Maya

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Renuka,

I am not saying that nirguna brahman might be swayed by maya if it is associated with the physical world. But doesn't asociation mean it perceives the physical world though not be swayed by it?, which means its consciousness is not a purely spiritual one.

Why should perceiving the physical world render the consciousness not a purely spiritual one?
Just imagine the lotus leaf..water droplets just roll and fall off from it without wetting it.

Same way..the physical world is just a projection and the projector is Brahman and the the screen is Brahman and image falls on Brahman..screenplay,director,dialogue all Brahman yet Brahman remains unsullied and ever pure.

 

[sravna]

Why should perceiving the physical world render the consciousness not a purely spiritual one?
Just imagine the lotus leaf..water droplets just roll and fall off from it without wetting it.

Same way..the physical world is just a projection and the projector is Brahman and the the screen is Brahman and image falls on Brahman..screenplay,director,dialogue all Brahman yet Brahman remains unsullied and ever pure.

Dear Renuka,

Because it contradicts the experience that would be attributed to a timeless entity. As a timeless entity you do not perceive the space time and its constituents. As far as nirguna brahman is concerned it is totally unreal.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Because it contradicts the experience that would be attributed to a timeless entity. As a timeless entity you do not perceive the space time and its constituents. As far as nirguna brahman is concerned it is totally unreal.

Dear Sravna,

:Cry::Cry:..I dont know what else to say.
More later.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Maya is so powerful that it sometimes binds everyone. It causes ignorance and
egoism too and totally binds everyone towards the objects one has a desire and
trys to achieve it. Sometimes, it makes people to believe the experience that
they come across in the objective world as true. One develops likes and dislikes,
attraction towards something and also aversion to it. In fact, people entangle themselves
into a situation and develop relationships, through which they believe, one
can attain happiness and fulfillment of desire.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

:Cry::Cry:..I dont know what else to say.
More later.

No problem

 

[renuka]

As a timeless entity you do not perceive the space time and its constituents.

Is it?
Being Timeless is Kala Atheeta(Kalatheeta) that is being beyond time and space and that does not mean there is absence of cognition.
Its just that being Kalatheeta means not being bound by Time and Space.
Brahman is all knowing and all pervading hence He is not bound by anything.

If what you say is true that means Nirguna Brahman knows Not !!
But thats totally untrue isnt it..cos Brahman is All Knowing.

 

[sravna]

Is it?
Being Timeless is Kala Atheeta(Kalatheeta) that is being beyond time and space and that does not mean that is absence of cognition.
Its just that being Kalatheeta means not being bound by Time and Space.
Brahman is all knowing and all pervading hence He is not bound by anything.

Renuka,

The reality of time and space is non existent for nirguna brahman. Where is the question of cognizing it?

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

The reality of time and space is non existent for nirguna brahman. Where is the question of cognizing it?

Sravna,

Nirguna Brahman is BEYOND time and space.Being beyond time and space and non existence of Time and Space do not translate to be the same meaning.

 

[sravna]

Sravna,

Nirguna Brahman is BEYOND time and space.Being beyond time and space and non existence of Time and Space do not translate to be the same meaning.

I am talking from the perspective of timeless reality. A timeless reality by definition doesn't perceive time and hence the physical reality. This distorted reality is only in our perception

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

I would like to add a little on the meaning of the word Nir in Sanskrit.

Ok lets take this word Mala(impurity)

Vimala=Without Impurity

Amala=Absence of Impurity

Nirmala=Beyond Impurity.

See the fine differences in the meaning.

In Vimala and Amala it denotes that there has been a previous state where there has been impurity(impurity was experienced) but now there isnt any impurity as in Without(Vimala) and Absence(Amala)

Nirmala on the other hand means Beyond Impurities that means there was never a time where impurity was experienced.

Same with Nirguna..there has never been a Time where the Gunas were experienced.Hence Nirguna Brahman..described as ever pure, all knowing and Timeless.

So now I hope its clear what it means by being beyond anything.

 

[renuka]

I am talking from the perspective of timeless reality. A timeless reality by definition doesn't perceive time and hence the physical reality. This distorted reality is only in our perception

Disagree. See what I wrote in post 160.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I would like to add a little on the meaning of the word Nir in Sanskrit.

Ok lets take this word Mala(impurity)

Vimala=Without Impurity

Amala=Absence of Impurity

Nirmala=Beyond Impurity.

See the fine differences in the meaning.

In Vimala and Amala it denotes that there has been a previous state where there has been impurity(impurity was experienced) but now there isnt any impurity as in Without(Vimala) and Absence(Amala)

Nirmala on the other hand means Beyond Impurities that means there was never a time where impurity was experienced.

Same with Nirguna..there has never been a Time where the Gunas were experienced.Hence Nirguna Brahman..described as ever pure, all knowing and Timeless.

So now I hope its clear what it means by being beyond anything.

Renuka,

You are arguing for me That's my point. Since it is beyond time and space It doesn't experience them.

 

[renuka]

I am talking from the perspective of timeless reality. A timeless reality by definition doesn't perceive time and hence the physical reality. This distorted reality is only in our perception

How would Nirguna Brahman be All Knowing if He does not "perceive"?
See Sravna cos you are limiting Nirguna Brahman cognition by comparing it with the human sense of cognition and perception.

Thats why today I typed from Brahmasutra Bashya that line that says:


"He has no body and no organs;none is seen to be either equal or superior to Him"

The Vedas speak of His diverse supreme powers as also His sponteanous action that is accomplished by His vigour arising from knowledge.

"Without hands and feet He grasp and moves quickly;He sees without eyes,hears without ears.He knows that to be known but none can know Him.


In other words Sravna...we just DON'T KNOW how Nirguna Brahman operates..its beyond our grasp and reach and perception.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

You are arguing for me That's my point. Since it is beyond time and space It doesn't experience them.

Sravna,

Now this is really Maya!! I dont really think we were arguing on the same lines!!!LOL
Experiencing and being bound are 2 different things.
A Jeevan Mukta can experience life but he is not bound by it.No new Karma is formed for him.

 

[renuka]

I am talking from the perspective of timeless reality. A timeless reality by definition doesn't perceive time and hence the physical reality. This distorted reality is only in our perception

Dear Sravna,

This is an open statement which might invite attack from Non Beleivers.
Cos then they might say that "No wonder God doesnt answer any prayer cos He is a timeless entity and does not perceive time and physical reality"

Sravna..that statment makes it sound as if Nirguna Brahman is brain dead!

 

[sravna]

How would Nirguna Brahman be All Knowing if He does not "perceive"?
See Sravna cos you are limiting Nirguna Brahman cognition by comparing it with the human sense of cognition and perception.

Thats why today I typed from Brahmasutra Bashya that line that says:


"He has no body and no organs;none is seen to be either equal or superior to Him"

The Vedas speak of His diverse supreme powers as also His sponteanous action that is accomplished by His vigour arising from knowledge.

"Without hands and feet He grasp and moves quickly;He sees without eyes,hears without ears.He knows that to be known but none can know Him.


In other words Sravna...we just DON'T KNOW how Nirguna Brahman operates..its beyond our grasp and reach and perception.

Renuka,

Since the physical world is only a projection, nirguna brahman doesn't need to perceive the physical reality. All that there is to know it knows. In fact it doesn't even exist from Nirguna brahman's point of view. Physical reality is perceived by the jivas and not by nirguna brahman.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

This is an open statement which might invite attack from Non Beleivers.
Cos then they might say that "No wonder God doesnt answer any prayer cos He is a timeless entity and does not perceive time and physical reality"


Sravna..that statment makes it sound as if Nirguna Brahman is brain dead!

Renuka,

Nirguna brahman is very much alive. But its experience is of the most exalted type, and you do not associate it with lesser things. If you want to associate action and thinking with brahman you have the saguna brahman for it. It is the lower reality of nirguna brahman as its consciousness is distinct from that of nirguna brahman's. But let me add that the consciousness of nirguna brahman includes that of everything and ultimately the reality and perception is non dual.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

Since the physical world is only a projection, nirguna brahman doesn't need to perceive the physical reality. All that there is to know it knows. In fact it doesn't even exist from Nirguna brahman's point of view. Physical reality is perceived by the jivas and not by nirguna brahman.

Sravna..I really give up.
The physical reality is TRANSIENT and EVERCHANGING..hence called Unreal(Mithyam).
Only Brahman is Unchanging and hence Real(Sathyam)

Sravna..You see if you cut your hand now and you bleed..you see blood isnt it?
Thats real isnt it but since bleeding will stop and you heal..so the injury is transient hence some would term it "Unreal".
"Unreal" not that it did not happen but since it was transient hence "Unreal"

So are you telling me Nirguna Brahman would have never known Sravna cut his hand?

BTW in Geeta its

yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srjamy aham

the words Yada and Tada denote Time.
God is Aware of everthing but He is not bound by the constrains of Time and Space.
If God didnt know anything by not "perceiving" the physical world He would have never ever said this stanza in the Geeta.

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

कहानी बहुत लम्बी ओउर गहरी दिक्थी है! :bowl:
फिर बी इतनी समय लगाते हैं आप लोग!!! :clock:

yup I guess its:फिर तेरी कहानी याद आई for भाई साहब

 

[renuka]

फिर बी इतनी समय लगाते हैं आप लोग!!! :clock:[/SIZE]

Are yaar..we are TIMELESS!!

 

[sravna]

Sravna..I really give up.
The physical reality is TRANSIENT and EVERCHANGING..hence called Unreal(Mithyam).
Only Brahman is Unchanging and hence Real(Sathyam)

Sravna..You see if you cut your hand now and you bleed..you see blood isnt it?
Thats real isnt it but since bleeding will stop and you heal..so the injury is transient hence some would term it "Unreal".
"Unreal" not that it did not happen but since it was transient hence "Unreal"

So are you telling me Nirguna Brahman would have never known Sravna cut his hand?

BTW in Geeta its

[/I]the words Yada and Tada denote Time.
God is Aware of everthing but He is not bound by the constrains of Time and Space.
If God didnt know anything by not "perceiving" the physical world He would have never ever said this stanza in the Geeta.

Ok. Let me try to make my point of view clear. We perceive the physical reality because we have the physical senses.Then we have the mind to form a higher perspective of physical reality. Do you agree that the mental perception of physical reality is different from the physical perception of reality? In our thoughts is embedded a perception of all we experienced through the physical senses in addition to the higher perspective. When my hand bleeds, that physical reality gets registered in my thought too. But my mental and physical experiences are different.

In the same way nirguna brahman is aware of everything without the need for physical perception. He is aware of all that happened in the past, happening now and that which will happen in the future as he is timeless. Unlike us he doen't have to depend on physical reality for the knowledge because in our case time is built upon space and therefore mental knowledge derives from knowledge about the physical world. For him there is no such need to depend on physical perception as he ever knows everything being beyond space and time.

 

[ozone]

Sri Sravan,I have a feeling I will be scorned for saying this, but saying it with good intentions.
(If you would want the post to be deleted, let me know and I will do it).
Your Post #139 - I see that you are not separating the wheat from the chaff.


If as you intended in:

If you are aware of any authoratative views on the subject you are welcome to share it here.

were complied with by Sri Sarmaji, then you should have continued with those arguments and views
and if needed asked for references. Instead you only said

What if I say I consider this theory cooked up and not adding any value to the discussion?

apparantelyl, you asked for a view or explanation and summarily dismissed it without any arguments,
which imo does not go well with the discussion.

 

[renuka]

In the same way nirguna brahman is aware of everything without the need for physical perception. He is aware of all that happened in the past, happening now and that which will happen in the future as he is timeless. Unlike us he doen't have to depend on physical reality for the knowledge because in our case time is built upon space and therefore mental knowledge derives from knowledge about the physical world. For him there is no such need to depend on physical perception as he ever knows everything being beyond space and time.

Ya memang betul(Yes thats right!)
Thats was what I had typed from Brahmasutra Bhasya today.
Sravna..I think you should get Brahmasutra Bhasya of Sankaracharya and go tru it.
The one I have is from Ramakrishna Advaita Ashram with translation by Swami Gambirananda.
Its really vast with the endless debates.

 

[sravna]

Sri Sravan,I have a feeling I will be scorned for saying this, but saying it with good intentions.
(If you would want the post to be deleted, let me know and I will do it).
Your Post #139 - I see that you are not separating the wheat from the chaff.


If as you intended in:

were complied with by Sri Sarmaji, then you should have continued with those arguments and views
and if needed asked for references. Instead you only said

apparantelyl, you asked for a view or explanation and summarily dismissed it without any arguments,
which imo does not go well with the discussion.

Dear Ozone,

I have no reason to not argue. I would be more than glad to. But that statement was more to remind him that he needs to follow some etiquettes if he wants to engage in a serious argument. One doesn't set the right tone for discussions when he fails to give any sound counter arguments while criticizing the arguments and expects the opponent not to do the same.

 

[sravna]

Ya memang betul(Yes thats right!)
Thats was what I had typed from Brahmasutra Bhasya today.
Sravna..I think you should get Brahmasutra Bhasya of Sankaracharya and go tru it.
The one I have is from Ramakrishna Advaita Ashram with translation by Swami Gambirananda.
Its really vast with the endless debates.

Thanks Renuka So what's your conclusion, that I should read brahmasutra?