aqua3

-------------------------- If as per your statement Brahamam was Nirguna only until the point of creation starting,the statement "Brahamam IS Nirguna" is false it should be rather "Brahamam WAS Nirguna" however many Acharyas state "Brahamam IS Nirguna" -------------------- No there is no 'is' or 'was' with reference to Brahman. The only basic characteristic that is being said of Brahman by texts is that it is Knowledge which of Self -luminous nature. These two terms are used as inter chanageable and texts are flowing with arguments in support of this view. The fact is that It is being described in many ways. It is such a complex thing to explain with words. If you say it is this, the reply is 'neti', 'neti'. That is why we speak it with reference to a specific context and such other dimensions, or else we will be lost. Such is the import. If you read the bhashyas of different acharyas, you will find that they have centred their arguments on nirguna or saguna, on the popular verse of many upanishads, "satyam, gyanam, anantham Brahma" The arguments in favour of saguna of this statement has never been refuted. --------------------------- Regarding your reply for Karma, my understanding is "Both Karma and its fruit are automatic resulting in each other in cycles. We don't have control over anything. However we can either remain attached to them or remain unattached to them,i.e., we still have control over our attachment to them. Remaining attached to them is called bondage, while remaining unattached is liberation." - True. - Is my understanding correct, if yes, then i was just discussing about the cause of Karma and its fruit being cyclic and arguing that it being cyclic is due to the Nirguna aspect of Brahamam and no other cause (like Bhagavans wish or random effects, etc.,) ------- I dont undersatnd the rationale behind trying to explain everything in terms of saguna or nirguna. In the 8 th chapter which we discussed, He clearly states what these (karma etc) are and where He stands in relation to adhi bhutham, adhi yajnam and adhi yajnam. The Gita is a detailed document on every doubt on karma. Any way I intended to write a mail on what I said in my mail on visarga: karma for which you asked clarification. i will write soon. perhaps that will give some idea since that topic will include how and when evil started coming into 'existence'. And about problem of opposites, I wish to write on the basis of Brahma sutras.. which I hope to do soon. Brahma sutras do talk about 'the twio-natured characteristic of Brahman' in a many sutras.

And this verse is numbered 13.32 by most and 13.33 by a few. There is no problem here. ------------------------- Please check with authentic and original texts. If the number is more, that shows some interpolation has taken place. This is a crucial verse and any intrusion of even one verse -its serious if a couple of verses have been added - can defintely change the meaning and that perhaps is the cause for discrepencies. - He not talking about Guna now. He is teaching that Self which in body (apparently) is self is forever and eternally Guna free. Guna is in imagination, in the mind which is not Self or self. ----------------------------- Yes He tells here what the self, on attaining Brahman becomes. About Guna being imagination...... well ... As I already wrote in a mail, value-judgement has no place in arriving at / understanding what texts say. It will lead to falsity. ---- However, now you have changed the translation. The original translation has "subordinate to me". It altogether different that Lord Krishna is that highest state of Brahman -- sans the perishable body. ----------------------------- Transliteration is requested. Please point out the word in this verse which stands for "subordinate to me". One correction about the next sentence here. Brahman is chnageless.. Moreover, Sri Krishna, has never minced words in BG, where and when He talks about Himself and the self. Typical as a Guru, he tells clearly what He is going to talk about (particularly in this chapter) and tells when He finishes that and gives a prologue and epilogue to every issue He talks about in very clear terms. ------------- That is why He says much earlier that fools consider me clad in the body, whereas I am truly unborn. --- I am surprised at this comment. Who said otherwise? ------------------ Have a nice time of propagating beliefs in the name of logic. Will is first, logic can always be bent. Tackle the will first. --- What is the heat-measuring instrument doing here? well... First of all, the explanation in my mail is completely based on the text, the context and language. Logic is what Sri Krishna beautifully built in explaining what is kshethra, what is the knowledge to attain Him and what happens to the self upon attaining Him. He is perfectly methodical and logical in His built up. For a change why dont you stop bothering about whether I twist logic or not and start reading Brahma sutras, which He himself has recommended as pramana book? But dont complain after reading them that the sages of yore (the names of most of them are not even known) have been spoiled by my ways and are talking like me!!! The fact is that I only follow their methodology and arguments. Another observation, which I think the time has come to say. For the one who is immersed in Brahman, talks such as this which I have been noticing in every mail is and must be anathema to Brahmanic qualities (qualities again:-)) or in other words, can not be generated in mind and uttered out. For such is the auspiciousness of Brahman which can not be otherwise if it. The purpose of Athma vichara is to attain the Brahman by thinkig, talking, enjoying and ultimately becoming those auspicious qualities themselves. Dont say this is my twisted logic. I can show numerous quotes for this from upanishads & BG 16 th chapter. (Remember He gives a warning too in 16-19) And we have seen such people to emulate. Where such intolerance is there, it is the advice of texts and elders to abstain.

"One who grieves' is the original purport cum derivation of the term shudra. That the varnas came to stay by birth is what happened with progression of yugas. It is in the light of this, the incident in RAmayana, which however has no mention in valmiki Ramayana, must be seen. The castes are smrithi based and the interpretation of the same in texts is left to the individual.

Sorry for interfering like this. But there is something to be pointed out.. CAUTION:- The very basic problems in any vedantic study are 1)understanding the meaning of the text and its purport and the context 2)the methodology that is applicable and appropriate to the given issue . keeping these in mind, the following must be read. ------------------- 13.32 Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah; Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate. 13.32. Being 'without beginning and end' and devoid of qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted! ------------------------- The whole philosophical duality is based on the will of the translator or interpreter------------ Yes, first of all this verse has been wrongly numbered… This is 13 –31 This and the subsequent verse quoted have been interpreted OUT OF CONTEXT!!! Look at the sequence.. Look at the previous verse 13-30 “When he perceives the independent modes of existence of all beings centred in one, and as also their expansion from It alone, then he attains to Brahman”. Whom does this verse speak about? About Brahman or the jiva? Brahma sampathyathE thada – Then he ‘sampathyathE’ Brahman That is, He becomes Brahman. Who this he refers to? This is about the jiva. ( Can Brahman (He) say that He himself becomes Brahman?) So saying this in verse 30, the Lord goes on to say in verse 31 ‘anaadhithwaan…” “This supreme self, though dwelling in the body, is immutable, O Arjuna, being without beginning, It neither acts, nor is tainted, as It is without Gunas.” What is the supreme self He refers to here? Is it about Himself? Note that this entire chapter is about who is the kshethra, who is hkshethrajuan and how the dweller in kshethra attains the kshethrajyan , that is by means of what he attains the Brahman. Also note that wherever, He has to refer to Himself in this chapter in particular, He has used terms like maam, mayi. Me , mine etc, never in other terms. Having said that the self in the body attains Brahman, in the next verse He says, that ‘this self’ which has attained Brahman “is iimmutable, O Arjuna, being without beginning, It neither acts, nor is tainted, as It is without Gunas.” Also note why the talk about Gunas come here. It is because of the new status for this self now, in having become un-tainted due to absence of Gunas. Why should He talk about Gunas now? Because in the beginning of His discourse itself, He has said in verse 3-5 (na hi kaschit) Prakruthijai: gunai: sarva: a-vasha: karma kaaryathe / (This is one of the very important verses in BG, whereby, a dozen queries, ranging from whether or how much free-will does the self has to how karma is visarga:, to how it becomes possible to become untainted from karma, and therefore gunas.) “No one, even for a moment, rest without doing work; for everyone is caused to act, inspite of himself, by the Gunas born of prakrithi” Such a connection with Gunas ceases when the self attains Brahman is what is being made out in verse 13-31. Starting from verse 3 in this “Kshethra – Kshethrajya vibhaga yogam”, where He begins to explain what is kshethram (tat kshethram yat cha..) ( also NOTE THAT IN THIS VERSE HE ANNOINTS ‘BRAHMA SUTRAS’ AS PRAMANAS TO KNOW THESE THREE –Him, the self and the kshethram ---“ hEthu madbhihi brahma suthra padai: yeva ” the words given in order here to derive the meaning …) Note “yeva cha” which means only. He says only Brahma sutras (sung by seers ) give the meaning. (contd) from 4 to 6 , kshethra is being explained (by saying yethat kshethram, He finishes the description of Kshethram) Then from 7 to 11, He explains the knowledge that the individual self must seek to have. By the term ‘mayi’ (to me) in verse 10 (constant devotion to ME) it is also understood that the attributes described in these verses are advice to the self about the knowledge to attain Him. Then in verse 12, he concludes , “I have told which is to be Known, knowing which one attains the Immortal self.” This is the first part of the verse. The next part is liable to be mis-read as here. ---------------------------- 13.13 Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami ajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute; Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate. 13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the 'beginningless' supreme Brahman, CALLED NEITHER BEING NOR NON-BEING. Because it says “(quote contd) It is beginningless Brahman having ME for the Highest. it is said to be neither sat nor asat”. By logic, the second line of the verse as continuation of the first verse is about this self which attains the Immortal Self by the Knowledge. By the language used, it is once again proved that it is about self and NOT about Self (It is customary to denote the Lord in capital letter and the jiva in small letter when both are termed same) The language used here is anadhi mat param. He expression is split up thus. AnAdhi = beginningless Mat-param = having me as the Highest. He (the self) attains the beginningless state which has Me as the param. It is then said that he is not sat, nor asat. This is about the state the individual self has attained. This is how the interpretation must go. (a number of sruti texst can be cited here to substantiate this) because, the exposition by the Lord continues till verse 30 when He culminates by telling ‘he then attains brahman” (connect to the first part of this post.) Mid-way in 21 and 22 He tells about how about Gunas affect the individual self. And earlier in 17, He says that this self, light of lights is beyond Tamas. Why tamas, if not it is about a self which was once bound by Tamas and now gone beyond? That is why in 31, He tells about how this self has, upon attaining Brahman, has become untainted with Gunas. Due to nir-gunathvaath (free from gunas), that is devoid of sattwa and other 2 gunas, it is not tainted. How is explained in the next verse. The next verse to that, 33, further clarifies that all that has been said is about the Knower, the Kshthrin and not about the Kshethrajyan. Here, “ As the sun illumines this whole world, so does the knower of the Field (Kshethrin, the self), O Arjuna, illumine the whole Field (the body) (But anyone reading these verses out of context can easily mistaken it to be Brahman.. as has happened ..)

But another Gita statement says "Karamani Vah Adhikersai...." that we can only rights over the Karma and not over its fruits,now my question is- if we don't have any rights over the fruits of the karma, can we give it up (like if i don't have a rights over a piece of land can i give it up to another person?) -------------------------------- Some random thoughts... Probable upsets are (1) this revolts our notions of accountability, responsibility and result-oriented approach in things we do. Does it then mean that Gita is an exclusive spiritual document not suited for material life? How can we say like this when it was intended to convey how one must conduct oneself in one's chores / day to day life? Is it Gita for everyday life or Gita for the graying ones preparing to occupy themselves with atma vichara in retirement life? My understanding :- Gita says you have control over YOUR actions only, not on the results of action. In management parlance also it is an understood reality that results are not always in consummate with the actions we undertake. There are many variables both seen & unseen and both expected & unexpected which influence the result. So your action must also include a contingency / planning / emergency provisions for such unexpected variables. Viewed in this way, this vachan is a perfect management point. At metaphysical level, action at a particular point of time is under your control. But its result is the resultant of various other results you are expected to reap (prarabhdam). That is why you have no say over the results, so its better not to worry about results, and instead concentrate on actions so that such devotion to action might help in bringing in a better resultant sometime later or even when it comes as part of the result expected. So what is to be given importance at any point of time is how well you do it. This is ATTITUDE which I have highlighted in the article in The Hindu. (2) I don’t think this helps in shifting the blame on God. On the other hand, it squarely puts the blame./responsibility on the doer. I do the action but God is the giver of the fruits of action -a constant reminder of my status as a sesha (subsidiary to Him). Herein too, Vedic seers have differed in their views on what / who gives the results. Jaimini says it is the action / work that brings the result. But Badarayana says that it is Brahman who brings out. Here comes the 'scope' for interference by God. At this point of time and at my present level of understanding, I concur with the latter view. Only if it assumed that God is the giver / arbitrator , will it become possible for Him to write off sarva paapEshu when one surrenders giving up attachment to anything and everything one does. This brings us to a much higher notion of shedding attachment even in the act of surrender, i.e., not expecting any reward of even moksham when one does prapatti. (sarva dharman parithyajya then means giving up even the sharanagathi dharmam. Just do sharanagathi (this is action here), and renounce the result of it, the rest rests with Him. He knows the how & when of granting moksham). When that level comes only, the Jeeva attains moksham. We can see the transformation in Gita from the idea of maa paleshu to sarva dharmaan paridyajya as the ultimate level. So what is taught at the battle field, is the right medicine to win the battle of rebirths too. Any way that we can influence the results? The prescription seems to be 'yogah karmasu kaushalam' - dexterity in action and the never dying spirit to do action. The never let go attitude is perhaps the ideal and idea behind how action must be done. Such an action whether done for the sake of result or for the sake of action makes a difference. Gita advises the second course. For, when done for the sake of action, such indepth-ness into action will itself take care of result and we need not worry about the result. Actions when done with such detached attachment will not be a hindrance in handling problems of samsara sagaram. Bhagawan does not ask us renounce the samsara and its attendant problems. He only asks us to renounce fruits. No expectations, no worries. Elsewhere when it is said that there must be akarma in karma, this view can be seen to be taken to higher realms. Ramanuja says that such attitude towards action (karma yogam) leads to knowledge (gyana yogam) which is the foundation for Final Liberation. It is a case of metamorphosis of the mind in giving to issues and actions their dues. Such attitude towards action gives rise to the realisation to the doer that it is NOT he but his gunas which do the actions and the results are for the gunas and not for him.This is concurred by Bhagavan when He says that a person does actions a-vasha, not in his own control but by the control of gunas. We can relate this to the visarga:karma passage to know how karma 'creates' beings and how it is the havis in the yajna of life. It should be noted that what is suggested as a remedy is not giving up actions. For it is in the nature of human beings to act; they cannot but act. The human equipment has been created to act constantly, in accordance with the global design of the creator of the Universe. Each one of us has been provided with the power of the mind to choose actions and execute them for that purpose. The friction occurs when the ego-centric mind strays from this higher purpose and commences behaving with a mental attitude tuned to creating contrary desires and satisfy itself, fulfilling its own narrow purpose. Since this is not in harmony with the creator’s design, frustration and disharmony in the individual’s life result inevitably. Food for thought:- --->The Gita is not sleeping pill, it is a tranquiliser -said by Gandhiji ---> Bhuddha "If anyone says that a man must reap according to his deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is any opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of suffering. But if anyone says that the reward a man reaps accords with his deeds, in that case there is a religious life and opportunity is accorded for the entire extinction of suffering." Courtesy "Recovery of Faith" by S.Radhakrishnan. --> And from Lord Macaulay, the British historian and politician's speech in British . (1835)on India and Indian Education system: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."..

Also another doubt regarding your statement - "It is only by doing karma and subsequently by giving up the fruits of the karma done (as and when it is being done) can a jiva escape from the cycle of birth." But another Gita statement says "Karamani Vah Adhikersai...." that we can only rights over the Karma and not over its fruits,now my question is- if we don't have any rights over the fruits of the karma, can we give it up (like if i don't have a rights over a piece of land can i give it up to another person?) Again please excuse me if this question looks silly, i am very much at a novice level ---------- No this is a big question that is there forever.. Before i can expalin the first part namely, when I said "It is only by doing karma and subsequently by giving up the fruits of the karma done (as and when it is being done) can a jiva escape from the cycle of birth.", let me take you to the next level of undersatnding of Karmani yeva part. Please click the following link to read my article in The Hindu, published in 2002 on how it is attitude to work and not work itself that gives the fruits. In my understanding, the Lord stresses on the kind of attitude that one must have in doing the karma, in this sloka. I will further elaborate on this when i explain the statement I made. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/edu/2002/08/27/stories/2002082700060200.htm

The equation i had given in the above Post is like, a logical (or syllogical if you please) statement IF Everything is Brahamam AND IF Brahamam is Nirguna THEN (it implies) Everything is Nirguna [However this implications seems to contradict the reality, -------------------------- Pl read my replies in earlier posts, particularly the one which, i believe caused heat:-) I dont to the view that Brahman is nirguna. It is so before creation started. (Creation hymn of Rig veda) Thats why in the last post too I said, "Since both (nirguna & saguna) exist in Brahman and is not of either this or that throughout.." If you assume it to be nirguna all the time, you can not justify even your own attribute of desire to know Brahman!! Just as how different terms signify different meanings (as I have shown in numerous places by derivation of different terms) by virtue of 4 -fold character (pl refer to the post on Brahman and Bhagavan), it automatically is deduced that nirguna by the meaning of the term is applicable as long as that attribute of attributelessness is perceived or exists. such a state exists only prior to "It willed, may I become many". Thats why what you see in reality can not be called as nirguna. If you say that it is nirguna, it is like telling "my mother is barren". (Pl no offense, because this is one of the popular terms used in philosophical debates to drive home a point.) Since you are there as a son / daughter to your mother, your mother can not be barren. Similarly, since you see so many attributes in Brahman's creation, the Brahman can not be attributeless!

Can you be more specific about the equation you have written in the last post? I need more clarity regarding what you are conveying. Yes. Gita is the 'living' pramana and as I said in an earlier post, the purport of a particular question in vedanta needs to be addressed using the appropriate methodology. On questions on conflicts between swadharma and sreyas, for the dilemma we face in everyday life, Gita is the only source that guides us very clearly on how to resolve them, though such guidance is concealed in upanishads and ithihasas. Gita is the easy reference book. It also shows the best possible way to salvation for people like us in kali yuga. Here again the implications of the sarva dharmaan parithyajya is voluminous that it will run into series of articles, fit enough to be presented as a book. But the story of creation and the tattwas regarding brahman are to be traced to the sruti texts, particularly, for the moment of creation and before, to the Creation hymn in Rig veda (it is nirguna here), just after creation to Chandhokhya (saguna here)and creation of man to Aithareya.(If one reads Aithareya, one will not be asking why dinosaurs are not mentioned in texts and understand why darwinism is not tenable. The purport behind offering water in various positions of the hand in upa-karma will also be understood.) The nirguna - saguna nature is being analysed based on sruti only. Since both exist in Brahman and is not of either this or that throughout(as I highlighted in a previous post), contradictions do not arise. It is possible to quote Gita, in whichever camp you are in. But the explanations can be only from sruti, and Gita is quoted as cross reference. Now a note on karma in verse 8-3(as per my understanding at the present level of consciousness within me). It has never been said in the (any) texts that karma is eternal. Only that it is beginningless / anAdhi. The fact that Bhagavan Himself guarantees 'aham thwa sarava paapebhyo mokshayishyaami' is a proof that paapa can be destroyed and cessation of karma takes place facilitating one to attain Release. In this sloka (8-3)Bhagawan indicates when Karma begins by defining it as the force which produces the origination of mundane things (BhUtha bhAva udbhava-karah) (perhaps in the beginningless beginning and not in each kalpa. For then, the jivas already embroiled in karmic bondage are ushered into new cycle of births.) These Bhutha bhAva are human beings since the subsequent verses go on with explaining this with reference to human beings. The creative force which produces their origination is contact with woman. Chandokhya (5.3.3) says "the waters sacrificed in the fifth oblations become those who are named purushas." This fifth oblation is the 5th agni, the womb where the jiva enters. It is at this moment karma begins is what the upanishad says. So in the beginningless beginning, the first initiation into karmic bondage begins here. In other circumstances, i.e., in kalpa, the jiva's experience begins on entering the womb. That is why, any embryonic research amounts to killing and such fate is an ordained one for the jiva. Thats why voluntary termination of the foetus even after a few days is again new karma for those involved in it and undergoing the effects of karma for the jiva residing in the foetus. The verse implies that all the acts connected / associated with karma are different from Himself, since He is akshara, so imperishable. And this swabhava which is the nature dwelling in the self (karma) is kshara. We may ask how can it be said that this swabhava is not the swabhava of Brahman. If it be so, that is not acceptable to nirguna-school. Nor even so to saguna-school because, this is followed by mention of karma as a creative force which cant be the swabhava of Brahman and also it is not mentioned what this swabhava is. The primary swabhava / characteristics of brahman is satyam, gyanam and anantham only. We may also ask since it is said that this swabhava dwells within the self, does it not mean that it is Brahman as in-dweller. Not so, is what is being said in the next verse. In the next verse, a clarity emerges. Bhagavan talks of Himself (as adhi-yajyam ) as different from the kshara- prone adhi Bhootham and the dweller in them as Purusha, the adhi-daivam. Here He differentiates Himself from Purusha and the adhi bhootham in which purusha resides, It is clear that he talks about purusha-prakrithi as a combination here as different from Himself, but He is in them as an object of worship in sacrifices (adhi-yajna) This is exactly what I came to tell as how the 'two-natured ness' exists in Him as two contradictory nature, which I will elaborate in another post. Coming back to verse 8-3, we thus find that Bhagawan has made a distinction between Akshara and adhyaathma (with swabhava). If Akshara is imperishable, this swabhava is perishable. In other words, karma is perishable on account of its being connected to nature that is not akshara. Therefore it has to be given up, but yet cant be given up as it is its swabhava to be connected with the self. Hence bahgavan recommends, not giving it up, but giving up the fruits of karma by means of equanimity variously called by Him as Samathwam or samadhrushti (sukha-dhukke sama.. 2-38). When He says give up ‘sarva dharmaan’, that dharma includes even the aspiration for liberation or doing something with the objective of attaining Him. Only then He can destroy en bloc all that arises due to karma, both good and bad. It is akin to telling to keep your mind empty ..in other words to be in nothingness J Just keep on doing your jobs as nithya karma. Does your heart beat with any expectation? Does your lung breath with any expectation? Similarly keep on doing whatever is your action without expectation. Even your prayer or meditation must be done without expectation. Only then your mind will be empty … so that God can fully take control of your mind or fill in. This is being spoken by Him in another way, like asking you to surrender, by renouncing all dharma. Here He means renouncing the fruits of all that you do. Dharma means that which has to be sustained. Sustained for what? With any purpose? Then give up that purpose but do that dharma, which can be any action that you do. Only then He can destroy all papas. Note that He does not say He destroys karma. He only destroys (paapeshu) the fruits of karma. That is why we deduce that He had meant - don’t give up your dharma (swadharma or anything you do) but give up the fruits of it. So, karma which begins as a creative force, in the beginning of creation, in the beginningless beginning, ceases to be relevant at moksha. That is why it is told as visargah, offered in the yajna – the yajna of the journey of the jiva. It is only by doing karma and subsequently by giving up the fruits of the karma done (as and when it is being done) can a jiva escape from the cycle of birth. It is like this - this sharira is defined as that where yajna in agni is being done. Upanishads speak of what these agnis are. They are to do with the functions inside the body at physical level and at knowledge level (gyaanaagni). Every second the agnis are being kept alive by all functions in the body. It is in this agni karma is being offered. That means with this body as yajna –kunda the jiva does the offering by means of karma, which yields its result, both good and bad. Since the components connected to karma here are of prakriti , the swabhava mentioned here are the tri-gunas by means of which karma comes to stay. Since non-manifestation of prakriti happens in dissolution, karma also lies so then. Once creation begins and adhi bhutha springs up as a result of prakriti getting manifested, karma also begins its ‘work’ as visarga in created ones. This is kshara / as swabhava of adhyatmam. This is different from Akshara, the Brahman, is what is the import of this verse.

For the people of yore whose yogic power had been powerful, no weapon, or disease or old age could become the cause of making them shed their mortal coil. Those who enter vAnaprastha, would go on minimal food such as fruits that fall off from the trees. Gradually they shift to further shrinking, by fasting unto death while on meditation. Similarly entering the agni to shed the mortal body is one practice. Shabari entered into agni after Rama left.These acts are not considered as suicides. Otherwise they can not shed their bodies. It is in the light of this one must view RAma entering the sarayu. He, as Narayana created a pramEyam to be born and lose the wife midway but no such prameyam existed for his exit, whereas krishna exited by means of a prameyam. When the time came for his exit Rama chose this route which is however, a means to transport whatever is offered into it to the designated place. The power of apah, or water is such that. About the controversy on shudra, a shudra is one 'who grieves'. In chandokhya upanishad, the king JAnashruti, known for his great works was addressed as a shudra by the sage Raikva, because he was grieving for not having the knowledge of Brahman. In ancient days this is how it was seen.

why "Hari OM" is uttered in the beginning of most rituals. -------------------------- Please find here some inputs on Omkar and after that the Hari shabdam. Then I will relate the two. Omkara – upasana was the very basis of upanishadic-shAram. According to AruNyupanishad, a sanyasin is supposed to chant theUpanishad mantra "OM hi OM hi OM hi" while seeking bhikshA. That ishis yangyOpavitham. (verse 5) In Katohpanishad, Yama explains NachikEtas the importance of OM. NachikEtas asks Yama (Ka – 2.14) to unveil what he (Yama) sees as beyond dharma & adharma, cause & effect and the created & the yet to be created ones. Yama's answer is "OM"(Ka 2.15 & 2.16) "Let me explain you in brief that which is glorifiedby all vEdas, sought after by all tapas and to attain which brahmacharyam is followed. It is OM. This akshara is Brahmam. This alone is para-brahmam. This belongs to the one who desires for it."Yama continues to extol the greatness of this akshara and relates itto Brahman in the succeeding verses. NarayanOpanishad expresses the similar view , " Brahma purushampranava swaroopam / akAra ukArO makAra ithi / tha anEkadha samabhavatthadOmithi yamukthwa muchyathE yOgI janma samsara bhandhanAt/ (Na Up5) The meditation on Om relieves one from the cycle of rebirth.When a person anchors pranvam in his Atman and continues themeditation, he can see the paramAtman, so says BrahmOpanishad.(AtmAnamaraNim kruthwa pranavanchOthraraNim.. 18) KaivalyOpanishad expresses the similar view to weed off pApam. (Brahup- 1.11)SvEthaswatara upanishad echoes the same in verse 1.14 as a means tosee God. But a scientific definition of Brahman as Om has been given by Taiittriya upanishad while the working of Pranava is detailed in MAndukya upanishad. In verse 1.8, Taii upanishad claims that OM symbolises `acceptance'of whatever we do by chanting OM in the beginning. It symbolises that you are being listened to when you chant OM and begin any activity.(When you say Hari: OM, it is that Hari accepts your meditation , prayer or whatever you do. The list of all this is found in Taai upanishad in the Ist chapter.)It is Brahmam. It is sarvam. But what happens when we chant OM and meditate on other devatas -like OM ganEshaya namaha, Om Shivaya namaha etc? The answer can befound in the teachings of PippalAdha in Prashna Upanishad. Without mincing words the sage says that the upAsakA reaches the abode of the Lord meditated by OM. It is herein the logic is derived that the one meditating on Narayana with Omkar (ashtAkshara manthra) reaches moksha / Brahman. But those mediatating on, say, Shiva (Om shivayanamaha) reaches the abode of Shiva and so on. The prakaran 1 of Mandukya upanishadwhere in kArikai 24 to 29 explain Omkar as the kAraNathwa of entire creation thereby holding Brahman / Narayana as the karanthwam and rakshkathwam. Meta-physically the AkAra stands for rakshakathwam, MakAra as the 25th letter signifying jiva and UkAra as signifying that the jiva is subservient to Lord. Mandukya says taht an individual experiences the gross world through three states of mind, viz, the waking, the dream and the deep sleep state. In the deep sleep state the body is causal. OM represents the Turiya state of conscience. It is the fourth apart from the three states of Waking (Jagrat) Dream (Swapna) and deep Sleep (Sushupti) which have no independent existence. OM is the essence of all the vEdas and represents the super consciousness, the Bliss and the Brahman.The three factors of gross body earth, water and fire constitute the waking state and is represented by `a'. (It wiil be interseting to know that these three are the first created ones - once after It willed may I become many.) This is the visva (microcosm)and virat(macrocosm)The sound ceases when `m' is uttered which represents the deep sleep state where the individual is in union with Brahman. It is Prajne in the individual level and Isvara at the cosmic level.The intermediate `u' represents the dream state when ego, the mind functions the role of both the subject and the object. The mind creates its own universe. The total subtle body of the universe is known as Hiranyagarbha and Taijasa at the individual level.The combined utterance of the 3 sounds is OM. The sound ultimately gradually calms into stillness or silence. In this state the individual has transcended the 3 states of gross level and experiences absolute bliss and resides in the transcendental self.The combined OM sysmbolises the subtle Brahman from which all sound forms emnate. This is the 4th stage of the mind, the Turiya state which is the characteristic feature of the Atman.In all these three states the objects are limited by the space., time and cause and the Turiya is beyond 3 states where the atman is divested of all its ignorance and becomes aware of the perpetual identity with the Brahman. It is by constant practice an aspirant endowed with faith, devotion and having overcome the senses and angerattains perfect absorption with the Brahman. (The above information is enshrined in a chapter in mandukya upanishad.) The opening verse of Chandogya upa claims (1.1.1) that the syllable OM is the closest to Brahman and it should be recited aloud.The sound has its origin in the naval (Pashyanti) heart (Madhyama)and speech ( vaikhari) The three forms of sound are related toPrana, manas and Buddhi. The fire that exists in the pores of woods manifests itself through the vigourous friction as spark. Similarly,the Paramatman which lies in the spinal column with the Prana manifests itself in the vaikhari form of sound (Uddhva Gita –vii 18) OM is discovered by the upanishadic seers to represent Brahman in sound form –Nada Brahman. The a, u & m represent creation,protection & dissolution. Om also represents the three gunas. Finally, Ishavasyam declares (verse 17) that the `Lord who is OmkAraswaroopi, sankalpa swaroopi and agni swaroopi would think of me (thejiva) and of my actions when my body is reduced to ashes. 'A reciprocative view of this is found in BG 8.12 &13, wherein theLord says that the one who leaves the body by chanting OM attains His abode.In essence, the Lord who is the Omkara swaroopi thinks of the Jiva at the time of his death (Isha up) and the jiva must meditate on the Lord as OmkAr at the time of his death (Gita). Either way it is OM that is the route to salvation!! ------------ Now hari shabdam Hari: ha + ra + i. Hakara pingala varna: “the syllable ha means that there is no sense of the body.” Further it is said that sarva varna varottamam “It (ha) is the supreme letter.” Rakara teja varna sat: “The syllable ra is the power of God in the body.” Ikara shakti dayaka: “The letter i is the life of God given in you”. So ha + ra + i is Hari, who is inhaling your breath. Hari comes from harati avidyam iti harià, “he who dispels darkness of ignorance”. According to Lahiri Mahasaya, Hari means “one who steals”. When the jiva stage is stolen from you, the resulting stillness is Hari. -- Hari:OM is thus said at the beginning of every action, in Hari being the in-dweller, in his inhaling the person's breath and being capable of removing darkness and ignorance. Hari 'accepts' the sankalpa for the action proposed to be done by the person who says Hari:OM (Taiitriya upa). And the OMkar as sage PippalAdha says, transforms the person to the abode of Hari - a place of No-ignorance and No- darkness. The interpretation goes on...

Please let me know what is your understanding of Shankrachray's Statement "Brahamo Satyam Jagat Nityam" , - You have cornered me:-) Honestly I dont know about the context and interpretation that the acharya has given. I would like to know to understand it better. Meanwhile I would like to know what others say about this. Well, this rings some connection with what I said that 1 + (-1) do not cancel each other in this universe. They reach a new equilibrium - due to a continuous adjustment with each other.. which I intend to write later.

Also i think that Shankraachrayas and Ramanjuachrayas view is not exactly opposite, but they express the same truth in different ways. --------------- Perhaps.. But the final outcome in some cases have been drastically different. (or else why should we have such linching fights in forums like this?) Ramanuja also sensed the problem of reconciling the opposites, the bheda and a-bheda srutis, which he solved using the gataka sruti which are also found in the texts, to bring out a balanced (no trade -off or compromise here)view of Brahman (if I am permitted to use this term)and the nature of things. As a result, while it may take even a full life time going on proving (after every challenge to it) that Brahman is nirguna, not saguna (to give an example, pl no offence, but the texts are such that), it would take less eforts to prove that He is saguna. The arguments in favour of the latter have not yet been refuted..

Please let me know whether Gita is considered a Sruthi and can be taken as a Pramana? ---- yes, Gita is considered as pramana. The acharyas and commentators accept Gita (since It it has directly flowed from God) and Valmiki Ramayana (since it was written contemporarily). These are universal pramana texts, if I am permitted to use this term. But sruti means only Vedas & upanishads. Certain puranas have been regularly quoted by acharyas in their expositions to substantiate their view points. But they have done so only to support their vaada which is primarily based on sruti texts. It is to stress their point that they have used relevant portions from puranas IN ADDITION to sruti pramana.

Thank you for the very learned reply. i agree that i am not a scholar in Sanskrit , also i know very little about vedas, has studied some in Vedanata. ------------------- I am also in the same boat, a learner.. A lot more needed to be to learned because the wonderment I enjoy on reading, seeing and pondering about God and His leela makes me wonder that this birth is not enough... The wonderment I see in every opportunity right from the land i stand on, (where upon seeing the tree near a lake that grows robust and the the tree wilting for want of water at another place making me wonder alas.. is this also due to karma that one tree happens to grow near a water body whereas another one is starved of water?? and the resultant urge in me to do something to drench its thirst or atleast pray that it gets water soon) to the sky that makes me look deeeeeeper into it in a wish to the spot from which we sprang up... is my main course book... the texts come later.. A few days ago I was praying intensely as I was waiting for the night to spread and the monsoon clouds to clear so that I can watch the grand march of the moon across Anteras ( the star Jyeshta), a rare occult phenomenon to see.. but with thoughts, in how many ways the many things and thoughts in our life eclipse Him - the One who can never be eclipsed!!! For me I see a everything as Him and every branch of knowledge is about him. Even in economics, I think the law of Diminishing marginal returns can be applied in God revelation. The TRIZ solution for increasing productivity in engineering which I happpened to read yesterday immediately rings a connection in my mind about how the methods to resolve contradictions in a variety of circustances are nothing but a minature of how this contradiction is resolved in Brahman having the 'two-natured characteristic' of which I will continue in subsequent mails. The TRIZ solution gave me a different perspective and with that when I look at the questions you raised, I find that +1 + (-1) = o is not the way the universe works, just as how no engineering solution would work towards cancelling the contradictions , but with minimising the impact of contradictions and work for a trade-off. With this thought in mind, if I read the texts, particularly the Brahma sutras, I think I am more nearer to the Truth than before. I will share it soon. Meantime let me look into your queries.

I have been waiting for a response from you, to decide about continuing with the original thread on everything =nothing and how to reconcile with the problem of opposites. I wish to make some notes on the information in your post. (1)When it is said pramana –sruti, it refers to only the sruti texts, the Vedas and Upanishads which are apaurusheya, or not authored by anyone. While the other 3, namely smrithis, which embody tradition and sacred laws, ithihasas dealing with ancient history and puranas which are semi-historical works containing also myths and legends intended to illustrate important principles of religion and conduct are not taken as authority or testimony or shabda to interpret, analyse, deduce or reveal the meaning of issues related to Brahman and creation. The srutis are eternal truths and they are not destroyed even during dissolution. Scriptures say that they are ‘lost’ and ‘remembered’. It is like this. Though Newton discovered gravitation, the law of gravitation was not discovered by him. It exists in nature. Such is the nature of rules and information contained in sruti, which were revealed by sages. Any document on Athma vichara is un-sustainable if it not supported by Sruti. (This is to do with the 2nd problem I mentioned earlier, regarding the choice of appropriate tool for analysis) Sruti nowhere says that the negative attributes are contained in Brahman. So the question comes from where they could originate, when Brahman is the Only primary cause from which everything had originated. Though we find references to such issues in puranas etc, the merit of a notion / statement / proposition / premise is broken into the following components and analysed accordingly as to see whether such notion has to be supported by sruti or not. a) Ontological - statements outlining the nature of the Absolute. b) Ethical - statements concerning proper/improper behavior. c) Soteriological - statements about the means and/or nature of liberation. d) Social - political, economic and sociological statements. e) Aesthetic - poetic description and/or theory. f) Cosmological - statements on the nature of the universe and physics. g) Cosmogonical - statements about the origin/creation of the universe. h) Epistemological - statements concerning means of knowing. You will find that statements coming under a, c, f and g need to be supported by sruti as they are about eternal principles. Such scrutiny is done on the basis of established means of proof of Hindu Thought from time immemorial. Of the 9 such means, 6 have been accepted / used in many a philosophical inquiry of scriptures. They are (1) Perception (direct & indirect)or prathyaksha (2) inference (anumana) (3) Analogy or comparison (upamana) (4) Testimony (sruti texts) (5) circumstantial presumption (arthapatti) and (6) negative proof of non-cognition or non apprehension (anupalabdhi) The differences in interpretations happen when these rules are not followed. Like in any theory of science, if rules and assumptions are followed / applied strictly in accordance, the seeker will sooner than later land up with better perspective, if not right perspective always. It is in this background let me quote at the end of this mail, from Sage Bhagavad Parashara (note here this sage is known as bhagavad due to the 6 bhaga qualities in him) how this problem of opposites is dealt using sruti. What I gave earlier was from what we see around as, as it is the practice to introduce the issues and answers to them in the known world and then from the known, we proceed to the unknown. (2)--------------------- This Brahamam is not a pure abstract phenomenon, but a substance - an consciousness energy substance and is called Purusha— --------------------- This comes later according to sruti. In fact Purusha is 'puryam shete iti: purusha:' -the one who is resting in the house. The root words are 'puh' or 'pura' which means city, abode, dwelling etc. The body is the city (BG 5-13) with 9 openings. Since he resides in this city of 9 doors, he is called Purusha. Here comes another rule called the rule of grammatic equation. (Panini gives the details).This is to do with the 1st problem I mentioned in the study of Vedanta. The 4-fold meaning of any word is to be equated with the word to make it potent. That is how Sanskrit words have sprung. That’s why differences crop up when we equate attributes other than what are meant by that term , to mean that term. Please take a fresh look at what sruti says about Purusha, Brahman, Bhagavan etc in the light of this. You will find that it is like how you would have reached the critical point in a su do ku puzzle wherein when you strike at the right understanding of how it goes about, the entire puzzle from then onwards can be solved within even seconds. It is in the light of such grammatic equation coupled with the 1st 3 means of proof, and by drawing support from sruti, we have to solve the equations we have stumbled upon, be it everything= nothing or nothing= eternity. (3)And about nirguna and saguna.. I once again wish state that I would not indulge in what our acharyas have treaded. I touched upon nirguna upto a level (before the birth of “It willed, may I become many”) to show how and when the problem of opposites could have been in ‘unconditioned’ level (if I were right in using this term, for there is no term to describe this condition) Because, any refutation of nirguna will give an impression that aqua3 is challenging the mighty and venerable Shankara, thereby flaring up tempers, whereas in reality it will be the repetition of what Ramanuja has said. That is why it is better to acquaint oneself with both the schools of thought and contemplate on them. That is why I wish not to swear allegiance to any school of thought, but equip myself with the notions and counter notions of both the schools, and using the methodology mentioned above proceed to look into issues. When you do so, you come across many solutions, not found so far. Such is the vastness and depth of Vedanta. Such is the vastness and depth of Vedanta. (4) Similarly, the issues of illusion and reality about which you raised some questions and the question whether consciousness is a substantive nature of the self or its attribute, capable of contraction and expansion. About the former, I request you to look into David Bohm’s Law of Wholeness and Implicate Order (available on Net – about which I originally intended to write to show how the issue is discussed in science and then point out to the territory treaded by the two mighty acharyas and just sit back, leaving it to the reader to make his own conclusions.) What Bhagavad Parashara says:- (Commentary by Ramanujacharya and quotes by Parashara) The Brahman is dissociated from all evil qualities such as sorrow, ignorance , greed and the like. It is One because it is not capable of increase and decrease; for that same reason, its always in the same state; and forming the body of Vasudeva, it has Him for Self (note the difference between Him and Vasudeva and relate it to what was written earlier in this mail on Purusha – but there are places where He is equated with Purushotthama, Jejas, Indra, Gayathri, Sun etc, by virtue of those names attaining grammatic equation in those contexts.), because there is nothing which has not Him for the Self. Accordingly Parashara gives the passage, “The Intelligence which is pure (is one)…”The Intelligent thing being always in the same state, is always to be denoted by the word existence. But the non-intelligent thing is every moment subject to modifications and is thus always subject to destruction. Therefore it is always to be denoted by the word non-existence.

Not leaving unanswered. For scriptural basis, read a Tamil work called AchArya Hridhayam (the translation must be available in the net) (which is a complilation of AchArya Ramanuja's notions)wherein the much respected commentator Sri P.B. Annagaracharya swami (P.B. is the abbreviation of the title he received for his debating skills) explains how, even though Karma is said to be anAdhi, it nevertheless must have had a beginning. The logic is that anything that has an end, must have had a beginning and therefore not anAdhi. If karmic journey can find an end when the jiva attains Liberation or Moksha, it pre-supposes that it must have had a beginning. However it is called anAdhi, due to the reason that its beginnings are difficult to ascertain. Anger? Please know that anger is also (like consciousness) a modifiable quality depending on its relation and function with the subject. In my case, you better understand the motive behind what you call anger in me, by knowing why I took the decision to quit. Well, I asked the Guru in me (SM744 pl listen)and he advised me to follow his 20th Guru! And so I did. The same is what the first verse of the Taiitriya upanishad (I-11.3)guided me to do. To understand what I say, here is the clue. His 24 Gurus are chronicled in Srimad Bhagavatham!! Be back if someone needs clarification for what i stated so far in my mails.

The two mails together— Sri Om Namah sivayya :- Please note the 4 schools of thought in explaining Consciousness and Ramanujacharya’s philosophy of in the light of various contexts such as ‘Functional dependance’- the one important to our discussion being ‘avasthAvad dravyam, in its capacity for modification (expansion and contraction), and in its being absent (once again this involves a series of logical deduction) at sleep and so on. You get an exposition of this in the book Ramanuja’s Theory of Knowledge, authored by Dr K.C. Varadachary, published by TTD. You will also see the discussion on various aspects of consciousness in the book “Transformation of the concept of Consciousness in Modern Epistemology and its bearing on Logic” authored by Professor Nicola Lossky, which ultimately and incidentally settles to the conclusions which illustrate Ramanuja’s concept of it as a functional dependant, a variable. Sri Govindaram :- The Ghatakhasa- mahakasha (spatial ether) as used in my mail are popular examples used in discourses from times of yore, from the perceivable time when Brahma sutras were analysed. The seed from seed as used by Sri Govindaram is once again a popular analogy to explain how karmic theory works (see Ramanuja’s Sri Bhashya for Brahma sutra IV –4) Again I am forced to remind the rules of logic, the subject to which the proposition must be related and the context. I also realize that any further exposition of logic by me in this equation, to show the non-sustainability of the argument given, will heat up tempers..due to which I decide to keep off. On a different note, I wish to thank SM744, for introducing a new concept, Zero heat in attaining Him, which once again set my inquisitiveness in motion and I am grateful to him for the new insights that have cropped up.. But I am sorry to tell you, SM744, that God is not Zero Heat. Nor can He be attained at Zero heat. He is Heat (just a look at a couple of Upanishads would do, say, Shvethasvatara and Gharbo) and the seeker in meditative or sublime level is hot within. If you are keen on knowing how, here are the clues. Look for the meaning and derivation of the term Sharira (yes, our body) and look for why a sanyasi is supposed to give up agni and the core concept in athithi bhojanam and what Gitacharyan says when He identifies Himself as Vaisvanara… DhanyavAd

I would rather appreciate a debate or discussion on substantive issues, the way how vaada and tarka are taken up. I am sorry I am not for this game. ( I once again realise that the problem no (2) and (3) in the study of Vedanta, as mentioned in an earlier post, are too real to be ignored.)

Don't give up. There is something to say. When I replied to your mail, I was just not sure how this equation can be solved. But thinking about it, one plauasible explanation is this:- Sage Aruni's discourse with his son in Chandhogya upanaishad gives us a clue. He asks the boy to break the fruit of the banyan tree step by step, till finally he breaks the seed into two to see that there is Nothing inside it, only to realise that a massive banyan tree has emerged from it. That Nothingness in this context can also mean ghatAkAsha when the seed is not broken and MahAkAsha when it is broken. The mahAkAsha, or ether ourside is ETERNAL. What Aruni's son saw was Nothingness=Eternal. This solution occurs in specific contexts it seems, or else Nothingness, if it were to fulfil this function, has to BE forever - which is a fallacy.

Good, bad, evil, etc are perception. ----------------------------- yes perceptions, but since they have been perceived (as experiences), they are real - This aspect of arguement in shunya vada (against nihilism) demolishes the import of the first 2 paragraphs of the mail to which this is sent as a reply. But if this kind of reply, done impersonally, dis-passionately and purely to explore the Truth is taken as to cause heat problems in a satsung at community level,then it means the Search can not take us beyond the ego level. If it be so, then we can never know what it means to be a jigyasu and from which how to become dearer to Him, with a realisation that 'Vasudaivam sarvam iti'. Because no amount of gyana and bhakthi can make us perceive Him and See Him and attain Him unless He decides in our favour. 'Whom He chooses, by him He is perceived', (Kathopanishad.) Then where does the possibility lie for us to say I said this and I know this or you said this you countered mine like this. But if it be felt that I am responsible for causing heat in the satsang, I have no qualms to leave. For, I am clear about my aim, that is to see Him, know Him, perceive Him as He IS, in vaak, mind and even in dream in such a way that every experience / perception / argument that I come across is merited purely with respect to attaining this aim.

In mathematics, equations are solved by mathematicians, but they are just memorised by students. Who we are is the question, mathematicians or students? If we consider ourselves as mathematicians, then the burden of solving falls on us :-)

<< Since everything has sprung from Brahman, does it mean that this inauspicious / bad nature also has sprung from Him? >> -- I am afraid your mail does not address the above question. The Vedantic notion that Brahman is both the primary and secondary cause of everything in creation suggests that even Evil or Inauspiciousness must have been contained in It from the Beginning. But this is not supported by any Pramaana sruti. That is why this creates a question such as the one mentioned above. But by the logic of the one question that sage Yajnavalkhya asks Vidagdha after Gargi exhausts her questions,(brihadharanyaka) the reply in my post was attempted. The last and the fundamental question that Vidagdha and Gargi left out, but yajnavalkhya raised was this :- " What is that fundamental principle from which all experience is projected, and into which all perception and meaning are assimilated?" By the reply that Yajnavakhya himself had given for this, it is inferred (not proved -something I cautioned earlier by quoting Goedel's theorm of Imcompleteness)that the perception or experience of Evil or Inauspiciousness too must have sprung up and got assimilated back into This Thing!!! My post is an attempt at how this can not, (though sprung and assimilated back into It) and is not known to be of It or an attribute of It. If this is answered at least at the level of logic, we may not be wondering why God created asuras, bad people and even the bad experiences we undergo (though it is true that we 'catch' them due to our karma, guna-mix in us etc, but unless such are in 'existence' we can not 'catch' them is the underlying idea.) ------------ You contention that -- "so, bad things/acts are caused by some of these jivas simply because god has given them the freedom." is factually not true because jivas can not and do not cause bad things....thats why i use the term 'catch'. Or for that matter nothing is caused by the jiva.. (it is herein I bring in more complex issues such as illusion which I will discuss later)Even after Liberation, the act of creation alone is denied to the liberated Jiva, details of which can be found in Brahma sutra..

I wrote like this in my previous post. It automatically co-exists but as ‘non-manifest’ in Brahman. It gets manifest only down the line of creation. --------- This inference is made, since manifestation is a process and does not happen and then stop soon after Creation began. It must be going on and on and the 'other' of it also might be happening as and where applicable / sustainable. This perhaps explains why dharma deteriorates as time goes on and how cyclical it is with adharma. This is what the first mail in response to which I started writing actually meant - that manifestation goes forth and back with non-manifestation at different levels of creation, while the overall picture continues to be manifestation and creation -since we are still in the afternoon of Brhama deva's day time (swetha varaha kalpa). The complete reverse begins at Brahma's night. The same happens localised at short cycles of mini creation & dissolution about which I will write at an appropriate context. (be back)

To find answers to the queries in my previous post, let me take up the equation discussed in this thread earlier. 1+1 = 0, the 1 in the left denoting, positive and negative. 1+1=0 if +1 = -1 That is one and its reciprocal cancels each other (1+(-1) =0)leading to annihilation or nothingness, is the argument. But we have already proved that a positive variable of one system can not cancel or give rise to its reciprocal in another system. In that sense 1+1=0 can not be true. Again if the entire creation has to become zero, by the cancellation of these two opposites, it will take eons, since it will require the entire vast universe to reach a condition where all its positives equal their respective negatives, simultaneously. Instead if we assume that these opposites occur in the same system, then we find that these two opposites tend to attain equilibrium and not total annihilation, when their balance is disturbed. Thus 1+1 is not shunyam, it is Poornam, perfection. If it be said that the 0 in the equation is shunyam only, it is replied, that since shunyam means Nothingness, it is then equal to its contrary, Everything!! In other words, Substituting these terms in the equation, we get, Everything = Nothing Since +1 +(-1) = Nothing, Everything = +1 + (-1) In other words, Everything = positive + negative. Since from non-existance (of Nothing state), everything has evolved, the +ve an d-ve must have evolved together at the very beginning. But the hitch here is how come the Everything that evolved, which is nothing but Brahman which is auspicious, can have –ve within it? To show mathematically, let us assume that 0 existed in the beginning and the apparent attribute spoken by the texts is that it has all that is +ve. Creation further proceeded and there is systematic simplification and separation of these attributes, so that It can become many in the finite world. Therefore there happens a situation when the positive is subtracted from the 0, from anu to brihat level. What will we get is positive is subtracted from zero, a negative!! ( 0 – (+1) = -1) I think that this solves the riddle of opposites - they co-exist, though we perceive them not so. At any one time we perceive one of them and the other as absence of this one. This can be understood like this. Let us imagine our globe with day and night (light and darkness) in co-existence. When we are standing at any one place on the earth, at the finite level, either we will be in the day zone or in the night zone. We wont experience the other – like (as earlier stated) how a person can be good in respect of a thing at one time and not be both good and bad at that time with reference to that thing.) But if we move a little high above our earth, at some height we will see both day and night, light and darkness next to each other, but seeming to chase each other perpetually. The darkness chasing away the light and light chasing away the darkness (tamasomaa Jythir gamaya). At some heightened level of consciousness, perhaps we attain the purport of this vachan. Much higher still, perhaps at the height of moon, the opposites cease to exist! (Please recall the famous photo of earth taken from the moon in one of the Apollo missions.) Away from finite living on the globe, what we now see is just half of the globe, perhaps with a slight bulge at the twilight zone, shining with light. This reminds me of how Brahman can always be perceived as light, sat and auspiciousness only. (but note that this perception occurs only at some height –of transcendence). What is this darkness at the other half? It automatically co-exists but as ‘non-manifest’ in Brahman. It gets manifest only down the line of creation. If we by our vasanas, karma etc happen to get associated with this ‘other’ of auspiciousness, who is to be blamed? We also note that the opposites do not cancel each other. They just balance each other. (Another corollary is in the creation of 7 lokas above in light, which automatically ensures creation of 7 lokas below (patala etc) in darkness). Balance is the nature of creation. Shall we then say this is how Shunyam is equated to Poornam? (be back)

From now on I want to add another (4th) limitation / problem to the already mentioned 3, namely the ( la Goedalian) Theory of incompleteness in the study of Vedanta. Goedel says that a theory can not be proved by the variables contained in it. Goedel's paradox uses the inseparable variables of the theory to highlight the paradox that 'of no formal system can we affirm with certainty that all contentual considerations are representable in it.”(A statement P states 'there is no proof of P'. If P is true, there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true which is a contradiction. Goedel defined P as necessarily a part of the system). This is incidentally agreeable to the seeker, in that any cosmological argument using finite objects can only 'infer', not 'prove' the Truth (of the Infinite) as expounded by Vedanta and any 'inference' is not proof. In other words the finite axioms can never prove the Infinite and we at the finite level can never explain the Infinite with the help of cognition at the finite level. With this awareness, let us continue from my previous post. That Brahman is ‘satyam, gyanam and anatham’ is repeated in many Upanishads. In this ‘anantham’ attribute, comes a whole lot of contradictory attributes. He is aNuh, atomic; bRihat, macrocosmic; kRSaH, lean; sthUlaH, fat; guNabrt, full of attributes; nirguNaH, attributeless; mahAn, great; adhRtaH, supportless. These names occur in continuous succession in Vishnu sahasranAma. But these attributes are not seen as un-sustainable opposites, that parASara, one of the great commentators on the vishnu sahasra-nAma, excels here by interpreting these eight names as describing the eight powers of yoga: namely, aNimA, mahimA, laghumA, garimA, Isitva, vaSitva, prAkAmya and prApti – meaning, the powers to become atomic, transcendent, light, heavy, the power to will anything beyond any natural phenomenon, effortless attainment of anything and omniscience coupled with omnipotence! If we see these opposites, we find that a cohabitation or combination of the two in a pair does not and need not cancel each other, as how we think a positive and a negative cancel each other. If attributes are classified into positive and negative (like good and bad, devas and asuras) and if it be assumed that they equal each other, will they then be cancelled and become zero? There is another question also. If Brahman is all auspiciousness (nowhere texts say that He has negative attributes. He is Amal and Nirmal), from where the inauspicious qualities come? Since everything has sprung from Brahman, does it mean that this inauspicious / bad nature also has sprung from Him? (be back)