Brahma Sutras

[Govinda]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sangom,

my arguments were about the "I" sensation, not involuntary kicking or the mere survive and multiply urge of all living beings from single cell entities to the advanced primate species. My argument is that the "I" cognizance is nothing but what appears as magic arising out of the workings of a complex brain. The conscious mind is nothing more than a functioning of a complex brain. Employing the principle of Occam's razor, I opt for this more straight forward reasoning free of anything imaginary. It is because I find this reasoning persuasive I find atheism persuasive, not the other way around as you have stated. regrads ..
.

Prof Nara,

Acc. to vedic philosophy, "self"/individuality exists eternally (forever).

Coming to empirical/Perceptional world, the cognizance of 'I' needs a (functional-material) body, to understand and respond to the external world. Voluntary actions (differs from Involuntary) are based on one's own Will, to execute their actions of choice, with or against the factors of their own faculty/motivation/society/pros&cons. Brain is the mega network and connector of all faculties (past memory etc.) to execute voluntary (will-full actions) or otherwise. Though most functions are seemingly done by the Brain, we cannot discredit the element of Will/Choice. Such Volition are Individual/Self-driven and completely unitary, which we refer to 'I'/aham/Atma.

That self-will can by-pass all decisions of faculties - memory, empathy/emotions, logic/intellect, then that Self-Will-Power re-directs those faculties to the course of self-willed-action.

You are your own example of "I", why do you chose you be an atheist, when you can be otherwise?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Your post is contradictory. Why does a brahman which is beyond action and thoughts need to create? If there is a need being felt by brahman, then we cannot say that it is beyond action and thought. But if it is not beyond action then why should it require an intermediary? Perplexing of all is that brahman creates something called maya which is an illusion from the perspective of brahman itself - does it not sound strange to you? If maya can automatically emanate from brahman then does it not mean that maya can act independently of brahman?

Again, if you say that there are two levels of reality, then there must be more than one perspective, and brahman is not the ultimate reality.

Shri Auh, for anything there are two perspectives, the spiritual and the physical. Everyone ultimately sees the spiritual perspective though starts with the physical perspective. So you are under an illusion when you hold the physical perspective. But remember it is the same reality for which you are having two perspectives. Thus when you hold the physical or the transient perspective you are said to be under the influence of maya and when you realize the spiritual perspective you are one with brahman and now where is the question of maya in that state? Please understand that the perceptions only initially differ but ultimately reality is only one. Once you attain the right perspective i.e., real knowledge maya doesn't ever come back. So these jivas experience maya till then and never again later. Can we say that maya is real For something to be real it has to exist forever. In brahman's perspective it does not exist and Ultimately in no jivas perspective it exists .The only conclusion we can draw about maya is that it is illusory.

Why the physical world is there? Because it is the way reality is built? Since the essence of brahman which is bliss can be understood from the perspective of the physical world with all the transformation the jivas undergo to attain the state of bliss , so a separate experience of that physical existence probably makes sense.

 

[renuka]

It is incorrect!

Ok I will email Samskrita Bharati and tell them about it..if they ask me from where I heard it I will have to say from TB forum Nara Ji!LOL

Just kidding..actually I wonder how to email them..they are Vidwans..I have to word my email very very carefully and politely so that I do not come across as trying to find fault with their publications.

Thanks anyway.

 

[Nara]

Ok I will email Samskrita Bharati and tell them about it..if they ask me from where I heard it I will have to say from TB forum Nara Ji!LOL

Just kidding..actually I wonder how to email them..they are Vidwans..I have to word my email very very carefully and politely so that I do not come across as trying to find fault with their publications.

Thanks anyway.

Ask these vidwans for a quote, ask them for a citation.

 

[Nara]

Acc. to vedic philosophy, "self"/individuality exists eternally (forever).

Dear Shri Govinda, IMHO, vedic philosophy cannot be exempted from rational thought. Vedic philosophy cannot assert on its own authority that (i) there exists a "self" and that (ii) it exists eternally.

[snip]

Voluntary actions (differs from Involuntary) are based on one's own Will, to execute their actions of choice, with or against the factors of their own faculty/motivation/society/pros&cons. Brain is the mega network and connector of all faculties (past memory etc.) to execute voluntary (will-full actions) or otherwise. Though most functions are seemingly done by the Brain, we cannot discredit the element of Will/Choice. Such Volition are Individual/Self-driven and completely unitary, which we refer to 'I'/aham/Atma.

The "will" from which voluntary actions emanate are nothing but the cognitive function of the complex brain. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to even form a conjecture that there is a supra-material self devising its own free will which it then applies on a purely material brain to obey. To assert that there is some non-physical entity that drives such actions requires unnecessary assumptions that can only be justified by appealing to some sort of irrational faith, such as faith in the inerrancy of some text or other. These fantastical arguments are completely free of any rationality. I am persuaded by the straight forward rational explanation readily available. I see no reason to put my faith in irrational and contrived explanations, or force myself into the right attitude, background, preparation, and guidance and make myself easy picking for indoctrination.

You are your own example of "I", why do you chose you be an atheist, when you can be otherwise?

Well, the fact of the matter is, my rationality was hijacked by the social morass into which I was born and raised, free of intellectual defence. Now, I feel liberated, I am no longer a prisoner of the irrational faith that is faithfully indoctrinated into the minds of the defenceless youth. So, the real question is, dear Govinda, why do you choose to be a theist when the stick of disapproval of elders is no longer there? What are you afraid of? There is no hell, or moksham, or rebirth into which that the mind of your's can be forced into after it ceases to exist upon the death that awaits us all. Yes, of course, you are already sufficiently indoctrinated to believe in this stuff that you can't help yourself but to pass on the rubbish to another generation, but lo and behold, I escaped such clutches, and I am no longer pushing this stuff upon unsuspecting and defenceless youth.

regards ...

 

[sravna]

To sum up,

1. Maya is an illusory reality from the perspective of brahman
2. It makes sense for maya to exist at all even as a illusory reality because a separate physical experience makes sense given the processes that take place in it show why the ultimate reality is the way it is i.e., an eternal blissful state.

We have to understand that the direct experience (as in the ultimate reality) and rationale ( as that happens in the physical reality) go hand in hand and that's the way it is.

 

[sravna]

As Sankara says from the perspective of brahman, it is a lila of the brahman that physical reality exists. From the perspective of the lower reality jivas, learning is the objective. But when all the learning is finally attained and is seen from that (higher) perspective it is seen as having performed a sport.

 

[ozone]

I have to word my email very very carefully and politely so that I do not come across as trying to find fault with their publications.

actually one needs to pretend they are curious and open, seek explanation and come back here with the quotes and dismiss all of them as nonsense. That would give one a good boost to their intellect.

 

[sravna]

As a final point it is the learning for the jivas in the physical reality, and they themselves would see it as a sport when having attained the status of the ultimate reality.

However nirguna brahman, the ultimate reality is only the enjoyer of the experience which actually is initiated by the isvara or saguna brahman. Saguna brahman or isvara in advaita is itself a reality that is lower than nirguna brahman because it is associated with maya.

So this is what happens:

Ultimate reality - nirguna brahman - beyond actions and thoughts and only experiences.

The next level of reality - Saguna brahman and maya - the realm of action and thoughts. Automatically comes into existence and ceases to exist after every cycle of physical reality. Responsible for the creation of the next lower level of reality.

The lowest level of reality - Physical world, Jivas. Projected from the one ultimate reality as many due to maya and becomes one with brahman again after the influence of maya is removed.

To finally sum up, the experience of bliss and the rationale for it goes hand in hand and hence the existence for different levels of realities. The rationale is the lila performed by Isvara or Saguna brahman and the learning done by the jivas and in the final perspective the experience is bliss.

I think I would now wind up the discussion on maya and focus on the actual topic unless someone thinks there is need for further discussion on the topic of maya.

 

[sravna]

A rationale for non-dual reality.

All hindu schools of thoughts and for that matter all religions accept that God is omnipotent , omniscient and eternal. But there can be only one such entity. Also that entity can allow for or disallow any other reality. All other realities are at its discretion. So for all purposes that is the only reality of substance or is the ultimate reality. Given these facts advaita makes very good sense in considering reality as ultimately only one.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Auh,

[FONT=&quot]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...

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]Now "I" am confused - if "I" is not atma and neither the ego then what is it? I know you would say maya, but that would be incorrect as the viewpoint held is that "I" becomes due to maya! ( # 108)

Dear Auh,

Egoistic stage or the lack of it has to do nothing with my mentioning about “I”.

I see this thread has become really alive after my conversation with you. Sorry, I couldn’t find time earlier. I shall read other messages later.

When said “I” was the Maya, I meant the importance we give to ourselves and our attachment to everything which is not ours. As I mentioned earlier, our life like a soap bubble; Doesn’t last very long at all.

The earth is said to be about 4 billion years old; the universe is said to be 14 billion years (?) old…. In this world our life span, even 100 years would be like a soap bubble. That temporary.

We do need ego to live. Even requesting for feed, planning the way we like to live, planning our family, dreaming and helping with our children’s future, planning our funeral, our body disposal, disposal of our property…… everything is out of ego. We just don’t stay still and wait for things to happen, do we?

While we go through our life, Maya is our entitlement, attachment to our actions. Earning money is not Maya, but becoming greedy is out of Maya.

When we act as if we are going to take everything with us when we leave is Maya.

We are but only window shopping in our life. I have an attachment with a lady, call her ‘my’ wife; ‘my’ children; ‘my’ associate; ‘my’ friends; ‘my’ home; ‘my’ property….. my, my, my…. In reality, there is no ‘my’. “I” don’t own anything. After my death “I” don’t even exist.

There is a widely believed ‘re-incarnation’ theory. I am not sure about that. I like to steer clear of that.

So, in my opinion, “I” becomes kaput after death.. which is as transient as a soap bubble……

So, I said “I” am the Maya.

“I” have no ownership with my physical body either. “I” didn’t plan for this body. It was pure accident. I could have been a girl… or could have been an eunuch. Some persons maintain their rented house very well while some would abuse it. I like to keep it well. That’s all.

If we have any attachment to anything, then that is Maya. Yes, as a human being we have many responsibilities which we should fulfil. Any attachment to any of these would be Maya.

About Brahman and sub-consciousness, I don’t think I can say much because I don’t know much at all. Maya is not ‘anandham’. Anandham is a state of mind. It differs between persons. For nice persons nice deeds provide anandham; for sick persons not so nice deeds provide anandham.

Cheers!

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[sangom]

By change I mean the quality of impermanence of things we perceive around us - the inherent quality of things (and this universe) to keep on changing (or transforming or recycling), whether they be living or non living. Due to this change what we see today is not, tomorrow, and hence the illusion effect is a result of such change.

I also feel that such a change must be the inherent quality of nature or whatever common thing that encompasses and yet forms the substrate for all things; change itself being inseparable from such substrate (or force or energy or prana). If we were to follow this line of reasoning, then it follows that there must be "material" for such change, in addition to "knowledge" (?) of/for such change.

By material I mean that there must be a gross matter that undergoes transformation (change).

Existence of Knowledge is debatable as the substrate may not have "active" (by active I mean controlling) knowledge of such change but only awareness of change and its effects. Various levels of awareness permeates itself into matter and experiences this change continuously. Higher the level of awareness, higher the level of experience and knowledge of things. So, an advaitic type brahman cannot exist.

So we might have an energy field, gross matter, and awareness (that manifests itself at various levels) to go along with it.

Just my musings.

Shri auh,

I am not as competent as you are in regard to some of the points above. But, to my limited intelligence, it seems that this "change" - which happens every fraction of a moment - is not the māyā of advaita; it is the feeling that there is a "gross" universe out there, which functions according to certain well-definable laws (and which modern science has been trying to unravel and coming up with very many material benefits - as also threats, side by side - for humanity, which may be called māyā.

The first step is to understand, accept and be convinced oneself that what we call "gross matter" does not, ipso facto, become gross; it could as well be like a gold bullion bar which one holds in his hand in his dream; that gold bar (or even a very beautiful woman, for that matter) will seem to be real (or gross) as long as the dream lasts and when it is over, one will wake up to another 'reality' to find the gold bar (or that woman) all gone. People rarely feel sorry for the loss because the moment one wakes up from dream, his 'reality' makes him understand that there was neither the gold bar (woman) in the first place and so there had been no "real" loss. According to Sankara's advaita, what we perceive as this gross material world/universe is akin to the gold bar in the dream state. In this sense the gross matter, its changes all are just illusory and this whole gamut is the māyā.

According to my understanding of advaita even what we call awareness, is just illusory. Hence in the substrate or parabrahman, nothing 'is'; it is just a state of 'nothingness'.

And, it is this idea of 'nothingness' which baffles human intellect and drives us to propound different theories about gods, deities, Life after death, souls, rebirth and so on - as a result religions thrive!

 

[auh]

When said “I” was the Maya, I meant the importance we give to ourselves and our attachment to everything which is not ours. As I mentioned earlier, our life like a soap bubble; Doesn’t last very long at all.

The earth is said to be about 4 billion years old; the universe is said to be 14 billion years (?) old…. In this world our life span, even 100 years would be like a soap bubble. That temporary.

We do need ego to live. Even requesting for feed, planning the way we like to live, planning our family, dreaming and helping with our children’s future, planning our funeral, our body disposal, disposal of our property…… everything is out of ego. We just don’t stay still and wait for things to happen, do we?

While we go through our life, Maya is our entitlement, attachment to our actions. Earning money is not Maya, but becoming greedy is out of Maya.

When we act as if we are going to take everything with us when we leave is Maya.

We are but only window shopping in our life. I have an attachment with a lady, call her ‘my’ wife; ‘my’ children; ‘my’ associate; ‘my’ friends; ‘my’ home; ‘my’ property….. my, my, my…. In reality, there is no ‘my’. “I” don’t own anything. After my death “I” don’t even exist.

There is a widely believed ‘re-incarnation’ theory. I am not sure about that. I like to steer clear of that.

So, in my opinion, “I” becomes kaput after death.. which is as transient as a soap bubble……

So, I said “I” am the Maya.

“I” have no ownership with my physical body either. “I” didn’t plan for this body. It was pure accident. I could have been a girl… or could have been an eunuch. Some persons maintain their rented house very well while some would abuse it. I like to keep it well. That’s all.

If we have any attachment to anything, then that is Maya. Yes, as a human being we have many responsibilities which we should fulfil. Any attachment to any of these would be Maya.

About Brahman and sub-consciousness, I don’t think I can say much because I don’t know much at all. Maya is not ‘anandham’. Anandham is a state of mind. It differs between persons. For nice persons nice deeds provide anandham; for sick persons not so nice deeds provide anandham.

Cheers!

This feeling of "I" is cognizance of the self which is real as long as it exists. If this "I" is the only problem, then what happens to the world after a person dies. We see that the world continues on, but we dont know whether the "I" remains "aware" or whether it dissolves with a universal awareness or whether it ceases to exist.

Possessiveness is maya , according to you; pls correct me if my understanding of your message is incorrect. Or are you saying that the trancience of things is maya?

Imo, the anandham of brahman is not a feeling of happiness (as we feel it); it must be a state of being not affected by maya (or change).

 

[sravna]

Sutra 1: The enquiry into brahman and its prerequisites

The English translation of the sutra: Now therefore the enquiry into brahman

Interpretation by Sankara:

"Now" is to be understood as meaning that something was done previously before and after that we are enquiring into the nature of brahman. What are those previous things? They are the necessary prerequisites for conducting the enquiry into brahman. What are the prerequisites?. They are (i) discrimination between things transient and eternal (ii) renunciation of the fruits of action in this world and in the next (iii) the ability to be tranquil and the ability for self restraint, having faith in God and constantly thinking of God (iv) strong desire for the final release or to be free from the bondage of the physical world.

The word "therefore" indicates a reason for the enquiry after you have the prerequisites. It indicates since that the highest aim of man is to attain liberation and be one with brahman, it is therefore fruitful to have an enquiry into the nature of brahman.

So folks the first sutra specifies stringent conditions for even an enquiry into brahman. It seems one needs to have the right state of mind before embarking into the enquiry. So one important conclusion is that not all can embark into an enquiry into brahman and the other is enquiry into brahman is a fruitful activity

 

[auh]

I am not as competent as you are in regard to some of the points above. But, to my limited intelligence, it seems that this "change" - which happens every fraction of a moment - is not the māyā of advaita; it is the feeling that there is a "gross" universe out there, which functions according to certain well-definable laws (and which modern science has been trying to unravel and coming up with very many material benefits - as also threats, side by side - for humanity, which may be called māyā.

The first step is to understand, accept and be convinced oneself that what we call "gross matter" does not, ipso facto, become gross; it could as well be like a gold bullion bar which one holds in his hand in his dream; that gold bar (or even a very beautiful woman, for that matter) will seem to be real (or gross) as long as the dream lasts and when it is over, one will wake up to another 'reality' to find the gold bar (or that woman) all gone. People rarely feel sorry for the loss because the moment one wakes up from dream, his 'reality' makes him understand that there was neither the gold bar (woman) in the first place and so there had been no "real" loss. According to Sankara's advaita, what we perceive as this gross material world/universe is akin to the gold bar in the dream state. In this sense the gross matter, its changes all are just illusory and this whole gamut is the māyā.

According to my understanding of advaita even what we call awareness, is just illusory. Hence in the substrate or parabrahman, nothing 'is'; it is just a state of 'nothingness'.

And, it is this idea of 'nothingness' which baffles human intellect and drives us to propound different theories about gods, deities, Life after death, souls, rebirth and so on - as a result religions thrive!

Dear Sir,

Which is why the concept is self-defeating.

1) If nothing "is" then by the very fact, there is no maya, no jiva etc etc. We simply dont exist and we are not having this discussion now. This would seem absurd at best and is a sure prescription for a chaotic world.

2) If nothing "is" then how can it even attempt an illusion which is like a dream? For a dream we have to have a perception, cognition of objects and their relation to the self and to the other; so when nothing "is", this cannot even happen.

3) If nothing "is" and this jagat is only a dream kind of maya, why should it function according to certain rules/norms/laws? In a dream, the sequences need not be logical or even reasonable; an apple tree can bear oranges or even a human being ! We know for a fact that this is not so.

4) If awareness itself is illusory then there cannot be a concept of self-realization as per advaita.

5) Karma does not have scope in such a concept; when everything is an illusion/maya how can there be a cause and effect across births?

I feel that something "is" but what it is we are unsure.

Thank you for your response.

Regards,

 

[auh]

Sorry for this digression.

If everything is illusory from the perspective of brahman, then those who believe in it could very well while away their time in ildle pursuits; no action would be a sin or a wrong (or right) from the perspective of brahman; there is no hurt or displeasure just as there is no happiness or joy, and activities such as cheating, looting, adultery can be carried out in full swing, considering the perspective of brahman, of course.

Those who belive in the illusory jagat could very well stop their propagation of advaita because, after all, all this is not true, from the perspective of the brahman. Whether somebody expounds advaita or not, brahman would not be concerned as such analysis is illusory from its perspective.

Lastly, why would those who believe in advaita want to live in the bliss of nothingness, leaving behind the ignorance of this wonderful illusion? It wouldn't matter anyway, as brahman has his own perspective.

 

[sravna]

Sorry for this digression.

If everything is illusory from the perspective of brahman, then those who believe in it could very well while away their time in ildle pursuits; no action would be a sin or a wrong (or right) from the perspective of brahman; there is no hurt or displeasure just as there is no happiness or joy, and activities such as cheating, looting, adultery can be carried out in full swing, considering the perspective of brahman, of course.

Those who belive in the illusory jagat could very well stop their propagation of advaita because, after all, all this is not true, from the perspective of the brahman. Whether somebody expounds advaita or not, brahman would not be concerned as such analysis is illusory from its perspective.

Lastly, why would those who believe in advaita want to live in the bliss of nothingness, leaving behind the ignorance of this wonderful illusion? It wouldn't matter anyway, as brahman has his own perspective.

Dear Shri Auh,

Physical world is an illusion. But don't we all find a reason for existing? The ultimate purpose being to be liberated from the illusory physical world. For that you should be act and think in a certain way and not be doing nothing. In fact you cannot be that way because it is not the design to be that way. Physical world reflects the spiritual reality. Everyone ultimately seeks salvation and attains it.

 

[Raghy]

This feeling of "I" is cognizance of the self which is real as long as it exists. If this "I" is the only problem, then what happens to the world after a person dies. We see that the world continues on, but we dont know whether the "I" remains "aware" or whether it dissolves with a universal awareness or whether it ceases to exist.

Possessiveness is maya , according to you; pls correct me if my understanding of your message is incorrect. Or are you saying that the trancience of things is maya?

Imo, the anandham of brahman is not a feeling of happiness (as we feel it); it must be a state of being not affected by maya (or change).

Dear Auh,

What happens to the world after “I” passed away is not in question. In the consideration, although in transient, “I” is the subject; the world is not the subject. Who knows, in a freak situation, the whole world may blow apart when “I” passed away. But that is not important though.

When we take normal circumstances, when “I” passed away, the world continues as it does all the time. Nothing changes in a big way. We don’t really know for sure what happens to “I” once it passed away from the ‘rented adobe’.

I thought I mentioned ‘attachment’ is Maya. I did not talk about ‘possessiveness’ at all. There is a vast difference between being possessive and being attached. When I am attached, I like the attached person to act or behave in a certain way; when and if that did not happen, I may not be happy about it. That attachment and the expectations are Maya. When I am trying to influence my desire on a person due to my proximity, relationship, then I am in Maya. To expect the other person to fulfil my desires is an illusion.

Transience is not Maya. That is only nature. Human life expectancy is about 85-95 years.. may be 100 years.. that’s normal. Nothing Maya about that.

Anandham of Brahman.. why Brahman? Just anandham should do. That is the state of mind. I already mentioned nice persons find anadham in nice deeds like helping others, eating good food, enjoying a drink ( alcoholic or not) etc. When we find the anandham state when we help others, that is ‘peranandham’ or exalted anandham. If it is our own self pleasure, it is just so-so.

On the other hand sick minded, not so nice persons may find anandham in others sufferings. A sadist is an example for that. I think you get the drift.

I don’t like to mix anandham and Brahman, please.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

You may have overlooked. When you find some spare time, may you kindly address my post #41 in this thread, please. Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

When we have a question or a theory specifically in topics of this kind it is more of a statement about us.

In order to answer a question - again only in this topic area- one has to answer the questioner. There is a difference ..If one reads the works of Sri Ramana Maharishi one can see how he answers the questioner..

Hence forums of this kind can never provide satisfactory answers in my view.

However it is fun for everyone to put forward their theories and discuss..

Sri. TKS,

It is quite possible you are a very knowledgeable person.

But this is the second message from you ridiculing this thread.

Sir, there is no need for you to praise this thread. at the same time, I don't see the reason to ridicule a thread like this.

Sri. Sravna and other learned members deserve credit for this thread. I don't know about others, personally I am learning something here. If this thread is not worth the trouble visiting, one need not visit this thread, I would suppose.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Auh,

Physical world is an illusion. But don't we all find a reason for existing? The ultimate purpose being to be liberated from the illusory physical world. For that you should be act and think in a certain way and not be doing nothing. In fact you cannot be that way because it is not the design to be that way. Physical world reflects the spiritual reality. Everyone ultimately seeks salvation and attains it.

Dear Sri. Sravna,

I think we are opposing ends when we talk about this world/universe. While you say " this physical world is an illusion" to us that is, I am convinced we as persons are illusion to the world.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri. Sravna,

I think we are opposing ends when we talk about this world/universe. While you say " this physical world is an illusion" to us that is, I am convinced we as persons are illusion to the world.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

Yes, we as jivas are also deluded that is, when we think that the physical world is the reality. But I hold the physical world is also an illusion or in the parlance of advaita, a relative reality.

 

[sravna]

Sri. TKS,

It is quite possible you are a very knowledgeable person.

But this is the second message from you ridiculing this thread.

Sir, there is no need for you to praise this thread. at the same time, I don't see the reason to ridicule a thread like this.

Sri. Srava and other learned members deserve credit for this thread. I don't know about others, personally I am learning something here. If this thread is not worth the trouble visiting, one need not visit this thread, I would suppose.

Cheers!

In most of his posts he sounds condescending. Probably he only knows why.

 

[sangom]

dear sri. Sangom, greetings.

You may have overlooked. When you find some spare time, may you kindly address my post #41 in this thread, please. Thank you.

Cheers!

dear sri. Sangom, greetings.

I refer to your message in post #39. 2:32 mandukya karika makes sense. That is my belief too.



But i can't quite agree with the quoted conclusion. One has to realise 2:32 against one just believes 2:32. Until one realises 2:32, one would undergo illusions.

Sir, there is self-realisation and there is maya. One has to identify maya simultaneously as one becomes self-realised.

Further, i slightly differ from 2:32 when it comes to liberation. There is a state of liberation. We can't just say "there is no liberation".

Just by self-realisation or by identifying maya one may not get liberated.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

I did see your post but thought that we may not have any meeting ground when you insist that "One has to realise 2:32 against one just believes 2:32", etc.

My view is that it is not always possible to "realize" everything but it is much easier to understand. Understanding leads one gradually to the stage where one will partially realize the illusory nature of this world. For full realization, it is absolutely necessary that ordinary people like us are dead - i.e., it is not posssible to fully realize or experience this.

Liberation or Moksha was a candy which was dangled in front of householder brahmins by the pundits, nothing more. Believing what the pundits said, most brahmins (and many NBs who liked to dabble in religion & philosophy etc.,) observed all the religious injunctions and even went to the extent of accepting "sanyaasa" etc., under the mistaken notion that all these would lead "one" to a highly blissful state of existence without even an iota of trouble or suffering or pain, etc., called the state of brahmaanandam. But there is no evidence for the existence of any such state; hence, this liberation is a religious myth, that's all.

Humans are born every second and the world population of humans is increasing. If many people had attained Moksha, the world population should naturally have declined at least marginally and not increased. We do not as yet know why the population is increasing and is forecasted to increase as years pass. Let us not therefore confuse ourselves with the ambition of getting Moksha. That is my view.
[/FONT]

 

[sangom]

In most of his posts he sounds condescending. Probably he only knows why.

Because he thinks he is much wiser than he really is but is never able to express his learning or wisdom except saying that one has to learn from a proper, ideal guru which he claims he has done.

Here, in this forum, he came of his own accord - without invitation - but is unwilling to share his vidya with anyone even though there will definitely be many who will like to learn. In a way he is committing a sin because our sastras lay down that one should never hold one's knowledge as secret and should teach it to anyone who comes to him for learning. On top of that he often says this is Q4 activity (neither urgent nor important) for him!