dear Shri TKS,

You are just repeating yourself.

Dear Renuka,

As I said I was not aware that Sankara used the terms "lower reality" to describe Saguna brahman. The point I was trying to make is, a reality that is derived from the brahman can be called as lower reality in the common usage of the term "lower".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top