Guest guest Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 there is nothing called nirguna or saguna brahman. there is one brahman only. and he is described all throughout the upanisads. He is nirguna in the sense his qualities are not constituted by three qualities of material nature. The same one is saguna because his svabhava or nature is manifested by para sakti. transcendental potency which is called svabhavaki of brahman in Svet. Up 6.8 This sakti manifests in various ways providing brahman with jnana and power. Mayavada and allied doctrines are hence defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 i am here now and i will smash mayavada and its allied doctrine. first attack is on advaita principle of two tier brahman - saguna and nirguna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Well you're wrong already! You referred to Brahman as 'he', but Brahman had no gender, Brahman is best described as 'that' or 'it'. Brahman has no need or reason for gender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 atman by its very nature is neither male or female or neuter. So one cannot refer to brahman by - words such as "it", "he" or "she" thinking of a material conception these words typically denote. Brahman is called father, seed giving father etc..... in Gita also. Certain terms can be used for it in relation to some distinctive functions or distinguishing characteristics of brahman. BG 9.17 "pitaham asya jagato mata dhata pitamahah" Besides check out a number of upanisad including brh up, Chd up, Svet up, Prasna, mundaka etc..... uses the word sanskrit word purusa to denote brahman. So should we assume Krishna in Gita is wrong ? Srutis are wrong ? Your view that brahman if called he or she will be limited by corresponding material conception, so the best possible way is to describe it as neither which means neuter. -- is wrong. describing nature of atman Svetasvatara Up 5.10 says: "naiva stri na puman esa na" "Not female nor male nor is it neuter." So why say best description is refering to it as "that" or "it" which are neuter or have no gender ? You are only contradicting Sruti. That same Sruti or essence of all upanisad Gita when they describe brahman they verily use words which can be thought of referring to typical material conceptions usually conveyed by them, but thats not their intention for when they use these words they avoid material conception relating to those terms. Famous text apanipado comes to mind when one thinks about this. Svet. Up chapter 3. Without foot or hand, it is swift and a grabber. It sees without eyes and hears without ears. It knows whatever can be known, but no one knows it. People call it the supreme primal Spirit. a material hand is something limited in time and space. It can be limited by another entity. example throughout expanse of time there is a particular point at which our hand came into existence, stays for a particular time and then is destroyed. So it is limited in time. I can assign spatial parameters such as length, amount of space it occupies etc to your hand and in this case it is seen to be limited by space. You can cover it by another entity which can surround it totally encompassing it. However this is not true for brahman. His hand is unlimited in time, space and in terms of being limited by another entity. that is why it is called anantam in taittariya upanisad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 well where are those who support mayavada ? come rescue this doctrine. Let go on a mutual pursuit of truth and see how mayavada does not conform to teachings of upanisads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Your assumption is wrong. We all know he is formless and without gender but you need to understand that the infinite power has the ability to convert into any gender or form it requires. To understand HIM or question HIS ability would only make you an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 barney first of all i never assumed anything. i am following sruti's way of using terms to described brahman. i have showed that in a previous post. kindly refute it if you can. you should realize the immutable cannot convert into anything. besides rather making stupid statements why not use logic in accordance with scriptures to make your point. Vedanta sutra is clear - brahma is only to be known through scriptures. So keep this ranting aside and quote scriptures. Do you even know the first sutra of brahma sutra ? "Now therefore enquire into brahman" this means we have to enquire into his nature with a point of understanding him. Of course one cannot fully grasp him, since he is infinite. And between where is your authority for it transforming into anything ... ??? don't make empty statements. Quote sastra. and who is questioning his ability. between when form is denied to brahman it is only material one and not a spiritual form which is of nature knowledge and bliss. jnanaanandmaya. Open up upanisads and read all of them. deliberate over them before jumping to make conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 barney here is a quote from most sacred vaishnava purana: satya-jñānānantānanda- mātraika-rasa-mūrtayaḥ aspṛṣṭa-bhūri-māhātmyā api hy upaniṣad-dṛśām The viṣṇu-mūrtis all had eternal, unlimited forms, full of knowledge and bliss and immutable. Their great glory was not even to be touched by the jñānīs engaged in studying the Upaniṣads. 10.13.54 brh aryanka at the very outset says "In the beginning atman alone existed in the form of purusa." i guess this is from atma brahmana of Brh Up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 I do not wish to comment further as you have limited spritual knowledge. You only understand what you feel is right beside that your brain is blank. Just gaze at the ceiling and go to sleep. I have had enough of your kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 "I do not wish to comment further as you have limited spritual knowledge" you do have limited spiritual knowledge..otherwise you were ready and able to answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 yeah yeah barney since you are on your way to become a god[being a mayavadi] we tiny being will seem to possess limited knowledge only. Making blank statements without quoting sastra and on one's personal speculation. Lol Lol good going barney. Ok "will be" god barney we certainly aren't your types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 barney, there cannot be 1000's of irreconcilable ways to Supreme. Read brahma sutra where using logic to interpret Sruti vakyas Vyasdeva himself has defeated various opposition. quest for true knowledge and only what i feel is correct are two different things. I am making points because i know advaita is wrong. And i have just started this thread on two tier brahman. If you feel you are right and advaita is right then kindly refute my understanding of Srutis. Show me where srutis teach this two tier conception of Brahman ??? Don't just make statements like that "you only feel what you think is right and nothing else." Please tell me if you have reasons to disagree. Serach for truth is mutual. One need not bring ego aspect in it. Since i believe in this so this is the only right thing. Be ready for dispassionate analysis of your own belief in a mutual pursuit of truth. We follow same scriptures so what keeps you from quoting scriptures and proving that it supports advaitic concepts/tenets and refute my understanding as erroneous interpretation, or at the best partially correct interpretation. I shall be very happy. In vedantic traditions debate in form of vada without calling for personal character attack is accepted as a genuine and traditional way to debate. However, there is no place for unintelligent, sentimental outbursts without any semblance of philosophical content. Remember empty pots only make noise, and therefore there is no joy in disturbing them however, filled pots don't do that. While disturbing them a person appreciates that they don't make unneccessary noise. So if you want to engage in vada kindly come and join this thread and if you can only rant that oh you think you are the only one correct etc......... then please keep yourself unperturbed by simply keeping yourself away from here. I hope after this type up you will atleast bother to think along these lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 barney or any mayavada supporter ......... any replies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.