barney 0 Report post Posted May 18, 2004 The central theme of the Upanishads is Brahman, called also Paramatma. It is a conscious principle. The word for conscious principle in Sanskrit is “caitanyam” The seminal sentence defining Brahman which occurs in Taittiriya Upanishad (II.1.ii) is “satyam jnanam anantam Brahma.” In English, this is translated as “ existence-consciousness-infinity. ( Existence, consciousness and infinity are not three separate entities; they are three words denoting the nature of the same entity.) The word, “ satyam ” is defined as that which is eternal and has independent existence. The word,“ jnanam ”, in this context, means consciousness. The word, “anantam” means infinity. Infinity denotes what is infinite not only in terms of space but in terms of time and entity. (In some places, Brahman is also defined as saccidananda.; it is a compound word consisting of “ sat ” which is the equivalent of “ satyam ”, “ cit ” which is the equivalent of “jnanam ” and “ ananda ” which is the equivalent of “ ananatam”). There are various Upanishad passages which talk of Brahman, the all pervading consciousness as being available for recognition within the intellect or the mind. The Upanishads also expressly state that Brahman is not only nondual (“advayam”) but divisionless (“nirvikalpam”). Therefore Advaita Vedanta says that the atma in you, in me, in other human beings, in the animals, the birds, the insects, the plants and, in fact, in all living beings, be they denizens of this world or the other worlds, i.e., even the atma in gods (“Devas”) and demons (“Asuras”) is one and the same entity. Brahman and Atma are not different. They are just two words for the same entity. There is only one unbroken, undivided, all pervading consciousness. ("akhanda caitanyam" or “Brahma caitanyam”) When the focus of teaching is on the all pervading aspect, it is generally referred to as Brahman and when the focus is on the original consciousness available in the jivatmas, it is generally referred to as Atma. When the focus is on the source of cidabhasa, It is referred to as Sakshi. It is the same all pervading consciousness that is available in the jivatmas. And it is this that is invoked as the unchanging, constant I, by a pratyabhinja vritti. When the minds of the jivatmas are superimposed in the ‘field’ of the all pervading consciousness, there occur reflections of consciousness in the minds. The minds have the capacity to receive the consciousness and reflect it, unlike objects like the table, just as mirrors have the capacity to receive the sunlight and reflect it. The reflected consciousness is called "cidabhasa", in Sanskrit. Without the reflected consciousness, the mind cannot perceive objects, cannot know, cannot think, cannot react, cannot recall and cannot imagine. (The qualities of different minds are different. Some are cheerful, some are morose. Some are intelligent; some are dull the comparison is that a mirror coated with dirt will throw a dull light on a dark room and a clean mirror will throw a bright light.) The mind, in turn, lends the borrowed consciousness to the sense organs and the body; that is how the mind, the sense organs and the body become sentient. It is the mind cum cidabhasa (technically called ahamkara) that expresses as the changing I. 2. Deriving consciousness from the Atma, the mind perceives the external world through the sense organs. While the awareness of the existence of oneself as a self conscious human being and as the same person, in spite of the changes which the body and mind undergo cannot be explained without the Atma, the perception of particular objects or entertainment of particular thoughts in a voluntary, selective manner cannot be explained without the mind. If I am watching the T.V. with great interest, I may be eating at the same time, but if you ask me later what I ate , I will not be able to tell you. Another proof of the capacity of the mind to select what it wants is what is known as the “cocktail effect.” And it is the mind which perceives objects of the external world, at one time, projects a dream world at another time and becomes dormant at a third time. Atma, the eternal consciousness, is there all the time, without undergoing any of these changes. If Atma alone was there and there was no mind, there would be permanent perception of everything together at the same time (which will be utter confusion) if we assume Atma to be a knower or there will be permanent non-perception, if we assume Atma to be a non-knower. Another fundamental tenet of Advaita Vedanta – indeed of all schools of philosophy in Hinduism – is that the sukshma sarira in which cidabhasa is always there survives the death of the sthoola sarira and is involved in transmigration from one world to another among the fourteen worlds (lokas) mentioned in Sastra and entry into different sthoola sariras in successive births (janmas). Associated with this tenet, there is the theory of karma. According to this, for the actions and thoughts of jivatmas they incur what are called “punya” and “papa” (merit and demerit) and have to undergo enjoyment or suffering in future janmas and, sometimes in this janma itself. Vide Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.4.vi – “Being attached, the (transmigrating jivatma) together with its karma attains that on which its subtle body or mind is set. It experiences (in the other world) the karma phalam (recompense for punya papa in the form of enjoyment and suffering) for whatever karma it had done in this world. When it is exhausted, it comes again from that world to this world for new karma. Thus does the man with craving (transmigrate)”. Kathopanishad II.ii.7 – “ Some embodied ones enter (after death) into (another) womb for assuming bodies. The extremely inferior ones, after death attain the state of motionless things like trees etc., in accordance with each one’s work – i.e., under the impulsion of the fruits of the works they have accomplished in this life; similarly too, in conformity with the nature of knowledge acquired.” Prasnopanishad III.7 – “ ….leads to a virtuous world as a result of virtue, to a sinful world as a result of sin, and to the human world as a result of both.” (“punyena punyam lokam papena papam ubobhyam eva manushyalokam.”) The punya papa account is a running account to which additions are made by actions and thoughts and subtractions take place on account of enjoyment and suffering and through further action and thought. The accumulated punya papa account is called “sancita karma”, the punya papa incurred in the current janma is called “agami karma” and the punya papa quota assigned to be exhausted in a particular janma is called “prarabhda karma”. In accordance with prarabdha karma, the jivatma’s next janma may be as a celestial or a god in one of the lokas superior than the earth or as an asura or some other denizen in an inferior loka , with different kinds of sthoola sariras ,or again, on earth, as a human being or as a plant or an animal or insect or microbe . Jivatmas and karma are beginningless. Therefore , questions such as “what is the cause of the first janma?” i.e.,“how can there be a first janma with different people being different in various respects unless there was a preceding karma?”, “how can there be karma without a previous janma?” are out of court. Only a theory of karma and rebirth can explain the phenomenon of prodigies or morons or babies afflicted with congenital diseases unconnected with heredity and the wide disparity in physical and mental equipment, health, wealth, joy and suffering among human beings. That is, if you say that a person is born and dies once for all, and that there is no rebirth, when a person undergoes enjoyment or suffering, you cannot explain it, because there is no punya papa for which the enjoyment or suffering is undergone. The other way, for the actions and thoughts of a person, the punya papa will hang in the air without reward or retribution. If you say that the Lord created persons with varying patterns of physical and mental equipment and comforts, enjoyment and suffering, then that would make that Lord partial. In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad,, IV.iii.9, read with Sankaracarya’s commentary, we get a logical proof of transmigration of sukshma sariras. The Upanishad says, “Remaining in the junction between waking and sleep, i.e., in the swapna avastha, the jivatma experiences this world and the other world.” This is how we get strange dreams of things we have never experienced. Dreams are based on impressions formed during the waking state, called vasanas. Even a baby has dreams. Where are the previous experiences for it to have formed vasanas? The baby’s dreams are based impression formed in the mind out of experiences (“vasanas”) of its previous janma. Similarly, on the eve of death, it is said, that a man has a glimpse pf his next janma during his dreams.. Another argument for the karma theory is the well known fact that the mind, though conscious of consequences wills evil; and though dissuaded it does engage in deeds of intensely sorrowful consequences. If there was no vasana of evil, since everybody wants only happiness, evil will not exist in the world at all. Apart from karma, there is scope for free will ( called “purushartha”) in human lives. Good action and good thought can reduce papa and increase punya. Whether free will or karma will prevail or to what extent free will can mitigate karma depends on the relative strength of the two. Since there is no way of knowing what one’s karma is, wisdom lies in doing good actions and entertaining good thoughts. One should not lose faith in the efficacy of good actions and good thoughts; good actions and good thoughts are bound to bring about a better balance of punya papa and, consequently, mitigate suffering and increase happiness in the present janma itself or in future janmas. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, fifth chapter, fourteenth section talks of the beneficial result of the chanting of the famous Savitri mantra in the Gayatri metre. There are various other sections in the Upanishads, particularly Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya, which talk of beneficial results of meditation on deities. We should extend this to good actions and good thoughts in general. What physical and mental equipment one is born with, in which set up one is born and what opportunities are available are determined by one’s karma. But, in any janma, how one develops one’s potential, how one makes use of opportunities and how one does action in and reacts to situations depends on one’s free will. Upanishads state expressly in innumerable passages that Brahman is nondual (“advayam”, “ekam”) and eternal (”nityam”); “nityam” implies changelessness; in the Bhagavadgita (Gita, for short), Brahman is specifically said to be changeless. ( In his Bhashyam, Sankaracarya says that , unlike milk turning into curd, Brahman does not undergo any such transformation. (Transformation is called "parinama" in Sanskrit). But we do experience a world. The world that we experience cannot be the effect or transe formation of Brahman. We can explain what is experienced only if we say that the world belongs to a lower of reality. So, a cardinal doctrine of Advaita Vedanta is the scheme of three orders of reality ( ontological statuses ) – “ paramarthika satyam” ( absolute reality), “ vyavaharika satyam” ( empirical reality ) and “pratibhasika satyam” ( subjective reality ). Brahman is paramarthika satyam. The universe comprising external objects and our bodies and minds is vyavaharika satyam. The dream world is pratibhasika satyam. Objects that are erroneously perceived in jagrat avastha as existing outside are also called “ pratibhasika satyam”. Examples are snake perceived on the rope, silver perceived on the shell, water perceived on the desert sand ( i.e. mirage), man perceived on the post etc. The position of the world vis a vis Brahman is compared to the position of the dream world vis a vis the waker, the position of the snake perceived in the rope etc. Cf. Chandogya Upanishad II.vi.1– “That (Brahman) created all that exists. That ( Brahman), having created that entered into that very thing. And, having entered there, It became the true and the untrue, Truth became all this. (“satyam ca anrutam ca; satyam abhavat”). The first “the true” (“satyam”), refers to vyavaharika satyam, “the untrue” (“anrutam”) refers to pratibhasika satyam and the second “Truth” (“satyam”) refers to paramarthika satyam. Orders of reality lower then Brahman are covered by the technical term, “mithya” All that is experienced but is not paramarthika satyam falls under the category of mithya. Mithya can be either vyavaharika satyam or pratibhasika satyam. Mithya is defined as that which is experienced but has no independent existence, E.g., If clay is taken away, there is no pot. The dream world is dependent on the waker. If the rope was not there, snake would not appear. Another definition of mithya is that which is neither totally existent nor totally non-existent. “Totally non-existent” is ruled out because it is an object of experience. “Totally existent” is ruled out because when the Brahman is known, the object is seen as unreal i.e., relegated to a lower order of reality. Thus the snake perceived on the rope is mithya. The dream world is mithya. Anything that is mithya is also called “anirvacaniyam” (that which cannot be defined) in Sanskrit. Whatever is mithya is a superimposition on a substratum. If there was no substratum, it cannot appear and when the substratum is known it disappears or is relegated to a lower order of reality. (When the word, “ satyam” or “ real ”is used without any adjective, hereafter, it should be taken to refer to paramarthika satyam and when the word, “ mithya” or “ unreal” is used without any adjective, it should be taken to refer to “vyavaharika satyam” or “pratibhasika satyam”, depending on the context.) According to Advaita Vedanta – indeed all schools of Hindu philosophy – there is a beginningless and endless cycle of creation, maintenance and dissolution or resolution, called “srishti”, “sthithi”, ”laya.” Cf. Svesvatara Upanishad I.9, where it is said that Iswara as well as jiva are birthless.) In each srishti, the variety and pattern of objects, the attributes of the bodies and minds and the events and situations have to be fashioned to suit the karmas of the myriad of sentient beings in the janmas they go through in that srishti. This requires conscious planning and skilful action on the part of the creator. According to Sastra, Brahman is eternal and changeless and It is neither a doer nor a thinker thinking with a mind which undergoes modification. Put in Sanskrit, It is “akarta” and “amanah”. ( Action involves change. Thought is also change because it is movement of the mind). If Brahman has to be a cause and the world has to be a product, Brahman has to change and when the product comes, the cause in its original form is no longer there. So an eternal, changeless Brahman cannot be the material cause of the world (“upadhana karanam”). Since the changeless Brahman is amanah, It cannot be the intelligent cause of the world (“nimitta karanam.”). So, the question arises, how does creation come? Advaita Vedanta says that in Brahman, there is, as a lower order of reality, an entity and power, called “Maya”. Maya is inert matter, consisting of undifferentiated names and forms. Brahma caitanyam gets reflected in Maya, to constitute an entity called “Iswara”. Iswara has the caitanyam aspect of Brahman in the form of reflected consciousness as well as the matter aspect of Maya. Therefore Iswara has in himself the capacity to think, visualise and plan creation and the raw material to evolve the objects of creation. Just as creation is mithya, Iswara is also mithya, belonging to the vyavaharika order of reality. Creation is only unfolding of forms with corresponding names (nama roopa) on a substratum. The substratum is Brahman, the non-dual existence, the sat. Sat does not undergo any change. The names and forms unfolded as a superimposition on sat, the substratum, include not only various worlds, stars, planets, mountains, rivers etc but the bodies of plants, insects, animals and human beings, gods, asuras etc. Iswara visualises and plans the creation, keeping in mind the requirements of the karmas of the jivas and impels Maya to unfold the names and forms accordingly. ( Cf. Svesvatara Upanishad IV.10 where world is said to be the form of Maya and Svesvatara Upanishad IV. 6, where it is said that Iswara referred to as Mayi creates the universe. That the word, Mayi, refers to Iswara, we can see from Svesvatara Upanishad IV.10 which says that ‘Prakriti said, earlier, to be the cause of the world should be known as Maya and the great Iswara to be ruler of Maya.) \) The world Mayi In the minds of living beings, the consciousness aspect of Brahman, (cit) is reflected to form cidabhasa. After the karmas of the jivas assigned for that creation have been exhausted through enjoyment and suffering, Iswara makes Maya withdraw the projected names and forms unto Himself in his aspect as Maya, there to remain, for a period, called “pralaya”, in potential or seed form. According to Advaita Vedanta, in our real nature, we are the very infinite Brahman. Maya has a two-fold power - (i) veiling power (“avarana sakti”) and (2) projecting power (“vikshepa sakti”). Through avarana sakti Maya hides Brahman, as it were, from us; i.e., makes us ignorant about our real nature as Brahman and through vikshepa sakti, having projected the names and forms which include our body mind complex, deludes us into identifying ourselves with our body mind complex. Consequently, we regard ourselves as limited individuals, different from other beings and take on ourselves the problems, the joy, suffering, fear, sense of insecurity etc. belonging to the body and the mind . Whereas, it is the body mind complex that thinks, does action, enjoys and suffers ( put in Sanskrit, is the "karta" and "bhokta" ,) we regard ourselves as karta and bhokta. Our transactions in the world, with this notion, result in our incurring an obligation to get rewards for good thoughts and deeds and punishments for bad thoughts and deeds in future births. In the course of enjoyment and suffering as reward and punishment, we engage ourselves in further transactions and incur further obligations for the discharge of which we have to be born again and again. Thus, we are caught up in the cycle of births and deaths and enjoyment and suffering. This is called “. Whereas, the macrocosmic cycle of srishti, sthiti and laya is endless as well as beginningless, individual samsara is not endless. When we understand that we are not the body mind complex but we are the infinite Brahman, we get liberated from samsara. ( In Svesvatara Upanishad .6, it is said that Jiva regards himself to be different from Paramatma, and gets involved in samsara) Thus, the correct goal of human life, according to Advaita Vedanta is one’s identification with Brahman, i.e., displacing the “I” from the body, mind and ego and putting it, as it were, in Brahman. the original pure consciousness, the existence-consciousness-infinity. At the macrocosmic level, Iswara is the conglomerate of the original consciousness, the real part and Maya, the reflecting medium and the cidabhsa, the reflected consciousness, which are the unreal parts (mithya). At the microcosmic level, Jivatma is the conglomerate of the original consciousness, the real part and the body mind complex, the reflecting medium and the reflected consciousness, which are the unreal parts (mithya). Owing to ignorance caused by Maya, we, jivatmas regard ourselves as limited individuals. When we negate the unreal parts of Iswara and ourselves, i.e., relegate them to a lower order of reality, and recognize the identity of the real parts, the identity of the original consciousness available in us and the infinite consciousness, we recognize our real nature as Brahman, the Existcnce-Consciousness-Infnity. This is called “jivabrahmaikyam”. Sentences in the sastra that reveal jivabrahmaikyam are called Mahavakyas. There are innumerable mahavakyas in the Upanishads. Four of them are famous, one quoted from each Veda, namely, “ Tat tvam asi ” ( Chandogya Upanishad – Sama Veda), “ aham brahma asmi” (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad – Yajur Veda), “ ayam atma brahma” (Mandukya Upanishad – Atharva Veda) and “ prajnam brahma”, (Aitereya Upanishad – Rg. Veda). Translated in English, the four mahavakyas would read respectively as “ Thou art That ” “ I am Brahman ” “ This atma is Brahman ” and “ Consciousness is Brahman”). 2. In the process of the teaching, we also understand, as explained above, that the only reality is Brahman and all else, i.e., the world of objects and our own body mind complexes are Mithya. This, together with the knowledge of “ jivabrahmaikyam” is expressed by the famous sentence, “Brahmasatyam jaganmithya, jivobrhmaiva naparah.” (“ Brahman is the reality; the world is mithya; jiva is Brahman, naught else.”) .The moment this knowledge is gained effectively, one is free in this very life. This freedom , liberation from the bondage of samsara, is called “moksha”. The benefit of this knowledge is unalloyed peace and happiness. The one who has gained the knowledge is called, “jivanmukta”or “Jnani”. 3. It is not essential that one should become a sanyasi to gain the knowledge. If one can go through the methods ( called “sadhanas” ) prescribed for attaining mental purity, calmness and concentration which are prerequisites for gaining effective knowledge and devoting sufficient time regularly and systematically under the guidance of a competent teacher to the study of the Upanishads and the commentaries, etc. even while one continues to be engaged in the duties of one’s secular life, one can become a Jnani. The world does not disappear for a jnani. But his outlook and attitude to the world become different. On the paramarthika plane, he has identified himself with nondual reality, the infinite Brahman. Since he knows that the world, including the body mind complex is unreal, he has no sorrow, no anxiety, no fear, no desire , no hatred, no worry. Cf. Chandogya Upanishad VII. 1. iii – “ I have heard from masters like you that he who knows the Brahman transcends sorrow.” Because the world is mithya, i.e., of a lesser order or reality and nothing of a lesser order of reality can affect an entity of the higher order of reality, jnani is not affected by anything, good or bad, happening in the world. In the dream, the tiger has mauled me. But when I wake up, I don’t find any wound in the body. I win a big prize in a raffle in the dream. But when I wake up, I don’t find my bank balance increased. Stain in the reflection in the mirror does not affect my face. The fire in the movie does not burn the screen. If somebody steps on my shadow, I am not hurt. Similarly, the happenings in the empirical world ( in the “vyavaharika jagat”) do not affect the jnani. 2. The freedom from disturbance from the empirical world is a psychological freedom arising from the knowledge of the truth and does not extend to the physiological body. The jnani has no sorrow, no anxiety, no fear, no worry, no craving, no attachment and no hatred. Cf. Chandogya Upanishad VII.i.3 –“I have heard from masters like you that he who knows Brahman transcends sorrow.” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.12 – “ If a man knows Atma (Brahman) as “I am this” then desiring what and for whose sake will be suffer when the body is afflicted?” Sankaracarya’s commentary – “ If a man.....knows the atma which is his own atma as well as the Paramatma – knows how? – as ‘I am this Paramatma’, the sakshi of perceptions of all beings, which has been described as ‘not this, not this’ and so on, than which there is no seer.........knower and is in all beings, and which is by nature eternal, pure consciousness and free, desiring what other thing distinct from his own Self which is everything and for whose sake, i.e., for the need of what other person distinct from himself will he become miserable when mithya body is afflicted? Because he as the atma has nothing to wish for, and there is none other than himself for whose sake he may wish it, he being the atma of all, therefore desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer when the body is afflicted?. For, this is possible for the man who identifies himself with anatma (that which is not atma, i.e. the body mind complex) and desires things other than atma and struggles and desires something for himself, something else for his son, and a third thing for his wife and so on, goes round the births and deaths and is diseased when his body is diseased. Bur all this is impossible for the man who sees everything as his atma.” However, the body mind complex with which the person who has become a jnani is part of the vyavaharika world and as long as that body lives, there are duties pertaining to it. So, if the jnani is a householder, he does not cease to perform the duties and obligations towards the body, the family and the society. He does his duties with purpose but without any desire and he accepts the results of actions, good or bad, favourable or unfavourable with spontaneous equanimity. The jnani is not dependent on anything except his identification with Brahman for peace of mind and happiness. This does not mean that he ceases to enjoy the good things of life, like good food or music or literature, but he does not have desire for them. That is to say, if it is there, he takes it and enjoys it , but if it is not there , he does not miss it. He may have preferences, but he has no need. If the jnani is ill, he will also go to the doctor, but he will do so without any anxiety . If his wife is ill, the jnani will look after her with compassion but without sadness or anxiety or worry. If the jnani’s son has to gain admission in a college, the jnani will also make efforts, but he will not be sad if he fails. If his son obtains the first rank in his class, the jnani will also be happy, but he will be equally happy if the son of a complete stranger, instead of his son, secures the first rank .If he was a poet, he can continue to be a poet. If hw was a musician, he can continue to be a musician. When he goes to a temple or church or mosque, he will also do worship but he will do so with the knowledge that he himself is Brahman. But whatever he does, he will do that, not for himself, but for the welfare of society or humanity or as an example for the common man. His efforts for himself will be confined to the barest minimum requirements of sustenance. Even while he is transacting with the world, the deep undercurrent of thought that he is the Brahman that is beyond the vyvaharika world will be there. The jnani is like the actor on the stage. Today, the actor plays the role of a beggar ; tomorrow , he may play the role of a millionaire. But he knows that he is neither a beggar nor a millionaire. Like that, the jnani plays the role of father, husband, teacher and what not, committed but unattached and never without the undercurrent in the mind that he is really none of these but he is the relationless (“asanga”) Brahman. 3. On the vyavaharika plane, anything that there is in the world is Brahman only, because the real essence is only Brahman and what we see as external objects or persons are only names and forms appearing on Brahman. Since the jnani has identified with Brahman, the essence of everything, he can regard himself as everything ; this attitude is called “ “sarvatmabhava”. For him, everything that there is his, everybody’s happiness is his happiness, everybody’s knowledge is his knowledge and everybody’s achievement is his achievement. This is not to be taken literally. Even a jnani can actually enjoy whatever falls within the scope of the antahkarana in the body with which he was born. Regarding others, enjoyment etc. as his is a question of attitude born out of the knowledge that all nama roopas exist on Brahman and he himself is Brahman.. Having this attitude, the Jnani has no sense of lacking anything, nor has he desire for anything . Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iii.21 – “aptakamam atmakamam akamam roopam.” Also Chandogya Upanishad VII.xxiv.2 – “Evam vijanan atmaratih atmakridah atmamithunah atmanandah sa swarat bhavati”. Since everybody is himself, he loves all equally and he has no jealousy or hatred towards anybody or fear of anything or anybody. He goes on teaching or working for the welfare of society peacefully and happily. In this connection, we can usefully refer to Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.4.vi. “ The Brahmana rejects him who knows the Brahmana to be different from the Self. The Kshatriya rejects him who knows the Kshatriya to be different from the Self. Worlds reject him who knows the worlds to be different from the Self. The gods reject him who knows the gods to be different from the Self. Beings reject him who knows beings to be different from the Self. All reject him who knows all to be different from the Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these beings and this all are only the Self (one’s own atma)” 4. To put it in technical terms, jnana phalam, the benefit of the recognition of jivabrahmaikyam, is twofold - (i) sarvatmabhava and poornatvam (from the standpoint of the vyavaharika plane), the sense that I am Brahman, Brahman is everything; so, I am everything – the sense of utter fulfillment and (2) asangatvam ( from the standpoint of the paramarthika plane), dismissing the universe as unreal, the sense that I alone am , infinite in terms of space, time and entity. The jnani thus has the choice of ananda arising out of the attitude, “ I am everything” or the peace of being relationless, the knowledge that I alone am, all else is mithya and nothing can affect me, the satyam. 5. Since the jnani has disidentified with the body mind complex with which he was born, he becomes free of the sancita karma pertaining to that body mind complex. Action involves physical and mental movement. Movement is change in space and time. Thought is also a movement, being a modification of the mind. Brahman being all pervading, formless attributeless and changeless is not a doer or enjoyer ( - to put it in Sanskrit, Brahman is neither a “karta” nor a “ bhokta”. ) An all pervading changeless entity cannot move and, therefore, cannot act or think. Since Jnani is identified with Brahman, he is free from the sense of doership and enjoyership ( “ kartrtvam and bhoktrtvam.”) .. Cf. Kathopanishad I.2.xix – “ He who thinks that he is the killer or the killed does not know atma. Atma neither kills nor is killed.” Action and thought done or entertained with kartrtvam and bhoktrtvam alone results in the accumulation of punya and papa, So, for the jnani, there is no agami kama, either. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.xxiv.3 – “Papa does not trouble him by producing the desired result or generating sin, but, he, the knower of Brahman consumes all papa, i.e., burns it to ashes with the fire of the realisation of the Self of all.” However, according to Chandogya Upanishad VI.xiv.2, like an arrow that has already been shot from the bow , the quota of karma out of the sancita karma bundle which has already been assigned to be gone through in this life ( “prarabdha karma”) continues to be there also for the Jnani. But even here, there is a difference. While the physical aspect cannot be avoided, on the psychological plane, the jnani is not disturbed. If something good happens he does not jump with joy. If something bad happens, he is not sad. He takes everything that happens on the physical plane as the prarabdha pertaining to the body-mind complex with which he has already dissociated himself and therefore there is no disturbance in his mind. The state in which Jnani continues to live, with a body mind complex with which he has dissociated himself is called “Jivanmukti” ( i. e., liberation in this very life). The disassociation with the body is compared to the snake casting off its old skin. Section 11 – Knowledge, the sole means of liberation According to Advaita Vedanta, moksha is obtained only through knowledge of identity with Brahman and not through any karma or upasana. Kaivalya Upanishad 3 – “It is through renunciation that a few seekers have attained immortality – not through rituals, not through progeny, not through wealth.....” (“ na karmana na prajaya na dhanena tyaganaike amrutatvamanasuh”). Mundaka Upanishad I. 7 “ ....Indeed those who consider karma to be a means for moksha are fools. They enter old age and death again and again.” Mundakopanishad I.9 – “.....These ritualists do not know the glory of moksha due to their attachment. Consequently these wretched ones fall down when the Punya is exhausted.” Kenopanishad II.4 – “Through knowledge is attained immortality” “ (...vidyaya vindate amrutam”). Also cf. Nrsimhapurvatapani Upanishad I.6. Cf. Brhdaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.19 – “ Brahman has to be recognised by the mind alone. ( “manasa eva anudrashtavyah”.) “ “ Taittiriya Upanishad II.2.1 – “The knower of Brahman attains Brahman” (“Brahmavid apnoti param”) “The knower of Brahman becomes immortal.” Kathopanishad II.iii.8 – “ Superior to the Unmanifested (Maya) is the Infinite who is......without worldly attributes, knowing Whom a man becomes freed and attains immortality.” (“....Yam jnatva mucyate jantuh..”). Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.17 – “....that very Atma I regard as Brahman. Knowing Brahman, I am immortal.” (“Tam eva manya atmanam vidwan brahma amrutah amrutam.) Svetasvatara Upanishad – “ Svetasvatara Upanishad III.8 - “ Knowing that Paramatma that is Pratyagatma, Sakshi, that is the infinite, that is all pervading, that is effulgent........men become immortal. For attaining this Brahman, there is no other means” (“.......na anya pantha vidyate ayanaya.”). Kaivalya Upanishad 9 - “He alone is everything which is in the past, which is in the present and which will be in the future. Having known him one crosses mortality. There is no other means for liberation.” (“..... na anya pantha vimuktaye”). Kaivalya Upanishad 10 – “Clearly recognising oneself to be present in all beings and clearly recognising all beings in oneself, the seeker attains the Supreme Brahman, not by any other means”). (.....na anyena hetuna”). “Moksha is only by knowledge”. (“ janat eva kaivalyam”). Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.viii.10 – “ He...who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gargi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But he, O Gargi, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman”. The same idea is expressed in different words in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.10 . That knowledge is the means of moksha is also said in Svetasvatara Upanishad I.11, Nrsimhapurvatapani Upanishad II.6 (tam eva vidwan amrutam iha bhavati”) Svetasvatara Upanishad VI.17, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.14, Chandogya Upanishad VII.1.3,, Mundaka Upanishad II.i.2 , II.ii.8, III.ii.8 and III.ii.9 Prasna Upanishad IV.10 and VI.6 Isavasya Upanishad 7, Kena Upanishad II.5, and IV.9 (read with IV.7) , Svetasvatara Upanishad II.14, ,III,7, IV.17, and V.6, Kathopanishad II.ii.13, Isavasya Upanishad 11 etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2004 The central theme of the Upanishads is Brahman, called also Paramatma W R O N G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2004 yes, i am brahman... but that does not mean 'i am god' it means i am part of god... eternally fragmentary portion... the ultimate? to serve the whole...Supreme Lord (Ishvara)...according to the Gita his name is Krsna... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2004 The central theme of the Upanishads is Brahman, called also Paramatma. Nobody who knows shAstra will disagree with this. Therefore Advaita Vedanta says that the atma in you, in me, in other human beings, in the animals, the birds, the insects, the plants and, in fact, in all living beings, be they denizens of this world or the other worlds, i.e., even the atma in gods (“Devas”) and demons (“Asuras”) is one and the same entity. However, this is an illogical position to take. Using some common sense, it can be seen that each living entity is only conscious of his pleasures and pains and not those of another. This does not support the point of view that every living entity is indeed the same living entity. Furthermore, shAstra-s do not state that every living being is the same living entity. This does not follow from the principle that Brahman is all-pervasive and non-dual. Yes, Brahman is all-pervasive, but the jIvAtma is not. Brahman and Atma are not different. They are just two words for the same entity. No, this is also incorrect. The problem with your position lies in your ignorance of the nuances of the term "Atman." Depending on context, "Atman" can refer to either paramAtman or jIvAtman. Yes, brahman and paramAtman are the same, but brahman is not the same as the jIvAtman. When examined closely, advaita is seen to be illogical and inconsistent. If there is indeed only one thing in existence, Brahman, which has no qualities, then how to explain the following: - where does mAyA come from? it is an intrinsic property of brahman (if so, brahman now has qualities, contrary to advaita-vedAnta), or is it an entity apart from brahman (if so, now we have two things - brahman and mAyA) - if brahman is a "conscious" principle, then this too is assigning a quality to brahman, in contrast to the advaita view that brahman has no qualities - if brahman is non-dual and the same living entity in multiple different bodies, then why do only some entities get liberation while others are not getting it? shouldn't liberation be simultaneous for all? A lot of things you quote from shruti are not incorrect. The main problem is that you draw unfounded conclusions from them. There is frankly a lack of connectedness between your pramAna-s and your conclusions. First I debated philosophy with iskcon fanatics, and now with purple dinosaurs. How low I have fallen... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2004 First I debated philosophy with iskcon fanatics, and now with purple dinosaurs. How low I have fallen... if you have such despise for the ones who are you discussing with it is very easy to fall Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
atanu 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 This is fun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2004 Thanks a million for all this gyan and information , pls post more gyan like this on this site . If any one has doubts (as i read in the reply's that many have ) try reading Yog Vashishtha. it is not at all surprising that we have doubts becuase that's the sole purpose of maya ( Shri Durga/ Prakriti)to create doubts amoung beings but purushartha clears them all. In the first chapter of Shri Durga Saptashahti Megha muni says it is the Shakti / Maya / Devi / Ma /Prakriti that creates all douts and shows untruth as truth and truth as untruth to maintain sansar bandhan and to keep all beings in maya / moh and when you were worship the braham/shiva / shakti ( by realising the self) Shakti releives you of the Mithya .Shiv shakti are one of saveral names of braham / Paramatma. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 12, 2004 No, this is also incorrect. The problem with your position lies in your ignorance of the nuances of the term "Atman." Depending on context, "Atman" can refer to either paramAtman or jIvAtman. Yes, brahman and paramAtman are the same, but brahman is not the same as the jIvAtman. When examined closely, advaita is seen to be illogical and inconsistent. If there is indeed only one thing in existence, Brahman, which has no qualities, then how to explain the following: - where does mAyA come from? it is an intrinsic property of brahman (if so, brahman now has qualities, contrary to advaita-vedAnta), or is it an entity apart from brahman (if so, now we have two things - brahman and mAyA) - if brahman is a "conscious" principle, then this too is assigning a quality to brahman, in contrast to the advaita view that brahman has no qualities - if brahman is non-dual and the same living entity in multiple different bodies, then why do only some entities get liberation while others are not getting it? shouldn't liberation be simultaneous for all? A lot of things you quote from shruti are not incorrect. The main problem is that you draw unfounded conclusions from them. There is frankly a lack of connectedness between your pramAna-s and your conclusions. I am still waiting for answers to these questions from the learned "Advaitins" of this list. However, since I posed them initially to one of the Afro-baba cult followers, I guess I probably won't get an intelligent response. Raghu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
atanu 0 Report post Posted June 13, 2004 Raghu sab, I did not want to comment because mostly discussions degenerate to ego level. Moreover, it is Barney ji’s thread. Your understanding may be entirely different from my understanding but that should not make us attack each other at personal level. Differences should lead to greater appreciation of His infinite variety, splendor, and ways. You worship the supreme One as Visnu. A Christian knows Him as Lord. A Muslim knows Him as Allah. Now if I were to denigrate Allah, I would be denigrating the same Lord whom I was worshipping. If Visnu was revealed through Shruti, Allah was also revealed through Shruti. The first chapter of Rig Veda has a verse that the Lord is One but sages perceive Him as different names. I believe that you will read further with calm reason. Your comment : “When examined closely, advaita is seen to be illogical and inconsistent. If there is indeed only one thing in existence, Brahman, which has no qualities, then how to explain the following:” ”- where does mAyA come from? it is an intrinsic property of brahman (if so, brahman now has qualities, contrary to advaita-vedAnta), or is it an entity apart from brahman (if so, now we have two things - brahman and mAyA)” My comments: Maya is Maya. It has no reality for the uneluded ones. But it is eternal and has no cause as the beginning. Like Agni has heat but is not heat and is not affected by heat so also Brahman has Maya but is not Maya and Brahman is not affected by Maya. A red hot iron ball is not Agni but has as if acquired Agni. Red hot iron ball is insentient, unintelligent. Similarly, a dress (mind-body) by reflection acquires the intelligence of Bhava but due to operation of Maya of the same mind gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind. Knowledge of this is a step towards liberation. And experiencing that what you call I is not the body-mind but Bhava observing the insentient Body-Mind is Liberation. In this state no trace of I ness will remain and ego dissolves. Gita 18.61 The Lord resides in the hearts of all, O Arjuna, revolving all creatures by prakriti as if mounted on a machine Note the “As if” in the above verse. We are mounted on machines and rotated because of desires, which we associate with I and not with Prakriti. Once you understand that I am not lusty but my prakriti makes I to seem lusty, many hurdles will be cleared. Similarly, when you realize that Prakriti makes my mind lusty and I am the seer of this, again many hurdles will be cleared. In essence, see yourself as desireless-unchanging Self and not as a mass of desires. This is only possible when you dissociate consciousness from your body-mind. Your comment : ”- if brahman is a "conscious" principle, then this too is assigning a quality to brahman, in contrast to the advaita view that brahman has no qualities” My comments: Brahman is nor Sat and nor Asat. It is indefinable in absolute terms. Maya is also indefinable in absolute terms. Trying to define something infinite through our finite thought is faulty. I can understand a report written by me but my report cannot understand Me. Brahman is un-definable in absolute terms without also limiting His infinite-un-limited nature. Brahma Sutra defines Brahman as that from which proceed acts of creation, sustenance and destruction. But Brahma Sutra does not venture to say what Brahman absolutely is. Advaitins simply say that Brahman is all. Your comment: ”- if brahman is non-dual and the same living entity in multiple different bodies, then why do only some entities get liberation while others are not getting it? shouldn't liberation be simultaneous for all?” My comments: Brahman is not the same living entity in different bodies. Who told you that? Brahman is indivisible. Brahman pervades all. No space (so called) is not devoid of Brahman. The dresses that seem to divide Brahman are unreal. In Brahman’s perspective there are no bondage and liberation; no death and birth, no creation and destruction. It is the mind which has assumed the ownership of I (like a red hot iron ball assumes the ownership of Agni) that knows about bondage and liberation. This sense of bondage is Maya. I will try to be solemn here in order not to attract fast comments. Please, I beg, read this with calm. Thought of the mind is the bondage. A sage who remains thoughtless for appreciable extent of time (by singing praise of the Lord or by being immersed in meditation) is liberated to that extent. Sages also say that in this process a time comes when the ego vanishes. And then the sage abides in Sahaja Samadhi though apparently appearing to partake in karma. Like a Brahmin actor who acts the role of a Soldier in a play. He knows that it is Prakriti who is acting and I is sthanu -- the seer. The sage will realize: I in everyone and everyone in I. That is, in essence He will realize that He is soul and all are soul and that the soul is all pervading. I obtained a glimpse that body-mind cannot be the “I” at the death bed of my father. My father, after suffering for pain and fear of death for some 7 days, suddenly became calm and smiling 5 minutes before the end of the dress. Two questions arose in me and that was the turning point. I thought if the body and brain was my father then why can’t the body-brain decide for more life? I also thought, whether if I fed the dead dress with glucose water, the fingers would move again? The answer was obvious: the senses, the body, the mind etc. are controlled by something deeper and that is the real Me. Advaita, Dwaita and all other profound thoughts stipulate that love this power that runs everything. That is the real Me. The real I. Now as further food for thought read these: RV Book 1 10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born. Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra. 1 -------- 2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny; Atanu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Raghu sab, I did not want to comment because mostly discussions degenerate to ego level. Moreover, it is Barney ji’s thread. That may be true for you and Barney. This is because you espouse a philosophy that is inconsistent, and which you can only defend by attacking the character of your opponents. As far as I'm concerned, I will simply point out the logical inconsistencies in your Advaita and see how hard you try to pretend they do not exist. You worship the supreme One as Visnu. A Christian knows Him as Lord. A Muslim knows Him as Allah... (more stuff about how everything is same deleted) etc etc. This is nothing more than sentimental bunk. Now, here was my question: “When examined closely, advaita is seen to be illogical and inconsistent. If there is indeed only one thing in existence, Brahman, which has no qualities, then how to explain the following:” ”- where does mAyA come from? it is an intrinsic property of brahman (if so, brahman now has qualities, contrary to advaita-vedAnta), or is it an entity apart from brahman (if so, now we have two things - brahman and mAyA)” To which you replied: Maya is Maya. It has no reality for the uneluded ones. But it is eternal and has no cause as the beginning. Ascribing contradictory properties to dependent entities is a fatal flaw in any philosophy. You say maya has no reality, yet you say it is eternal. This is contradictory. The Bhagavad-giitaa makes no such allowance for unreal things which are eternal: nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH | ubhayor api dRSTo 'ntas tvanayos tattvadarshibhiH || 2:16 || This verse clearly explains that those things which are real exist eternally, while those which are not real do not exist eternally. These are the only two categories of entities admitted by bhagavad-gItA. Your opinion of a "maya" which is unreal, yet eternal, is therefore in contradiction with shAstra. Like Agni has heat but is not heat and is not affected by heat so also Brahman has Maya but is not Maya and Brahman is not affected by Maya. Advaita holds that only one entity exists - Brahman, and this Brahman has no qualities. Given this, you have not answered the question at all. If Brahman has maya, then this posits the existence of two entities - Brahman, and the thing which it posesses, which is contradictory to Advaita. If you say Maya is not an independent entity, but rather a property of Brahman, then you ascribe qualities to Brahman -- also inconsistent with Advaita. Hence, we see that Advaita will not stand, given even a minor degree of logical scrutiny. A red hot iron ball is not Agni but has as if acquired Agni. Red hot iron ball is insentient, unintelligent. Similarly, a dress (mind-body) by reflection acquires the intelligence of Bhava but due to operation of Maya of the same mind gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind. Knowledge of this is a step towards liberation. And experiencing that what you call I is not the body-mind but Bhava observing the insentient Body-Mind is Liberation. Proof by analogy is not proof of anything. An analogy is meant to illustrate a relationship between two things by way of comparison. The ability to offer an analogy does not prove anything - it is merely a convenience. Proof is from shAstra only. Besides which, your opinions are illogical. You say that a mind-body dress acquires the intelligence of "bhava" but due to "maya" gets deluded into thinking this intelligence is of the body/mind. But as there is only one Brahman which has no qualities as per Advaita, then from whence has come this mind-body dress? From where the "intelligence of bhava?" And what about maya? Already now this is 4 different entities, when there is only supposed to be one according to Advaita. You say that "knowledge of this is a step towards liberation." But liberation from what? If only Brahman exists, then what is it getting liberated from? There is nothing else according to Advaita, so liberation is not a sensible concept. You refer to "knowledge" as the step towards liberation. But who or what is doing the knowing? If it is Brahman, then where is the question of knowing, since Brahman has no qualities? If you say that Brahman has qualities (in contradiction to Advaita), and Brahman is omniscient, then why would it not know how to get liberation? In this state no trace of I ness will remain and ego dissolves. There is no shAstric pramAna which states that the jIvAtma dissolves or loses its individuality. This is nothing more than an imagination invented by you. Gita 18.61 The Lord resides in the hearts of all, O Arjuna, revolving all creatures by prakriti as if mounted on a machine Note the “As if” in the above verse. We are mounted on machines and rotated because of desires, which we associate with I and not with Prakriti. Once you understand that I am not lusty but my prakriti makes I to seem lusty, many hurdles will be cleared. Not only is this NOT what the gItA says, there is nothing in the above which refers to any "dissolving" of individuality. Merely quoting verses here or there to give your philosophy the appearance of legitimacy will not work. You must understand what it is you are quoting. Again, you refer to another entity, prakriti, which one must disassociate oneself from. But from where has this prakriti come from? If it is not Brahman, then it is not supposed to exist, because in Advaita only Brahman exists. I asked: ”- if brahman is a "conscious" principle, then this too is assigning a quality to brahman, in contrast to the advaita view that brahman has no qualities” to which you replied: Brahman is nor Sat and nor Asat. This is again illogical. An entity which neither exists nor does not exist defies common sense. It is indefinable in absolute terms. Maya is also indefinable in absolute terms. Yet, you are saying so many things about Brahman and Maya. Why are Brahman and Maya only indefinable when Advaitins are pressed to explain their views, but perfectly capable of being described whenever Advaitins are not challenged? We can see the reason why -- Advaitins will use this "neither sat nor asat" argument as an escape route to avoid the very real charge of inconsistency. Trying to define something infinite through our finite thought is faulty. Therefore, we accept what is stated in shruti, which is beyond the realm of finite thought, as it is apaurusheya. I can understand a report written by me but my report cannot understand Me. A very poor example. A report is not sentient, while a jIvAtma is. Unacceptable. Brahman is un-definable in absolute terms without also limiting His infinite-un-limited nature. Brahma Sutra defines Brahman as that from which proceed acts of creation, sustenance and destruction. But Brahma Sutra does not venture to say what Brahman absolutely is. Advaitins simply say that Brahman is all. Again, a contradiction. You say Brahman is undefineable, yet you conceed that Brahma-sUtra defines it. One can never completely understand Brahman but one can begin to understand Brahman based on what is explained in shruti. This is the difference between real vedAnta and Advaita. I asked: ”- if brahman is non-dual and the same living entity in multiple different bodies, then why do only some entities get liberation while others are not getting it? shouldn't liberation be simultaneous for all?” to which you replied: Brahman is not the same living entity in different bodies. Who told you that? You yourself just did. Your own words: "Similarly, a dress (mind-body) by reflection acquires the intelligence of Bhava but due to operation of Maya of the same mind gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind." Do you wish to repeal them now? Brahman is indivisible. Brahman pervades all. No space (so called) is not devoid of Brahman. The dresses that seem to divide Brahman are unreal. In Brahman’s perspective there are no bondage and liberation; no death and birth, no creation and destruction. The all-pervading nature of Brahman is not specific to Advaita. But vedAnta does not say that the jIva-s are Brahman. This is an exclusive feature of Advaita only. If all jIva-s are merely reflected portions of Brahman, then the question remains: why do some jIva-s get liberation while others do not -- when all are the same, singular Brahman, why do some parts of Brahman get liberation while others remain in ignorance? Thought of the mind is the bondage. A sage who remains thoughtless for appreciable extent of time (by singing praise of the Lord or by being immersed in meditation) is liberated to that extent. Again, a contradiction. Being immersed in meditation on the Lord is not being thoughtless. Sages also say that in this process a time comes when the ego vanishes. And then the sage abides in Sahaja Samadhi though apparently appearing to partake in karma. Like a Brahmin actor who acts the role of a Soldier in a play. He knows that it is Prakriti who is acting and I is sthanu -- the seer. The fact that ahankAra disappears does not make indivudality disappear. You are confusing ego with individuality. There is no shAstric pramAna which states that one's individuality disappears. I obtained a glimpse that body-mind cannot be the “I” at the death bed of my father. My father, after suffering for pain and fear of death for some 7 days, suddenly became calm and smiling 5 minutes before the end of the dress. Two questions arose in me and that was the turning point. I thought if the body and brain was my father then why can’t the body-brain decide for more life? I also thought, whether if I fed the dead dress with glucose water, the fingers would move again? The answer was obvious: the senses, the body, the mind etc. are controlled by something deeper and that is the real Me. No, the correct answer is that the entity known as your father is a separate jIvAtman, whose relationship of "father" was based on the mind, body, and senses, these latter entities being temporary. You are not your father. Now as further food for thought read these: RV Book 1 10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born. Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra. 1 -------- 2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny; Not only are such statements nowhere to be found in shruti, they do not in any way support your poorly constructed arguments. I predict that your response will be laced with various imaginary complaints to the effect that I am insulting your character or some such thing. If you cannot defend your philosophy by logical argument, then you should admit it is illogical rather than promoting it as if it is something special. All the relationships between the essential truths are already described in the vedAnta. Advaita scores points for novelty in its attempt to deny these relationships. But in the end, it really is not vedAnta, as it is mired in numerous self-contradictory propositions. Raghu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 "RV Book 1 10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born. Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra. 1 -------- 2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny; "Not only are such statements nowhere to be found in shruti, they do not in any way support your poorly constructed arguments." Check this up in RV. Your "painda" -- the base, has fallen off. First confirm that these are in Shruti. You simply don't have the depth yet to understand whether these support the arguments or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 My comments: Maya is Maya. It has no reality for the uneluded ones. But it is eternal and has no cause as the beginning. --like all advaita theory the result is that who is realized is ina position of disadvantage in comparison with the non realized souls. Maya is a person designed by another person (god) to fulfill our desire to be illuded. When one's realized one sees maya as a devotee servant of god.. sri durga, parvati... Anda parvati is eternal and she has a real existence Trying to define something infinite through our finite thought is faulty. --the infinite can be defined or graduelly defined by us if the lord gives to us the possibility. Actually, discussing on these matters, we are expressing desire to understand more and more about them. So there's the possibility to use some logic even if we are not fully realized. Sat means eternal.. and we have already said that brahman is eternal. So if brahman is eternal he possess at least a quality, so he's no more "nirguna" Advaitins simply say that Brahman is all. --another quality, actually the sum of all qualities... bhagavan, the one who has all the powers. So if brahman is the sum of all qualities, among these qualities there's also personality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Only Lord contributes. Your headers start with contradiction to Gita. As always.. ”-- When one's realized one sees maya as a devotee servant of god.. sri durga, parvati... Anda parvati is eternal and she has a real existence” You are highly evolved to be able to distort truth in your fashion. But that will finally delude you alone. Knowing Durga is enough benefit. Obtaining her grace and obtaining respite from Maya is benefit that is not small but Carva. --Sat means eternal.. and we have already said that brahman is eternal. So if brahman is eternal he possess at least a quality, so he's no more "nirguna" Brahman is repository of all qualities but prefers to remain as He is and not change like a chameleon. Otherwise He will not be eternal. It is said in Shruti that He is changeless. --another quality, actually the sum of all qualities... bhagavan, the one who has all the powers. So if brahman is the sum of all qualities, among these qualities there's also personality I have said what I have said. But I am extremely delighted to at last find a person who understood the import of the RV verses. Pranam. Atanu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 14, 2004 Only Lord contributes. Your headers start with contradiction to Gita. As always.. ••it is world jugglery... but if you want to juggle we can say that if it is lord who speaks, the fact that i give a contribution is spoken by the lord. So give respect You are highly evolved to be able to distort truth in your fashion ••many thanks for saying that i am very able (remember that you say that only lord speaks.. so be careful to not offend), if you find some distortion please explain Knowing Durga is enough benefit. ••to know fully sri durga you must know that she's a main servant and assistant of sri bhagavan.. she's very devotee and affectionate, she likes to be worshipped in this way Obtaining her grace and obtaining respite from Maya is benefit that is not small but Carva. ••of course Brahman is repository of all qualities but prefers to remain as He is ••repository, all qualities, to prefere, to remain... too many qualities and actions to affirm that the ultimate reality is nir-guna, no-qualities He is and not change like a chameleon. Otherwise He will not be eternal. ••if you have changement and dynamism in relative world you must have it also in the absolute and eternity. It is said in Shruti that He is changeless. ••of course.. under a materialist perspective the absolute is changeless. The absolute does not change or grows because, as a material object, he's not complete or eternal. He changes as a feature of his being eternal and complete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 2004 Atanu, you really have not answered any of my questions at all. Nor have you quoted any pramAnas to support your position. All this merely reinforces my earlier conviction that the so-called Advaita philosophy simply cannot stand. For all their claims to intellectual superiority, I have never seen an Advaitin be able to hold his ground in logical debate with a Vaishnava vedAntin (what to speak of a tattvavAdi). Raghu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 2004 “But vedAnta does not say that the jIva-s are Brahman. This is an exclusive feature of Advaita only.” Find the followings: Ekam evadvitiyam brahma: Brahman is one, without a second Prajnanam brahman Brahman: is the supreme knowledge Tat tvam asi: That is what you are Ayam atma brahma: Atman and brahman are the same Aham brahmasmi: I am brahman Sarvam khalvidam brahma: All of this is brahman These are called Mahavakyas. “Again, a contradiction. You say Brahman is undefineable, yet you conceed that Brahma-sUtra defines it.” You argue for argument sake. Brahma Sutra definition does not say what Brahman actually is. It cannot without also limiting Brahman. Read it again if you wish (I know you have no wish ) “why do some parts of Brahman get liberation while others remain in ignorance?” There is no part. To the following slokas You as usual say. RV Book 1 10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born. Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra. 1 -------- 2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny; “Not only are such statements nowhere to be found in shruti, they do not in any way support your poorly constructed arguments.” What can be further from the truth. Rather say that you do not believe Shruti. Atanu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 2004 We have discussed all this before. Readers may see my Advaita thread of couple of months back. There my friend used comparison of individual soul to a policeman who changes behaviour in public and at Home. Also later my friend said. Individual Soul is CIT and Brahman is CIT. Then He said me the Idiot, you the scientist, and Krishna, one, two, three. So, my friends soul is not CIT or CIT is an idiot. How can one be both things at one time? Of course He may say "I never said these" or something, since he is always a guest. Identity not known. But from language one knows. Atanu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 15, 2004 So, my friends soul is not CIT or CIT is an idiot. How can one be both things at one time? because we are subordinated and our being cit depends from the god's being cit so we are cit in our natural state in vaikunta.. but when we desire to be "idiot" and forgetful of god (falling in this material world), he, through maya make us idiot this explains why we are brahman, spirit, but subordinated to param brahman, supreme spirit there's no other way to explain why me and you are made "idiots" by maya energy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 2004 "there's no other way to explain why me and you are made "idiots" by maya energy " You have also drawn me into your type? You are correct. Otherwise I would not argue so much. But what happens when Aditi graces? According to you, even then you will not be CIT. And I believe that I will realize my CIT. With this difference let us work towards the real experience. Atanu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 16, 2004 But what happens when Aditi graces? According to you, even then you will not be CIT. ••you are not reading wery well in my mind.... we are made free by god, he gives us the freedom, the forgetfullness and energy to be rebels.. and he, mercifully, gives the freedom, the remembering and the energy to go back to him. we have only to have a deep desire And I believe that I will realize my CIT. ••of course, we are talking of spiritual subjects and saying the names of god.. so, sooner or later we come back to him, the spiritual achievements never decrease Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 17, 2004 I wrote: “But vedAnta does not say that the jIva-s are Brahman. This is an exclusive feature of Advaita only.” to which Atanu replied: Ekam evadvitiyam brahma: Brahman is one, without a second This does not prove that the jIva-s are brahman. All this is saying is that there is no other who is equal to brahman. Or in otherwords, Brahman is one of a kind. Prajnanam brahman Brahman: is the supreme knowledge Again, nothing here about jIva = brahman. Everyone knows that Brahman is the supreme knowledge. That does not mean that the jIva is brahman. Do you actually take the trouble to read what you quote? It seems not. Tat tvam asi: That is what you are This is not correct. The actual Sanskrit from the chandogya is: sAtmAtattvamasiSvetaketo ... which is correctly parsed as: sa AtmA atat tvam asi Svetaketo which means: "That Brahman, you are not that, Shvetaketo." Atanu, quoting isolated Sanskrit words as if they were slogans simply will not do. Please read the examples following this verse in the chandogya upaniSad - they all bear out that the jIva is NOT brahman -- all quite clearly. Ayam atma brahma: Atman and brahman are the same Actually, it's "ayam AtmA brahma" Sure, the paramAtma and brahman are same. Nowere in the above do I see anything saying that the jIvAtma is the same as brahman. Aham brahmasmi: I am brahman But the speaker of this is Lord Vishnu, not a jIva. How is it that when Vishnu says "I am Brahman," that you take this to mean jIva is brahman? Sarvam khalvidam brahma: All of this is brahman Of course all this is Brahman, since Brahman pervades everything. It makes no sense to say that Brahman pervades everything if there existed nothing else that was not Brahman. For one thing A to pervade another thing B, and thus to equate them, they have to be different in the first place. These are called Mahavakyas. How would you know? You can't even read Sanskrit. I doubt if you have even read the Upanishads from which these came. To the following slokas You as usual say. No, there are no shlokas in the Rig Veda. Those are mantras. There is a difference. Shloka is a poetic form found in certain smriti texts. RV Book 1 10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born. Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra. 1 -------- 2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny; “Not only are such statements nowhere to be found in shruti, they do not in any way support your poorly constructed arguments.” What can be further from the truth. Rather say that you do not believe Shruti. I see no shrutis quoted in the above text. Everyone knows that shrutis are in Sanskrit. Quoting an Englishman's "translation" is not quoting shruti. If you knew what "shruti" meant, you wouldn't be quoting an English translation. The reason you avoid the Sanskrit is because when one sees the Sanskrit it is easy to see that you (or whoever your favorite mediocre translator is) has mistranslated them. How can you say that Vedas support Advaita, if you only quote biased mistranslations of the Vedas rather than the Vedas themselves? Atanu, you are really losing this argument big time. Is this the best argument you can give? Raghu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
atanu 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2004 Pranam Pranam You say: -------“That may be true for you and Barney. This is because you espouse a philosophy that is inconsistent, and which you can only defend by attacking the character of your opponents.” My statement See who is attacking the character. You say: In reply to: -- Maya is Maya. It has no reality for the uneluded ones. But it is eternal and has no cause as the beginning. -- You said: “Ascribing contradictory properties to dependent entities is a fatal flaw in any philosophy. You say maya has no reality, yet you say it is eternal. This is contradictory. The Bhagavad-giitaa makes no such allowance for unreal things which are eternal: nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH | ubhayor api dRSTo 'ntas tvanayos tattvadarshibhiH || 2:16 || This verse clearly explains that those things which are real exist eternally, while those which are not real do not exist eternally. These are the only two categories of entities admitted by bhagavad-gItA. Your opinion of a "maya" which is unreal, yet eternal, is therefore in contradiction with shAstra. “ I say: There is no contradiction. The unreality of Maya is a reality and is eternal. The reality of Maya is unreality and is eternal. Brahman’s power of veiling is reality and eternal. You say ----“Advaita holds that only one entity exists - Brahman, and this Brahman has no qualities. “ My statement You do not know. Brahman is Nirguna and Saguna all. You say “------Given this, you have not answered the question at all. If Brahman has maya, then this posits the existence of two entities - Brahman, and the thing which it posesses, which is contradictory to Advaita.” If you say Maya is not an independent entity, but rather a property of Brahman, then you ascribe qualities to Brahman -- also inconsistent with Advaita.” My statement All qualities that you see in this Universe comes from Brahman. Brahman is Nirguna and Saguna. You say “Hence, we see that Advaita will not stand, given even a minor degree of logical scrutiny.” My statement Advaita is standing on Gita. You say In reply to: -- A red hot iron ball is not Agni but has as if acquired Agni. Red hot iron ball is insentient, unintelligent. Similarly, a dress (mind-body) by reflection acquires the intelligence of Bhava but due to operation of Maya of the same mind gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind. Knowledge of this is a step towards liberation. And experiencing that what you call I is not the body-mind but Bhava observing the insentient Body-Mind is Liberation. -- -----“Proof by analogy is not proof of anything.” My statement You have neither analogy nor shastra. You say “----You say that "knowledge of this is a step towards liberation." But liberation from what? If only Brahman exists, then what is it getting liberated from? There is nothing else according to Advaita, so liberation is not a sensible concept.” My statement Brahman exists eternally. All other are non eternal appearances. The knowledge of discrimination is Liberation ( which finally is Maya since there is no bondage to begin with). You say ---“You refer to "knowledge" as the step towards liberation. But who or what is doing the knowing? If it is Brahman, then where is the question of knowing, since Brahman has no qualities? If you say that Brahman has qualities (in contradiction to Advaita), and Brahman is omniscient, then why would it not know how to get liberation? “ My statement Advaita says (and I have already stated the same in this thread) that liberation is Maya since there is no bondage in the first place. Your point does not hold.since You say “There is no shAstric pramAna which states that the jIvAtma dissolves or loses its individuality. This is nothing more than an imagination invented by you.” My statement Not by me baby. By Vashishtha. I quoted: “Gita 18.61 The Lord resides in the hearts of all, O Arjuna, revolving all creatures by prakriti as if mounted on a machine” You say against above quote: “Not only is this NOT what the gItA says, there is nothing in the above which refers to any "dissolving" of individuality.” My statement Then what does Gita say? Why don’t you reproduce from your CD? Moreover, I did not quote this passage as proof of dissolution of individuality but as effect of Prakriti. Why do you lie? You say “In reply to: -- Brahman is nor Sat and nor Asat. -- This is again illogical. An entity which neither exists nor does not exist defies common sense. “ My statement Yes it is. It was a mistake. Brahman is both Sat and Asat. And so Brahman is nor Sat and nor Asat. You say “In reply to: -- Trying to define something infinite through our finite thought is faulty. -- Therefore, we accept what is stated in shruti, which is beyond the realm of finite thought, as it is apaurusheya. “ My statement You don’t accept anything. All your arguments stem from one motive: to show who the Supreme is. Naïve really . You say “In reply to: -- I can understand a report written by me but my report cannot understand Me. -- A very poor example. A report is not sentient, while a jIvAtma is. Unacceptable. “ My statement Raghu Ji, you say this is a wrong example since the report is insentient while we are intelligent. Can you identify which is the intelligent part of you? Keno Upanishad analyses that this thoroughly. Chapter 1 By whose commands this mind works? By whose will the life's breath circulates? Who is responsible for man's speech? What intelligence does lead the eyes and the ears? It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of the speech. Also the life of all life, and the eye of the eye. The wise abandon the sensory world and become immortal. There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the known and beyond the unknown. So were we taught by our ancients. That which the speech cannot reveal, but causes the speech to flow, know that alone to be Brahman, not this whom people worship here (through mantras). That which the mind cannot conceptualize, but by which the mind does conceptualize, know that alone to be Brahman. Not the one whom people worship here. That which the eye cannot see, but by which the eyes are able to see, know that alone to be Brahman. Not this whom people worship here. That which the ear cannot hear, but by whom the ear can hear, know that alone as Brahman, not this which people worship here. That which one does not breath, but by whom air is breathed, know that to be Brahman, not that which people worship here. Chapter II If you think you know It well, you indeed know It very little. That whom you see in the beings and gods, you see but very little (portion) of It. ---------- So, Raghu ji, Brahman is the One and only intelligent conscious part of you and it is Maya that you think that you as your mind is intelligent and conscious. The example of the report is apt. You say In reply to: -- Brahman is un-definable in absolute terms without also limiting His infinite-un-limited nature. Brahma Sutra defines Brahman as that from which proceed acts of creation, sustenance and destruction. But Brahma Sutra does not venture to say what Brahman absolutely is. Advaitins simply say that Brahman is all. -- Again, a contradiction. You say Brahman is undefineable, yet you conceed that Brahma-sUtra defines it. My statement I have already answered it. Brahma Sutra definition is tentative about what comes from HIM but not actually what HE is.. You say In reply to: -- Brahman is not the same living entity in different bodies. Who told you that? -- You yourself just did. Your own words: "Similarly, a dress (mind-body) by reflection acquires the intelligence of Bhava but due to operation of Maya of the same mind gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind." Do you wish to repeal them now?” My statement Oh. No. Again you quote only what suits you. Why do you lie? I said: Brahman is indivisible. Brahman pervades all. No space (so called) is not devoid of Brahman. The dresses that seem to divide Brahman are unreal. In Brahman’s perspective there are no bondage and liberation; no death and birth, no creation and destruction. You say In reply to: -- Sages also say that in this process a time comes when the ego vanishes. And then the sage abides in Sahaja Samadhi though apparently appearing to partake in karma. Like a Brahmin actor who acts the role of a Soldier in a play. He knows that it is Prakriti who is acting and I is sthanu -- the seer. -- The fact that ahankAra disappears does not make indivudality disappear. You are confusing ego with individuality. There is no shAstric pramAna which states that one's individuality disappears. My statement Well you have conceded the point. What is individuality? Have you seen yourself without the I sense? Ahankara means the sense of Aham. Please show me your I. Show me what runs your body-mind. If you can show I will accept you. To my reference to the following two verses of Rig Veda: “RV Book 1 10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born. Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra. 1 -------- 2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny; You say: Not only are such statements nowhere to be found in shruti, they do not in any way support your poorly constructed arguments.” My statement Punditji, please reproduce the original Sanskrit and translate it. Let us see what meaning you derive. We have already seen many examples of distorted translation, insertions, and purports. You say “In reply to: -- Ekam evadvitiyam brahma: Brahman is one, without a second -- This does not prove that the jIva-s are brahman. All this is saying is that there is no other who is equal to brahman. Or in otherwords, Brahman is one of a kind. “ My statement Now, is it not foolish? Brahman is one without a second. Where from Jiva comes in? -- “Tat tvam asi: That is what you are -- This is not correct. The actual Sanskrit from the chandogya is: sAtmAtattvamasiSvetaketo ... which is correctly parsed as: sa AtmA atat tvam asi Svetaketo which means: "That Brahman, you are not that, Shvetaketo."” My statement Is it computer programming that you are parsing. This kind of parsing is the hallmark of ------. I do not want to name. I can reproduce 5 other translations that give the meaning as what I have given. And have read Chandogya? Anyone who reads the whole will get the perspective: “That Brahman You are” and you are not the body-mind. What is the use of arguing with you? Whatever does not suit is either wrong or Tamasic. You say “In reply to: -- Ayam atma brahma: Atman and brahman are the same -- Actually, it's "ayam AtmA brahma" Sure, the paramAtma and brahman are same. Nowere in the above do I see anything saying that the jIvAtma is the same as brahman. “ My statement Same hallmark of yours. Just negate and close eyes. Tell lies. There is no param atma in this verse. You insert whatever is suitable to you. You say “In reply to: -- Aham brahmasmi: I am Brahman” -- You say: But the speaker of this is Lord Vishnu, not a jIva. How is it that when Vishnu says "I am Brahman," that you take this to mean jIva is brahman? “ My statement You are a liar. This dictum is from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. In the sentence, 'Aham Brahmasmi,' or I am Brahman, the 'I' is that which is the One Witnessing Consciousness, standing apart form even the intellect, different from the ego-principle, and shining through every act of thinking, feeling, etc. This Witness-Consciousness, being the same in all, is universal, and cannot be distinguished from Brahman, which is the Absolute. Hence the essential 'I' which is full, super-rational and resplendent, should be the same as Brahman. This is not the identification of the limited individual "I" with Brahman, but it is the Universal Substratum of individuality that is asserted to be what it is. The copula 'am' does not signify any empirical relation between two entities, but affirms the non-duality of essence. The dictum does not mean a small “I” (e.g. Atanu or better still Raghu) claiming to be Brahman. It is the affirmation that the real I is Brahman. Raghu just thinks that he is an “I”. You may read Keno Upanishad again. You say “In reply to: -- Sarvam khalvidam brahma: All of this is brahman -- Of course all this is Brahman, since Brahman pervades everything. It makes no sense to say that Brahman pervades everything if there existed nothing else that was not Brahman. For one thing A to pervade another thing B, and thus to equate them, they have to be different in the first place. “ My statement If all is water, then where is solid in it? Do not use your purports. There are better people to do that. In this passage there is no pervading. Again you insert something which is not there. You say: “How would you know? You can't even read Sanskrit. I doubt if you have even read the Upanishads from which these came.” My statement Raghuji, I am not a blind and liar pundit. The way you have distorted “Tat tvam asi” it is clear that you have not read Chandogya. Moreover, if one reads all the Mahavakyas, the meaning becomes clear. You say: “No, there are no shlokas in the Rig Veda. Those are mantras. There is a difference. Shloka is a poetic form found in certain smriti texts.” My statement Thank you for the correction. In reply to: -- RV Book 1 10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born. -- You say: ----“I see no shrutis quoted in the above text. Everyone knows that shrutis are in Sanskrit.” My statement So, why do not you translate above two “Mantras” from Rig Veda and teach us? Simply claiming will not convince anyone. Basically you are now negating Rig Veda. You say: ----“Atanu, you are really losing this argument big time. Is this the best argument you can give?” My statement I would love to lose an argument since that would mean that I am learning something new. But I am very sad to say that you have not contributed a bit. And if I were to lose I would do it gracefully. Not like you – negating all evidences as false. May be I may be losing this argument – by way of loss of precious time that I should really employ to seek the I. But you have lost it ---- many times over. The funniest thing is that you have negated 5 mahavakyas and two Rig Veda shlokas (oops Mantras). What more you will negate?. It may be just easier to negate your small I. Atanu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 18, 2004 I say: There is no contradiction. The unreality of Maya is a reality and is eternal. The reality of Maya is unreality and is eternal. Brahman’s power of veiling is reality and eternal. this is simply word jugglery.. if an unreality is real, it is a reality. God is real, maya is his energy, so maya is real. Her duty is to make us believe unreal things All qualities that you see in this Universe comes from Brahman. Brahman is Nirguna and Saguna. the nirguna property has to do with the fact of being without material gunas (ignorance, passion, material goodness) not that the absolute has no features or qualities.. Saguna negates Nirguna. One quality is enough to fill the void given by the "nir-" word .... (i have ever heard of advaitists as great philosophers and experts in dialectic... 'til now you are the more xpert in this forum, but not enough to defeat a neophite theist... but it is your discussion with raghu, not mine.. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 18, 2004 You say: “the nirguna property has to do with the fact of being without material gunas (ignorance, passion, material goodness) not that the absolute has no features or qualities.. Saguna negates Nirguna. One quality is enough to fill the void given by the "nir-" word” Do not put the limitations of language that is our mind's on the One Truth. A red hot iron ball is not Agni but has as if acquired Agni. Red hot iron ball is insentient, unintelligent. Similarly, a dress (mind-body which is Maya of the Lord) gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind. Whereas Brahman is like fire (again do not draw in limitation of language), which has spark but is not spark. The Mahavakyas (stated above in this thread), the following two verses from Rig Veda, Gita, Brahma Sutra and experience of realized sages all are evidence. “RV Book 1 10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born. Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra. 1 -------- 2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny; Brahman is Sat and Asat. That is what Gita says. Simply stating something does not make it true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 18, 2004 Do not put the limitations of language ••if your theories cannot be explained stop promoting them, no problem Brahman is Sat and Asat. That is what Gita says. ••add Param to Brahman, and recognize Sri Krsna Bhagavan as Param Brahman and you are exactly in line with Bhagavad Gita. Brahman is eternal, there's nothing not eternal in brahman Simply stating something does not make it true. ••follow strictly this instruction and be happy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
