Vaagmi
0
Why this obsession with worship of formless. Or the meaningless worship of Shunya. LOL.
It is just empty or Shunya and there is nothing to worship there.
brahman and maya
- Thread starter sravna
- Start date
Why this obsession with worship of formless. Or the meaningless worship of Shunya. LOL.
It is just empty or Shunya and there is nothing to worship there.
When one becomes " blind" to anything created one's heart starts to see.
Its not an obsession...its a gravitation.
Shunyam is not Nothing..
Shunyam is No -Thing.
w
Desire and envy too would cease to exists.
Dear Vaagmi Ji,
I won't word the question as how you did and ask you "why this obsession with worship of form or the meaningless worship of Purnam"
rather I would ask you "tell me the beauty of worshiping a form and the meaningful worship of the Purnam"
You might think why I called it beauty of form and meaningful Purnam since I prefer formless and "shunyam"
Well, its about how we look at things.
If one loves a created form its fine too but just imagine that the hands that never saw created a form that the heart can love.
Now what if we empty everything we know and make ourselves a receptacle, yes! "Shunyam" to be filled up by the "Purnam" that no man saw, no man made,no man described?
Can anyone replicate that?
Vaagmi
0
Obsession is not gravitation. Nothing is not No thing etc., etc.,So an attempt at clever play with words. I am a simple straightforward learner and jijnasa. So please tell me what is there in Shunya or vacuum.
When one becomes blind to things created one becomes just blind. He cannot see anything with heart or anything else because seeing involves recalling from previous record and comparing. Where is the recorded items in this case. This has been discussed exhaustively by Acharyas while exploring the ultimate authority of Vedas. Please read again.
Vaagmi
0
[
I won't word the question as how you did and ask you "why this obsession with worship of form or the meaningless worship of Purnam"
Form is tangible and is withibn the coordinates of human perception. So the beauty can be appreciated. In Shunyam there is nothing and there is no beauty either because beauty is just an adjective of something.
If one loves a created form its fine too but just imagine that the hands that never saw created a form that the heart can love.
It is a form which you see around you in your life every day in home in dream and everywhere. So heart loves without any struggle. Shunyam is not so. There is nothing in it.
Now what if we empty everything we know and make ourselves a receptacle, yes! "Shunyam" to be filled up by the "Purnam" that no man saw, no man made,no man described?
perception will be all !@#$%^&*(). Are you able to make out anything?
It ultimately boils down to this: Maya/projection etc., etc.,,, were all invented to explain the flaws in the original argument about perception. They pathetically failed.
I won't word the question as how you did and ask you "why this obsession with worship of form or the meaningless worship of Purnam"
Form is tangible and is withibn the coordinates of human perception. So the beauty can be appreciated. In Shunyam there is nothing and there is no beauty either because beauty is just an adjective of something.
If one loves a created form its fine too but just imagine that the hands that never saw created a form that the heart can love.
It is a form which you see around you in your life every day in home in dream and everywhere. So heart loves without any struggle. Shunyam is not so. There is nothing in it.
Now what if we empty everything we know and make ourselves a receptacle, yes! "Shunyam" to be filled up by the "Purnam" that no man saw, no man made,no man described?
perception will be all !@#$%^&*(). Are you able to make out anything?
It ultimately boils down to this: Maya/projection etc., etc.,,, were all invented to explain the flaws in the original argument about perception. They pathetically failed.
You sound very Wahabi! That is only your way is the right way!LOL
Adi Shankara was spending lots of time talking about Maya to explain the Brahman concept.
In Sufism they do mention about the Veil but they do not harp on it as much and the emphasis is more into getting in contact with the Divine essence.
The works of Nagarjuna does not talk of Maya as much..its more about how to become Non dual
How we perceive the attributes of God be it His 99 names or 1000 names is very much tru our senses so there would be the perceiver , the perceived and the perception.
Now, in a state where the perceiver, the perceived and the perception cease to exists..what do you call that?
Just imagine you are in a house of mirrors which show you the reflection of yourself and the reflection of each attribute of God and suddenly you go into a deep sleep... everything would be "shunyam" that is whatever you witness though it is still present in front of you if you wake up does not really exist anymore cos you are no more using your senses...hence no perceiver, no perceived and no perception.
Today go home and when you are in deep sleep NON REM sleep tell me if you felt Vishnu exists.
I am not saying He doesnt but what I am saying at one state nothing exists to play the Perceiver, the Perceived and the Perception...you can choose to call this state Shunyam or Purnam..the definition doesnt really make a difference.
Dont give up.
Keep discussing.
Ok you are not a Wahabi.
You are a Vishnu Habib(One who loves Vishnu)
Formless worship makes no sense. People who talk that way are clueless
Form based worship is childish. Most of such people are greedy and insecure. They just want a God as an accomplice for their worldly and mischief-making activities. They want money and this & that and say I love you God. Most tend to be hypocrites and fight with which form represents a real God.
Plight of humanity is indeed a sad one. That Supreme power has given the ability to think and human wants to believe some stories and superstitions while muting their thinking faculty. May that God save them
So you did get the Maya aspect. Now let us seek Brahman!
"He constantly sends His men to guide and help all of us."
In addition to usual BS about spirituality in the above message , it displays an appalling display of ignorance and a sexist view of God.. I am sure that imagined God must hate transgenders and Gays also..
Brahman, it is said cannot be described in words nor can be imagined in mind. Seeking Brahman is just cliche expression without any real meaning.
Dear Sravna,
I was reading The Universal Tree and the Four Birds by Ibn Arabi.
(Ibn ʿArabi, full name Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibnʿArabī al-Ḥātimī aṭ-Ṭāʾī, was an Arab Andalusian Muslim scholar, mystic, poet, and philosopher, whose works have grown to be very influential beyond the Muslim world. wikipedia)
I would like to share how he describes the "Aham Brahmasmi" scenario.
He states that the very assertion of the word "I" would throw the speaker into a state of fana(annihilation) in which everything disappears.
There is only ONE who can properly say "I"
The commentary on this is : to utter I am the One is blasphemous becos the "I" here is not the "I" of the ONE.
So as long as one proclaims it in a non fana(annihilation) state the state of duality exists.
Sravna, from my understanding of this its as if the Aham Brahmasmi cant not actually be uttered as long we are not in a state of annihilation of our ego..that would be blasphemous.
Technically that would mean the Advaita is a state we cant really describe cos as a long as we are embodied we are not the real "I".
By still saying Aham Brahmasmi or Tat Tvam Asi is still very much a state of duality.
It seems to me that Advaita on its own might not lead the intellect well for starters as one cant start of in annihilation when one is never in annihilation.
As long as one is embodied one can only get glimpses of the state of annihilation but not totally be 24/7 Aham Brahmasmi.
Even in the Quran its talks about flashes of lightning to which people close their ears..it means that the non realized human isnt aware of the glimpses of a higher state.
So Sravna..Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita eventually leads to a state of Sayujyam where there is annihilation too but also not experienced as long the ego exists..but the path that led to it seems more meaningful.
what say you?
Works of Ibn Arabi is really interesting.
I was reading The Universal Tree and the Four Birds by Ibn Arabi.
(Ibn ʿArabi, full name Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibnʿArabī al-Ḥātimī aṭ-Ṭāʾī, was an Arab Andalusian Muslim scholar, mystic, poet, and philosopher, whose works have grown to be very influential beyond the Muslim world. wikipedia)
I would like to share how he describes the "Aham Brahmasmi" scenario.
He states that the very assertion of the word "I" would throw the speaker into a state of fana(annihilation) in which everything disappears.
There is only ONE who can properly say "I"
The commentary on this is : to utter I am the One is blasphemous becos the "I" here is not the "I" of the ONE.
So as long as one proclaims it in a non fana(annihilation) state the state of duality exists.
Sravna, from my understanding of this its as if the Aham Brahmasmi cant not actually be uttered as long we are not in a state of annihilation of our ego..that would be blasphemous.
Technically that would mean the Advaita is a state we cant really describe cos as a long as we are embodied we are not the real "I".
By still saying Aham Brahmasmi or Tat Tvam Asi is still very much a state of duality.
It seems to me that Advaita on its own might not lead the intellect well for starters as one cant start of in annihilation when one is never in annihilation.
As long as one is embodied one can only get glimpses of the state of annihilation but not totally be 24/7 Aham Brahmasmi.
Even in the Quran its talks about flashes of lightning to which people close their ears..it means that the non realized human isnt aware of the glimpses of a higher state.
So Sravna..Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita eventually leads to a state of Sayujyam where there is annihilation too but also not experienced as long the ego exists..but the path that led to it seems more meaningful.
what say you?
Works of Ibn Arabi is really interesting.
OP
OP
I advise that you not project your views as most holy and those of others as BS. That is as biased as one can get. Try to understand people are of different wavelengths and so keep your pet fantasies to yourself.
OP
OP
Renuka,
There are two levels to knowing reality, one is understanding and the other is realization. Realization means actual practice of what you understand and preach. Before that one has to know what to practice. "Understanding" serves that purpose. So seen in that perspective you first try to understand advaita or other philosophies and then eventually be able to practice it.
Advaita is for those who work purely at the level of intellect. In the final analysis all serve the same purpose of taking us to liberation. If one chooses the right philosophy based on one's nature, the job is made easy.
There are two levels to knowing reality, one is understanding and the other is realization. Realization means actual practice of what you understand and preach. Before that one has to know what to practice. "Understanding" serves that purpose. So seen in that perspective you first try to understand advaita or other philosophies and then eventually be able to practice it.
Advaita is for those who work purely at the level of intellect. In the final analysis all serve the same purpose of taking us to liberation. If one chooses the right philosophy based on one's nature, the job is made easy.
Ok so how shall we reword this?
We cant use He or She cos its sexists...neither can we use "It" cos it would be improper.
So how do you propose to say it?
"The undefinable One constantly sends guides to help entire creation"
In Arabic this problem wont arise cos the Plural WE (as how Hindi uses Hum) is used mostly to denote the act of God..and anyone sent is called a messenger and the word people is used to denote mankind usually starting off in vocative..so in Arabic it would read as
O' dear people,We constantly send messengers to guide and help you.
This way its totally not sexist and everyone of every sexual orientation is included.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Typically people betray their own nature while accusing others. One who is truly unbiased is not swayed emotionally by views contrary to his. Sorry if the use of the word "his" offends you. It seems the least awkward of the choices which the English language affords me. Let us not be stilted in an effort to show that we are being unbiased. It is what you think that matters more than anything else.
Agreed but for the level of understanding. Vishisthadvaita or Dvaita is better suited to lead you to the door of Advaita.
The intellect is the door but it does not get you beyond that.
So technically Advaita lies behind the door..it can't be understood,it can't be a realization too cos if one is realizing it, that means 3 states exists..that is "the one realizing", "that which is realized" and "the realization"..so how can this be Non Dual when multiple states exists?
Therefore Advaita in its true form can NOT be known or realized or perceived or experienced ..not really a subject that would be of much help in the long run.
OP
OP
Good points Renuka. But advaita serves a purpose because being based purely on logic, shows us what the end actually is. I agree that the philosophy itself is difficult to understand and practice but a different dimension to this is you adhere to it by faith trusting the wisdom of your guru blindly
It is based on a pattern emerging from a series of messages over many years. There was no view expressed but a critique. Most here know about your brand of spirituality wanting to fix the temperature of cities. Your past views about other human beings who are not like you are known too. So it was an opinion that what was seen here is a repeat of those biases in the post here too. A spiritual person would thank for the analysis provided
Share this page
Similar threads
- Locked
