Brahma Sutras

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sravna,

Simple is going Sutra by Sutra.

The explanation in this thread is really complicated..in fact it will confuse anyone.

Dear Renuka,

That is exactly the reason I want to talk about the basics first. How many can really understand the sutras without the background material. That is what will really confuse them. Don't you agree?

 

[Nara]

....Unless you are fit enough to be liberated you are under the effects of maya. But the extent varies. One who is spiritual is less under the influence of maya than one who is not. It is basically a mix of real and unreal. I take the teachings of Sankara as not due to the maya but one done after being freed from it.

sravna, what am I fit enough for? Let me not be presumptuous enough to think I am fit for anything at all. But, if everything outside of Nirguna Brahman is maya, in what logical way can you claim Shankara's teachings are outside maya? If it is indeed outside maya, then advaitam is a fraud.

Let that remain disputed, as I am sure you will dispute it without regard to any logic whatsoever, but I do have to take issue with those little words you have used, "extent" and "less". I am sorry dear sravna, there is no purgatory allowed here, whatever each of us may realize, or not, there are only two possibilities, (a) outside of nirguna Brahman everything is maya, in which case you are maya, I am maya, what I am writing is maya, what you are reading is maya, this forum is maya, etc., etc., or (b) not everything outside nirguna brhman is maya. If (a) is true, then, you are maya and your arguments are maya. If (b) is true, your arguments that everything outside Nirguna Brahman is maya is axiomatically untrue.

sravna, please don't mind me, go ahead with your speculations, I just wanted to share a funny story, I have done that, and I am satisfied. I have no further interest in this pointless debate that every practical person soundly rejects as வறட்டு வேதாந்தம் no use for சோத்துக்கு.

Best wishes, Dileepan

 

[sravna]

sravna, what am I fit enough for? Let me not be presumptuous enough to think I am fit for anything at all. But, if everything outside of Nirguna Brahman is maya, in what logical way can you claim Shankara's teachings are outside maya? If it is indeed outside maya, then advaitam is a fraud.

Let that remain disputed, as I am sure you will dispute it without regard to any logic whatsoever, but I do have to take issue with those little words you have used, "extent" and "less". I am sorry dear sravna, there is no purgatory allowed here, whatever each of us may realize, or not, there are only two possibilities, (a) outside of nirguna Brahman everything is maya, in which case you are maya, I am maya, what I am writing is maya, what you are reading is maya, this forum is maya, etc., etc., or (b) not everything outside nirguna brhman is maya. If (a) is true, then, you are maya and your arguments are maya. If (b) is true, your arguments that everything outside Nirguna Brahman is maya is axiomatically untrue.

sravna, please don't mind me, go ahead with your speculations, I just wanted to share a funny story, I have done that, and I am satisfied. I have no further interest in this pointless debate that every practical person soundly rejects as வறட்டு வேதாந்தம் no use for சோத்துக்கு.

Best wishes, Dileepan

Dear Shri Nara,

If you are not interested in an argument , I will not argue with you. Thanks

 

[tks]

"Spiritual" Romanticism

The word spiritual is used by different people in different ways in a variety of contexts. It is actually meaningless in most situations.

Let me use that word to note that discussion topics like this allows one to dabble in "spiritual romanticism". Talking about Maya, Brahman, soul and that too using scriptural books may feel good that one is dabbling in some superior knowledge ...and why not


Without proper background, preparation, attitude and guidance it is only possible to be a spiritual romanticist and like all romanticism it is useless for anything in 'real' life.

However this place (at least GD) is for Quadrant 4 activities (neither important nor urgent in our life ) so what harm is there is dabbling in vedantic romanticism? So I hope discussion move ahead notwithstanding my characterization

I just quickly browsed the thread.. All I can say is that posts for example by Sri Sangom (e.g. #9) and Sri Nara (post #77) have legitimate questions towards descriptions that are about dabbling/babbling at Vedantic romanticism.

What is talked about here does not have anything to do with Sri Sankara's teaching other than use of some jargon.

 

[sravna]

The word spiritual is used by different people in different ways in a variety of contexts. It is actually meaningless in most situations.

Let me use that word to note that discussion topics like this allows one to dabble in "spiritual romanticism". Talking about Maya, Brahman, soul and that too using scriptural books may feel good that one is dabbling in some superior knowledge ...and why not


Without proper background, preparation, attitude and guidance it is only possible to be a spiritual romanticist and like all romanticism it is useless for anything in 'real' life.

However this place (at least GD) is for Quadrant 4 activities (neither important nor urgent in our life ) so what harm is there is dabbling in vedantic romanticism? So I hope discussion move ahead notwithstanding my characterization

I just quickly browsed the thread.. All I can say is that posts for example by Sri Sangom (e.g. #9) and Sri Nara (post #77) have legitimate questions towards descriptions that are about dabbling/babbling at Vedantic romanticism.

What is talked about here does not have anything to do with Sri Sankara's teaching other than use of some jargon.

Some one had to say something wise in this thread. As with all wise words it comes at the right time.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

I did not say you should not prevent your friend from insulting you. If you read my statement carefully you would understand that I said do it only in an outward sense without really being affected by the insult.

I do not understand what you really mean by "I am the maya" and everything else is real.

Dear Sravna,

You don't seem to be clear in your position. Unless I am really affected by the insult, why would I even try to prevent my friend from insulting me? Only when someone gets affected, reaction takes place to put an end to such insults. How ever, once the insult stops, I may not hold any grudge towards that friend. In your example, when I don't hold any grudge, I actually overcome the Maya. Mind you, I am only analysing your example here.

I do not understand what you really mean by "I am the maya" and everything else is real.

Don't you understand the term " I am the Maya?".... now try this please... "I" am the Maya.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

You don't seem to be clear in your position. Unless I am really affected by the insult, why would I even try to prevent my friend from insulting me? Only when someone gets affected, reaction takes place to put an end to such insults. How ever, once the insult stops, I may not hold any grudge towards that friend. In your example, when I don't hold any grudge, I actually overcome the Maya. Mind you, I am only analysing your example here.



Don't you understand the term " I am the Maya?".... now try this please... "I" am the Maya.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

The need to prevent the insult is not because you are affected but prevent the offender from getting emboldened and let him do whatever he wants to do with you. Let's say next he wants to slap you. Wouldn't you want to prevent that from happening? So it is more an outward behavior you need to enact.

"I" am the maya . I agree with that. When you are above "I" you indeed are free from the effects of maya.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

May be we can start of by defining the term Unreal.

Mostly Unreal is thought of as Non Existent but in the context of Advaita it means something that does not remain in that state forever...hence "Unreal"

Only something that stays forever the same is Real..and as we all know only Brahman remains the same ..hence Brahman is Real and everything else Unreal.

Now for example:

Just say I obtained an injury to my hand and the wound bleeds...the injury is existent..the bleeding is existent....then the wound goes into healing stage and the recovery stage and then full recovery..there is no more evidence of the injury now..

So the injury state was existent but it never remained the same...it eventually went into recovery phase..

So like wise....the Phenomenal World is Existent but since it never remains the same and is constantly changing..it is called "Unreal"

I feel the usage of the English term Real and Unreal at times gives some confusion..

Vikara(changing) and Nirvikara(unchanging) is more accurate.

Using the terms Real and Unreal at times can confuse one to think that nothing really exists!

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

I agree . What you say is my understanding of the term unreal. But I think the term relatively real better describes something that exists but is transient. Is that not the term Sankara used?

What I will do is try to give a summary what is fundamental to our understanding of further discussions along with some definitions. Let's start the sutras after that.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I agree . What you say is my understanding of the term unreal. But I think the term relatively real better describes something that exists but is transient. Is that not the term Sankara used?

What I will do is try to give a summary what is fundamental to our understanding of further discussions along with some definitions. Let's start the sutras after that.

Dear Sravna,

When we are beginning to read something..we first have to read all views of the Acharyas only then we can actually give "our own views".

I do not understand why our own views have to come first before even starting the Sutras?

You see for example yesterday I was reading a Geeta shloka where Lord Krishna advises Arjuna that "it is better to execute one's own Dharma though defective than to execute another's Dharma perfectly"

That book also included the commentary of Ramanuja where he defined:

Own Dharma = Karma Yoga

Another's Dharma =Jnana Yoga.

Ok now I guess cos Ramanuja was Bhakti based hence he decided to define it that way.

It is his matam(his opinion)..not necessarily that we have to agree or not necessarily even be the Truth cos Lord Krishna does talk about all types of Yoga..right from Karma to Jnana and all eventually lead to Him.

So what I am trying to say is..as it is Acharya's differ in opinion..well may be confusing at times too..and if we start to give our own views too soon..it will be just a short circuit in our brain and nothing more.

So for now I still feel go Sutra by Sutra.

Well this is my opinion..it is not mandatory to be followed and it might not be even true!LOL

 

[tks]

Some one had to say something wise in this thread. As with all wise words it comes at the right time.

Is that response supposed to be wise ?

Anyway description so far is like describing L.Ron.Hubbard's Dianetics

In Dianetics at the reference above there are people who believe in things like this:

"In Dianetics, the unconscious or reactive mind is described as a collection of "mental image pictures," which contain the recorded experience of past moments of unconsciousness, including all sensory perceptions and feelings involved, ranging from pre-natal experiences, infancy and childhood, even the traumatic feelings associated events from past lives and alien cultures. The type of mental image picture created during a period of unconsciousness involves the exact recording of a painful experience. Hubbard called this phenomenon an engram, and defined it as "a complete recording of a moment of unconsciousness containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions." "

If anyone delved deeply they have large number of new words created, and I have met people who claim to have been cured of all kinds of diseases by erasing their engram etc

The problem with these descriptions (much like this thread) is that it is hard to believe them.

It is like asking one to swallow முழு பூஷணிக்காய் and that will be unacceptable to most rational thinking people.

 

[auh]

...

Don't you understand the term " I am the Maya?".... now try this please... "I" am the Maya.

Is it not "I am Atma" ?!!

 

[sravna]

Is it not "I am Atma" ?!!

What Shri Raghy means is that when you emphasize the "I" it is still the maya that is ruling you.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

When we are beginning to read something..we first have to read all views of the Acharyas only then we can actually give "our own views".

I do not understand why our own views have to come first before even starting the Sutras?

You see for example yesterday I was reading a Geeta shloka where Lord Krishna advises Arjuna that "it is better to execute one's own Dharma though defective than to execute another's Dharma perfectly"

That book also included the commentary of Ramanuja where he defined:

Own Dharma = Karma Yoga

Another's Dharma =Jnana Yoga.

Ok now I guess cos Ramanuja was Bhakti based hence he decided to define it that way.

It is his matam(his opinion)..not necessarily that we have to agree or not necessarily even be the Truth cos Lord Krishna does talk about all types of Yoga..right from Karma to Jnana and all eventually lead to Him.

So what I am trying to say is..as it is Acharya's differ in opinion..well may be confusing at times too..and if we start to give our own views too soon..it will be just a short circuit in our brain and nothing more.

So for now I still feel go Sutra by Sutra.

Well this is my opinion..it is not mandatory to be followed and it might not be even true!LOL

Dear Renuka,

It is not my views that I plan to give. But what already is known but not to all in the forum so that any member can hopefully follow the discussions.

 

[sravna]

Is that response supposed to be wise ?

Anyway description so far is like describing L.Ron.Hubbard's Dianetics

In Dianetics at the reference above there are people who believe in things like this:

"In Dianetics, the unconscious or reactive mind is described as a collection of "mental image pictures," which contain the recorded experience of past moments of unconsciousness, including all sensory perceptions and feelings involved, ranging from pre-natal experiences, infancy and childhood, even the traumatic feelings associated events from past lives and alien cultures. The type of mental image picture created during a period of unconsciousness involves the exact recording of a painful experience. Hubbard called this phenomenon an engram, and defined it as "a complete recording of a moment of unconsciousness containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions." "

If anyone delved deeply they have large number of new words created, and I have met people who claim to have been cured of all kinds of diseases by erasing their engram etc

The problem with these descriptions (much like this thread) is that it is hard to believe them.

It is like asking one to swallow முழு பூஷணிக்காய் and that will be unacceptable to most rational thinking people.

Dear Shri TKS,

I cannot force you to accept anything. I am just presenting some existing knowledge and my views on them. You are free to present your own with substantiation and I would welcome it. If I agree with it I consider my knowledge enhanced , if not I just state why I disagree. So I don't understand why you feel there is some forcing involved here.

 

[tks]

Dear Shri TKS,

I cannot force you to accept anything. I am just presenting some existing knowledge and my views on them. You are free to present your own with substantiation and I would welcome it. If I agree with it I consider my knowledge enhanced , if not I just state why I disagree. So I don't understand why you feel there is some forcing involved here.

You may be giving yourself too much credit that these posts force anything on anyone.

There is no knowledge here , only jargon and confusion - in my view and that is all I was saying (that too for the benefit of possibly casual readers ). I guess my reaction is that it is disservice and disrespect to scriptures if they are used to present own nonsense.

You are welcome to keep going ahead - you do not need anyone's approval. Certainly not mine

But if you want credible discussion at any level you have to address issues raised by others directly without any jargons. If you cannot, that is fine - you can say you are trying to learn.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

It is not my views that I plan to give. But what already is known but not to all in the forum so that any member can hopefully follow the discussions.

Dear Sravna,

When you first started this thread I was happy thinking and hoping you would go Sutra by Sutra so that gives me a chance to open the Brahmasutra and read it and then everyone discuss what we read.

But now this thread is all about Maya Memsaab all over again and as before any Maya thread just ends up nowhere.

Exploring and thinking as in our neurons firing is good provided there is a direction...but without a direction the firing of neurons would only lead to an epileptic seizure!

 

[sravna]

You may be giving yourself too much credit that these posts force anything on anyone.

There is no knowledge here , only jargon and confusion - in my view and that is all I was saying (that too for the benefit of possibly casual readers ). I guess my reaction is that it is disservice and disrespect to scriptures if they are used to present own nonsense.

You are welcome to keep going ahead - you do not need anyone's approval. Certainly not mine

But if you want credible discussion at any level you have to address issues raised by others directly without any jargons. If you cannot, that is fine - you can say you are trying to learn.

Dear Shri TKS,

I do not see any reason for reacting negatively to facts presented and views given with substantiation. The logical thing to be doing in such a case is to give logical rebuttals . But it seems you are reacting emotionally even as your language suggests. Of course you are welcome to give rational rebuttals anytime or ask for any clarifications for jargons that confuse you.

 

[Raghy]

Is it not "I am Atma" ?!!

Dear Auh,

I don't mean 'Jeevatma' & Paramatma relations here. In that kind of discussion "I" may be referred as 'Atma' as in Jeevatma.

Here I wanted to say "I" is the Maya. In my opinion, our life is like a flimsy soap bubble. Lasts for very short time. We are the temporary quantity in the universe. So, in reality "I" is the Maya.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sravna,

Personally my knowledge with any scripture is zero. I think I should back off from the active discussion and let learned members have a discussion. I am happy to read the thread and grasp what ever I can. I feel my participation may discourage few others from participating in this thread. I take this instance to thank you for discussing with me. Also like to thank Sri. Vaggmi to encourage me. I will be happy to follow the discussion.

Cheers!

 

[auh]

Here I wanted to say "I" is the Maya. In my opinion, our life is like a flimsy soap bubble. Lasts for very short time. We are the temporary quantity in the universe. So, in reality "I" is the Maya.

Dear Sir,

You seem to differentiate between an egoistic state and an egoless state as the solution to a perceived problem of maya. But then, this leads to another conundrum. How can a pure unblemished egoless consciousness become affected (or corrupted) by maya? Why did the egoless consciousness (or brahman, if you like) compartmentalize itself into sub-units and then bemoan the situation? Why should it then attempt to break free?

If there is something called maya that can cloud the supreme consciousness, then maya must be the brahman... so we atmas being immersed in maya = being immersed in brahmanandam...

Regards,

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Personally my knowledge with any scripture is zero. I think I should back off from the active discussion and let learned members have a discussion. I am happy to read the thread and grasp what ever I can. I feel my participation may discourage few others from participating in this thread. I take this instance to thank you for discussing with me. Also like to thank Sri. Vaggmi to encourage me. I will be happy to follow the discussion.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

I do not understand why you feel the way you do. Personally I have always enjoyed the discussions with you. Thank you anyway for your perspective.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sir,

You seem to differentiate between an egoistic state and an egoless state as the solution to a perceived problem of maya. But then, this leads to another conundrum. How can a pure unblemished egoless consciousness become affected (or corrupted) by maya? Why did the egoless consciousness (or brahman, if you like) compartmentalize itself into sub-units and then bemoan the situation? Why should it then attempt to break free?

If there is something called maya that can cloud the supreme consciousness, then maya must be the brahman... so we atmas being immersed in maya = being immersed in brahmanandam...

Regards,

Dear Shri Auh,

Just think of it in the reverse. How is it the ultimate reality an egoless blissful consciousness? The answer can be had from the projected reality where you can see how each egoistic being ultimately gets transformed. Probably the projected physical reality from the perspective of the jivas helps them in knowing some truths. Egoless state when realized and viewed in the backdrop of the process gone through to achieve that state gives the jiva eternal bliss. Since each jiva is ultimately brahman, this bliss is nothing but equivalent to the bliss that brahman enjoys.

Maya does not affect brahman. It is illusory from the point of view of brahman.

 

[auh]

Just think of it in the reverse. How is it the ultimate reality an egoless blissful consciousness? The answer can be had from the projected reality where you can see how each egoistic being ultimately gets transformed. Probably the projected physical reality from the perspective of the jivas helps them in knowing some truths. Egoless state when realized and viewed in the backdrop of the process gone through to achieve that state gives the jiva eternal bliss. Since each jiva is ultimately brahman, this bliss is nothing but equivalent to the bliss that brahman enjoys.

Maya does not affect brahman. It is illusory from the point of view of brahman.

Dear Sravna, I used the word "supreme consciousness" (not blissful consciousness) since I have seen people like you using it; those are not my firm views but just posers. If you ask me, I would say that there is no consciousness without the state of "I", then whence the bliss?

If you say that brahman is not affected by maya but only we jeevas, then it means that we are different from brahman. Is it not?

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sravna,

It appears you are now stuck with Maya and is unable to move ahead. Why start on Maya at all? Leave it aside and speak about what else Brahmasutra has to say and what Sankara has to say. Presume there is nothing called maya and move ahead (if it is difficult for you to do that you may take it that you have said whatever you wanted to say about maya and leave it at that). Let us know what you have to say about Brahmasutra and Sankara bhashyam. If it is going to be more of a confused presentation of ideas I will be disappointed.