The sum total of everything is nothing

[Guest guest]

"illusion arises from lack of knowledge about something...."

 

it is meaningless... it is like saying that ignorance comes from ignorance..

 

if you think that "illusion arises from..." something, this "something" is real (actually it is brahman) and it has no negative counterpart to annihilate him..

 

so there's no illusion who summed to knowledge gives zero... there's knowledge (= cit... who is a quality of brahman/bhagavan/paramatma) who generates knowledge and illusion or false knowledge about the reality

 

so one reality source of two realities and both stand without annihilaing themselves

 

----

 

 

[Subham 0]

Hari OM:

 

you are saying both knowledge and ignorance arises from Brahamam.

 

so the sum total of both is zero and Brahamam is Nirguna, correct? that is my intial thread.

 

yes i correct myself, that anhiliation does not occur during life time of Brahamam , both knowledge and illusion remain (i think illusion is as necessary as knowledge for the cycle to continue)

 

when i say sum, i actually mean the mathematical sum, not the physical summing of knowledge and ignorance and annhiliating each other.

 

in summary, the Brahamam creates (or manifests) equal and opposite qualities (gunas), the sum of these qualities is always zero so Brahamam remains Nirguna always even though manifesting so many things, at the end of creation the opposite things physically meet and anhiliate each other , called Pralaya.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

i am discussing only about Brahamam here, not Bhagavan, Bhagavan may or may not be Nirguna, i dont know .

 

 

Ok I thought you were saying about both Brahman and Bhagavan. So you seperated them both. That's ok. Gaurabol /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Guest guest]

 

Nothing is a wrong word. Apparently nothing but all - sarva, the pure nirgun concsiousness, which is pure bliss and which is in everyone's hridaya.

 

 

Going after objects, thinking the objects to be the source of joy, we lose the bliss.

 

 

[Guest guest]

i was saying it is NOT zero. a sum totality cannot be nothing. it is everything.

[Guest guest]

you are saying both knowledge and ignorance arises from Brahaman

••yes..

 

so the sum total of both is zero.

••no.. because ignorance does not affect the plane of existence of brahman. Ignorance is an energy who, in the material world, make us see the reality in a distorted way. But reality is reality, and nothing can annihilate it.

reality is brahman.. nothing can annihilate brahman..

 

Brahamam is Nirguna, correct?

••nirguna means that brahman has not illusory qualities.. that brahman is not affected and self identified in an illusory view of reality... but brahman has qualities and brahman exists as full reality, independent from any relativity

 

i think illusion is as necessary as knowledge for the cycle to continue

••not for brahman.. brahman is supreme, he has no necessities. Nirguna means that he has not negative qualities, brahman does not misses anything. So for brahman nothing is necessary, brahman is CIT, transcendental knowledge. Transcendental means that there's no need to have the bad to define the good, the yn to define the yang, the ignorance to define the knowledge

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

i was saying it is NOT zero. a sum totality cannot be nothing. it is everything.

 

 

How about saying Eternal? The Sum Total of everything is Eternality... so means everything is Eternally manifest. So there is nothing and there is something.

[Guest guest]

is eternally manifested when one gets down to the base of each entity's physical makeup. these base molecules are eternally present. but i dont see how this means that there is nothing.

 

if something exists eternally, does that not mean that this something does exist and therefore, there is something in existance. so it cant be nothing.

[aqua3 0]

Any term in Sanskrit is the derivation of the taatparya / meaning of the term itself. That is, it is a kAraNa-p –peyar. And what types of meanings are derived?

 

In Indian literature of yore (Kaavyaprakaasha), it is held that the power of words to denote the taatparya /meanings are of three types, namely, Denotative,Figurative and Purportive.The purportive signification of words is, by some, maintained to be different from The suggestive signification. And accordingly the power of words is also said to befour-fold, including suggestive signification.

 

The root and the meaning of the term Brahman in the light of the four-fold power of words can be explained thus.(The first two Brahma sutras describe the meaning of Brahman)

 

“….the word Brahman is seen to derive its meaning from the association of ‘brihattva’, i.e., greatness (with the thing denoted by it); and whatever greatness is by nature as well as by qualities, unsurpassed in excellence, that is its primary and natural meaning.And He (who possesses such greatness) is alone the Lord of All . Hence the word Brahman is primarily used to signify Him alone.”The four-fold meaning as incorporated in the term‘brihattva’ (it is brahmaandam in terms of denotative, figurative, purportive and suggestive implications)becomes the ‘primary and natural meaning’ of Brahman. Hence it is Brah-man and not bram-han.

 

The second meaning is ,“ that which is characterized by means of accidental characteristics is Greatness unsurpassed in excellence: and it is Growth also, because the root‘brih’ (to grow) is capable of that meaning. And the creation, preservation and destruction of the world constitute the accidental characteristics of that.(Brahman is thus made out to be Greatness and Growth)

 

Thus Brahman means that which is Great and Grows.

 

Now the term Bhagavan.

The word 'Bhagavan' means

'One who possesses 'bhaga'. 'Bhaga' is the collective possession of the six qualities of supremacy, valor, renown, auspiciousness, knowledge, and detachment. The one who possesses all these in full is called 'Bhagavan'.

 

Who is this Bhagavan? The clues to this are derived from Thirukkural and Bhagavad Gita.

 

The very first verse of ThirukkuraL describes God as Bhagavan,(a sanskrit term in a Tamil work!)and not by the other popular Tamil terms such as kadavuL, iRaivan etc. Scholars and commentators say that since Bhagavan (derived from Bhagavaan) describes the 6 virtues of the Lord as mentioned above and since no other word exists to describe the Lord with these 6 qualities, Thiruvalluvar has adopted this sanskrit word. It is further explained that Adhi Bhagavan means 'the first Lord'. This verse by the expression, 'adhi bhagavan mudhattrE ulagu'(the world that has Him as the first Lord) has the primary stress on 'world'and not on the Lord. That is because the very exitence of the world pre-supposes the existence of the Lord just as how the presence of smoke establishes the presence of fire.The specific use of the term Bhagavan in this verse also establishes the primacy to the 6 attributes enshrined in this term.

 

Now the question whom does this Bhagavan refer to. The authentication is drawn from the Gita where the Lord says that He is the A-kaaram ('agara mudala ezhuththu' in KuraL)Therefore 'Bhagavan' (referred to as 'agaram'in KuraL) refers to Lord Krishna.

 

Since a number of quotes can be drawn from the sruthi texts that Lord Sriman Narayana is Brahman, we can say that Brahma shabdam denotes Narayana and Bhagavad shabdam denotes Krishna. Though both are the same Lord in different names, the differences in names come by the four-fold symbolism (mentioned above)of the names, by which the Lord appears /symbolises as part of His Lila.

 

[aqua3 0]

By the four-fold interpretation of the terms Brahman and Bhagavan, it is clear that Brahman is Nirguna and Bhagavan is Saguna.

(Will be back again)

[Subham 0]

Hari OM:

 

If Nothing (zero) is a wrong word, then please define the cause of bad and evil things in the world (read my first thread)

 

As per my "Theory"- since Brahamam is "Nirguna" i.e., zero, the bad and evil things in this world are automatically created (or manifested) to compensate the good things so that the total is zero ( both in macroscopic - the universe level and microscopic the Jiva level)

 

Now if you think this theory is wrong please explain the cause for presence of evil

[Guest guest]

"If Nothing (zero) is a wrong word, then please define the cause of bad and evil things in the world ..."

 

the bad things that happens in the world are expression of the will of god to give us the most complete freedom. If we are completely free to go towards god, or to away from him, we are also free to love. And god wants a loving relationship.. free relationship

 

"since Brahamam is "Nirguna" i.e., zero..."

 

that's the wrong starting point... Brahman is not zero.. Brahman is zero illusion, zero egoism, zero attachement.. but brahman is full of infinite spiritual qualities.. sat.. cit... ananda

 

"the bad and evil things in this world are automatically created (or manifested) to compensate the good things so that the total is zero..."

 

brahman does not need a negative principle to state a positive one.. brahman is complete freedom.. summum bonum... complete, perfect, absolute positive

[Subham 0]

Hari OM:

 

"the bad things that happens in the world are expression of the will of god "

 

So my question is why does will of God is being expressed as bad things in the world? why not only good things.

[Guest guest]

because we wanted it..

 

we wanted to be away from god... and away from sat(eternity), cit (consciousness), ananda(bliss).. means death, ignorance and pain..

 

good things are only in vaikunta.. in our world there's no good things, everything leads to death

[Subham 0]

Hari OM:

 

Dear guest you are stating first it is His Will, then in the next thread "we wanted it" --please decide any one.

 

Second i am not asking "Where" is good and bad, i am asking "Why" is good and bad, so you are saying God created all Good things and kept with himselves in Vaikunta and sent all Bad things to the earth to be "Enjoyed" by His creation?

 

Sorry, i am not convinced by this reply, i need a reply of "Why" good and bad things exists without saying "since God wishes So" [ i believe that God would not Wish any body should suffer from Bad things]

[Guest guest]

please decide any one.

--we wanted to be forgetful of god and we have such freedom by His will... if God wanted us not free to forget he'd have no difficulty

 

so you are saying God created all Good things and kept with himselves in Vaikunta and sent all Bad things to the earth to be "Enjoyed" by His creation?

--the creation is almost entirely in vaikunta. We are in a jail or in a psychiatric hospital, and like in a nation the jail/hospital is a very little part of it, some big buildings.. nothing in comparison with the entire state. And in the jail/hospital there's a very little part of the citizens.

 

i need a reply of "Why" good and bad things exists without saying "since God wishes So"

--no.. god does not wishes that we suffer.. but he gives us the possibility to be illuded to go away from him.

 

and actually nobody is suffering.. we are eternal souls... brahman.. not bodies

 

when we'll firmly and entirely desire to stop our misuse of freedom, god will bring us back to him...

 

--

 

i believe that God would not Wish any body should suffer from Bad things

--God does not wish anything like that, but if it happens, the suffering is there by one his powers.. the karma

 

brahman is everything.. there's not a an anti-brahman or a satan..

[aqua3 0]

In the study of any concept of Vedanta, we encounter three problems.

1) understanding the meaning of the text and its purport

2) the methodology that is applicable and appropriate to the given issue and

3) the level of mental and spiritual growth of the seeker.

 

It is because of this we arrive at a variety of inferences which at times lead us away from the original purport. But the remarkable feature of Vedanta is that all methods lead us to the one conclusion, provided we undertake the right methodology. There is an element of choice, even of innovation in the Vedic system and together with the mental system, they help us arriving at answers appropriate to the mental of the seeker. There is always scope for improvisation, if and when the seeker is not satisfied with the existing level of understanding. It is with this awareness, the issues must be explained.

 

To understand this, let me say like this.

Question some body showing the symbol Pi.

Majority may say it is 22 / 7. Some may say it is a radian measure. Very few may state it is a function or so.

But ask a Vedantin immersed in deeper meanings of the texts, he will say that it signifies none other than Krishna!! Particularly the following hymn,

 

Gopi bhaagya madhu vraata

Shrngisho dadhisandhiga

Khalajivita khaataava

Galahaataarasandhara

 

This hymn is in the praise of God Krishna that gives the value of Pi to the 32 decimal places as .31415926535897932384626433832792

 

How?

Vedic knowledge is in the form of slokas or poems in Sanskrit verse. A number was encoded using consonant groups of the Sanskrit alphabet, and vowels were provided as additional latitude to the author in poetic composition.

 

The coding key is given as Kaadi nav, taadi nav, paadi panchak, yaadashtak ta ksha shunyam.

 

Translated as below

 

letter "ka" and the following eight letters

letter "ta" and the following eight letters

letter "pa" and the following four letters

letter "ya" and the following seven letters, and

letter "ksha" for zero.

 

In other words,

· ka, ta, pa, ya = 1

· kha, tha, pha, ra = 2

· ga, da, ba, la = 3

· gha, dha, bha, va = 4

· gna, n a, ma, scha = 5

· cha, ta, sha = 6

· chha, tha, sa = 7

· ja, da, ha = 8

· jha, dha = 9

· ksha = 0

 

Thus pa pa is 11, ma ra is 52. Words kapa, tapa , papa, and yapa all mean the same that is 11. It was upto the author to choose the one that fits the meaning of the verse well. Based on this the value of the hymn on Krishna is found to be the value of Pi.

 

With this understanding - that Vedanta is explained / interpreted by means of many branches of knowledge – all leading to the one concept of Brahman, let me address the issues raised in this page by means of tools of logic, philosophy, mathematics etc.

(be back again)

 

 

[aqua3 0]

In my speech i am producing some amount of acoustic energy and some amount of intelligence (or foolishness), i would assume that the same amount of negative acoustic energy and same amount of foolishness (or intelligence) is produced some where by some body else, hence the sum is Zero.

……………………………………………………

yes in Satya yuga most people in THIS world would have been good, but there must have been a Kali Yuga in some other world, so the net effect is zero

 

-------------------

 

 

These two statements deal with the problem of opposites, but which are of two different situations. They can be analysed for their admissibility at two levels, viz, logically and philosophically.

 

First lets analyse by logical tools.

 

These statements come under the Rule of Inference by Opposition. By this rule, we infer immediately a new proposition from the given one. This rule states that the relation of two propositions (the new one and the given one – the inferred, new one is that many are bad in kaliyuga at some other world and the given one is that many are good in Krutha yuga in one / given world) must have same subject and predicate.

 

Here they do not have the same subject and predicate (in both the examples quoted).

 

Therefore, by a cursory look, the inference stands fallacious.

 

To fulfil the rule, of the probable types of Inference by opposition, only Contrary Inference is applicable. Here again the Inference will run like this.

 

The given proprosition is

 

“Many are good in krita yuga”

The inference is

“ Therefore only a few are bad in Krita yuga”

 

Or “I am producing some amount of acoustic energy and some amount of intelligence (or foolishness)”

 

The Inference is

“Therefore I am not producing all negative acoustive energy and all that is foolishness”

 

If we say many are bad in kaliyuga, that is not an inference of many are good in kritha yuga, as that is by itself a different proposition. If we say so, then we incurring The Fallacy of Two particular premises.

 

It is like telling

 

Some Asians are Indians.

Some Asians are Chinese.

Therefore some Indians are Chinese.

 

We can not combine two particular premises, here kritha yuga and kali yuga and try to draw an inference. They are disjunct and exclusive. Two disjunct statements can not be squeezed into one set nor can one become sub-set of the other. Therefore the inferences of the two statements do not stand scrutiny by logic.

 

 

 

[aqua3 0]

According to philosophy, truth can be established when the relationship is between the intent and the object perceived. The reference to an object, which has value and certain determined consequences as an object among the other physical objects alone makes it true or false. Falsity is that which pertains to the value of a judgement we pass with regard to an occurrence, what interpretation we place on the datum given rather than the existence of the datum itself. In the statement,

 

---------------

“ in Satya yuga most people in THIS world would have been good, but there must have been a Kali Yuga in some other world, so the net effect is zero”

 

-------------------

 

the object is the people of Satya yuga and the intent is their nature, i.e., being good. When these two are related, the consequence and the related cognition can be made, according to the above stated notion of what is true and false (Ramanjacharya’s exposition). If it be said that this results or pre-supposes or concludes a negation of this statement in another object (people of Kali yuga), then that is not Inference, but passing of a Value judgement. When value judgement creeps in, falsity occurs.

 

In fact, Vedanta recognizes 3 of such kind of negation.

One is abhAva, absence of a thing, another is anupalAbdhi, non- apprehension of a thing and third is this, the contradictory of something. They are designated as PrAgabhAva and PradhvamsAbhAva, that is, contradictory to the existence or contradictory to the emergence of a thing into existence.

 

This means that when one thing exists, the other can not exist, just as there is a conflict between good an devil. Though we may come across many persons who are bad in some ways and good in others, but certainly not good and bad with respect to the same thing at the same time. But there is no locus standi to assume that one is good in one place with respect to something means there is another who will be bad at another place. To explain this we have to go back to logic (my previous post) and the theory of Truth and Falsity as mentioned in the beginning of this mail.

 

To show how the contradictory statements are analysed with reference to the given subject, let me quote how the similar contradictory terms, SambhUti and AsambhUti (vinAsha) (birth & non-birth) as used in the Upanishad (Isha- 14). Here we find that A-sambhUti means not death but the destruction of impediments to birth into Divine life. This shows the contradictory term is used as that which is the ‘other’ of the first one and not as an opposite meaning that can be applied at any other context. Thus context is very important in arriving at the inference!

 

My next post deals with how this problem of opposites must be treated in context.

 

[aqua3 0]

The most famous vAkhya to show the contradictory nature is 'ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti’.

 

This is a straightforward ontological statement commenting upon the unitive nature of the Absolute, that God is one. “God is one, despite sages calling it by various names”, is the meaning. But by negation, we are tempted to ask, if he is one, how can he be many (going by the many names He has)?

 

The contradictory term used here is anekam or anantham, whereas the opposite of ekah is 'naikah', not anekam or anantham. He is ekam. Ekam eva dvithiyam. (upanishad) He is only one without a second. That means there is no other entity as Brahman. There is only one Brahman.

 

If ekah means ‘he is one only’, the opposite word naikah means ‘he is not one only’. He is One in the sense of being unique in having everything in all the Universe as His possession;

but He is not one only, since there are all these other things which are His glorious vibhUtis or extensions which are of a nature different from His. He is the antaryAmi of all that exists. (remember the Upanishad – usage of sambhUti and asambhUti)

Since He has as His glorious possessions all that are of a nature different from His, He is not One only.

To quote the gItA in support - "nAnto'sti mama divyAnAm vibhUtInAmparamtapa" (11.40) -

"O arjuna, There is no end to the divine glories of Mine

(What I have stated in detail is only a small part of My glories)".

 

 

This kind of explanation by Immediate inference brings in the contradiction of Nirguna & Saguna nature and how they can co-exist in the one and only Brahman.

 

The difference in the popular philosophies can be traced to none other than Sanskrit grammar!! The context is sahasra nama. When a word is a pronoun or a sarvanAma, (and the words viSvam, ekah etc. are sarvanAma-s when they have their traditional meanings), then it is declined similar to the word sarva, and the dative singular is "sarvasmai, viSvasmai,ekasmai etc." (Panini sUtra 1.1.27).

However, when the same words is not treated as a pronoun,

and instead refers to something special, like the specific name of a person (e.g., ekah as a person's actual name), then the word is declined like an ordinary noun such as narah, and not as a pronoun.

 

Then the dative singular is declined as sarvAya, viSvAya, ekAya, etc.

The example given in explanation of this sUtra by SrISa Candra Vasu in his "AshTAdhyAyI of pANini" is

that of the word "sarva" meaning "everything" (a pronoun) vs. sarva being the name of a person (an ordinary noun).

The former is declined as a pronoun, and the latter is declined as an ordinary noun like narah.

 

The followers of the advaita sampradAyam consider the different sarvanAma-s that occur in SrI vishNu sahasra nAma as pronouns representing Brahman,

whereas the followers of the viSishTAdvaitasampradAyam treat each of the nAma-s as a distinct personification of bhagavAn in His different Forms,

and thus each sarvanAma word that occurs as a nAma in sahasra nAmam is treated as a special nAma of bhagavAn with its own special meaning, each a proper noun in its own right, and not treated as a pronoun standing for Brahman.

 

 

This seems to explain the difference in the nAmAvaLi, based on grammar as well as the context in connection with the philosophy pursued.

More on the co-existence of seemingly contradictory attributes in the next post.

 

 

 

 

 

[aqua3 0]

Thinking about how I can justify the problem of opposites in modern language, I am tempted to use the analogy given by Stephen Covey in his book on 7 habits. The diabolically opposite attributes are like the two ends of a stick. If one end of the stick is success, the other end is failure. If you are near success, then you are far removed from failure. It depends on where you are in the stick.

 

The idea is that for any given thing there are two different attributes which are exclusive to each other. Every matter in this universe has this ‘attribute’, like, day and night, light and darkness, heat and cold etc. But what we fail to notice is that the two attributes actually do not ‘exist’. Its only one attribute that exists and the other is perceived in the absence of the one attribute.

It is like this. If we say that there is darkness, we are wrong. Darkness is the absence of something. It can be absence of light. Light can be bright, dim and can be measured in intensity. But darkness is just darkness. When light goes off, there is darkness.

 

Similarly, night means the absence of day. Coldness means the absence of heat. Heat can be measured, not so with cold. Cold is designated as heat in such and such sub-zero temperatures of heat! Similarly death is then absence of life.

 

But when light is gone, from where does the darkness come? When a thing loses the heat, from where does the coldness come? The plausible answer is that both cohabit (if this term is correct)all the time, but at any one time, only one of it is perceived. The moment that is not perceived, the other becomes perceptive. Thus this cohabitation is not a logical absurdity, as darkness is not the opposite of light, nor is cold the opposite of heat. They are just the absence of the other as perceived by the observer.

 

This logic is applicable universally. In our social life this logic is unfortunately used only with reference to Brahmins as in Brahmin vs non- Brahmin difference. If a particular sect is called as Brahmins, then all those other than them are non-brahmins. A similar yardstick with reference to other castes must be used to denote the contrary nature. Then we will have non- mudhaliars as opposites of Mudhaliars, non-Vokkaligas as opposites of Vokkaligas and so on.

 

In this way opoosite of white is not black, it is non-white.

And the opposite of not writing on internet is ---any guess? Yes, it is 'not- writing on internet'. It is not reading. Reading has its opposite, not-reading!

 

(be back again)

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

*********

Hari OM:

 

If Nothing (zero) is a wrong word, then please define the cause of bad and evil things in the world (read my first thread)

 

As per my "Theory"- since Brahamam is "Nirguna" i.e., zero, the bad and evil things in this world are automatically created (or manifested) to compensate the good things so that the total is zero ( both in macroscopic - the universe level and microscopic the Jiva level)

 

Now if you think this theory is wrong please explain the cause for presence of evil

**********

 

 

Dear Subham,

 

We are tackling a very complicated subject here. Since none of us, I am sure, has experienced the SELF—Brahman, all we have is book knowledge and experience of the senses.

 

 

LORD KRISHNA DEFINES ETERNAL PARAM BRAHMAN AS ‘NEITHER SAT NOR ASAT’. Upanishads define it as indescribable advaitam sivam. Basically, Brahman is indescribable and nirgunam. That He is nirgunam is definitely proclaimed in scriptures. One cannot simply wish it away like debaters here do. They are aghast that such solid variety can ever spring up and exist on something – which is apparently nothing.

 

 

 

But this nirguna word is again difficult to fathom, until one experiences it. But some approximate examples can be drawn.

 

All manifestations in this world are supported and protected by Vayu on which everything springs. Vayu itself is the subtlest of all the manifestations. It is awe inspiring to even think how, vayu, agni (sun), and water combine to give rise to huge trees etc.

 

 

Rig Veda also asks: “How the bone less gives rise to the bony?”

 

 

In a discourse, sage Vashista, told Rama, “That Mountain seen by your eyes is not a mountain; the solid form of a mountain is a mental concept of a particular form of Lord’s energy”.

 

 

All such solidity is mental conceptualization of different energy patterns in nirguna Lord who is pure consciousness, ever devoid of patterns or concepts.

 

 

Recently, in the wake of celebration of completion of 100 years of Einstein’s 3 papers that changed the world concept, there was an article by a physicist in a journal. It is astounding, how close physicists are coming to the knowledge of the Vedas. The article explained that all the mass of this whole universe emerged from something of ZERO MASS.

 

 

What is this something of ZERO mass? As far as I have studied and experienced, that something is the pure intelligence (consciousness) without any trace of concept in it.

 

When the concept arises (thought), it takes a form – which is mass less, but it appears as if made of mass to the senses, since senses desire it that way.

 

 

 

I quote what a sage says on this:

 

“When the world is known and experienced to be an indivisible APPEARANCE in the underlying substratum of the Self, its nature is correctly known. The world is not real to the Jnani because it appears physically; it is REAL because its inherent nature is inseparable from the underlying reality of the SELF.”

 

“To those who have not known the SELF and to those who have known the Self, the world in front is real. But to those, who have not seen the ONE SELF, the reality is limited to the measure of the world, whereas, to those who know, the reality shines devoid of form on which the changing world form subsists. Know that this is the difference between the two.”

 

End of citation.

 

But that ONE PRIMORDIAL LORD (The Self) is not ZERO. It is only mass less and devoid of concepts.

 

 

You have said “As per my "Theory"- since Brahamam is "Nirguna" i.e., zero, the bad and evil things in this world are automatically created (or manifested) to compensate the good things so that the total is zero”

 

 

Now see the problem. If the Brahman is Nirgunam then how even the definitions of bad and good arise at all in Him who is Nirgunam? Since, all exist in Brahman?

 

 

There is something else surely. Brahman is nirgunam and changeless and undecaying, no doubt -- scriptures say so. Good and Evil are with respect to “I”. If there is no “I”, as in deep sleep, there will be no evil and good also. All good and evil come after the “I”. “I know it as evil” “Or I feel it is good”.

 

This I itself has source in nirgunam Lord and its shakti’s play.

 

 

So, to discuss about the ZERO problem, you cannot resort to the concepts of ‘evil and good’, since such things are not real in Brahman but has appearance in the “I”, which again is a mere concept.

 

 

All mass of this universe has the reality in thought of the Brahman who is not Zero but IS EKO and SARVA. But the mass is zero.

 

 

The state of remaining in “I” less ness is the ultimate. And in that fourth state there is no evil and no good.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Your posts are like fresh air.

 

 

I just have a comment: to imagine "Eko" to be a noun or pronoun is mental jugglery, to support one's belief. And VAC and Grammar has come after the EKO and not the other way. VAC is from EKO and becomes as if Anek.

 

Lord and His glories are not anek. Heat (and cold -- as you have expounded above), which may be glory or inglory of Agni, is not another.

 

 

Anek is after the "I" and is in relation to the "I". Anek is glory of Eko, who feels "I" and non different from the Eko.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

I hope you did. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on Dear Om Namah sivaya;)

 

Also should bo noted Sanskirt is NOT a mere word juggle for people to juggle around with. It's used for Krishna Vakya. Cannot expect to understand without His mercy, if you think you can then that's being foolish /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[aqua3 0]

The NAsadIya passage of Rig veda provides excellent clues to the questions like when did I-ness begin and at what stage the Brahman is Nirguna and saguna.

 

It says that before creation began, qualities did not arise. That stage can not even be called as nothingness (nor zero). Nor even as darkness. Because it is said later only, that from where conception seems to arise, a blinding darkness first appeared. So prior to this, the “It’ which constituted (if this term is correct) this stage was just not this , not this and even this ‘not this’ attribute does not seem to describe the situation. This is a perfect state of Nirguna. At this stage no presence is there, no absence is there. Nor even nothingness is there. The upanishadic vachan that He is not a male, nor a female and nor even an eunuch can not be applied to this state. For by purport this vachan indicates Him as male by calling Him as HE. Even that He –ness is an attribute. This is one proof that the ‘Him’ of Upanishads is saguna.

 

Then by the time (?) the It reached a stage that “It willed, may I become many”, the first sign of I-ness appears. What was the status of this I-ness until then is what no one can know, because nothing was conceived until then. But the moment It willed, the It loses its nirguna status, because the will or the thought is an attribute making Its status saguna.

 

The saguna status further springs out when It comes to be known as Brahman. It is Brahmaandam , therefore It is Brahman and Brahmaandam is an attribute. It grows, therefore It is Barhman and growing is an attribute. Perhaps the ‘ekah’ state is Nirguna in limited application of the 4-fold meaning applicable in Sanskrit. Since ekah itself is an attribute He is saguna, perhaps with a singular attribute (at that level)

 

(be back again)