brahman and maya

[a-TB]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

It would fine at least for some if God descends and be with all of us and help us directly with our problems. Why does he chose not to do it? The reason is he wanted to keep the spirit of learning alive. He made the physical reality as different as possible from the spiritual reality. Whereas spiritual reality is a still and constant reality, change is the only constant in the physical reality. He constantly sends His men to guide and help all of us. Some chose to take the help while some others are too arrogant and reject the help. He lets the latter also to have their way but subtly influences them to let them eventually arrive at the truths. Now and then he actually descends as an avatar but makes sure to hide His identity when He knows people will be awed by His presence.

"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..

 

[a-TB]

So you did get the Maya aspect. Now let us seek Brahman!

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.

 

[renuka]

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.

 

[sravna]

"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..

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.

 

[sravna]

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.

 

[renuka]

"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..

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.

 

[sravna]

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.

 

[renuka]

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.

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.

 

[sravna]

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.

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

 

[a-TB]

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.

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

 

[a-TB]

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.

It need not be he or she. God could send transgenders too if one buys into the idea of a God creating and sending messengers to fix his creations. In belief anything is possible.

If there was a God creating all this and had to periodically send messengers to fix the created, then it would represent a major flaw in creations. It is like a massive recall that God cannot implement and so sending patchwork of fixes and not succeeding. That would be absurd.

 

[sravna]

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

Just because you are talking of seeing a pattern does not make your opinion any less biased. All your accusations of others do not automatically become a critique also. These are words you are heaping upon yourself to make you look unbiased. Word play does not get you far. The fact is I have my views about many things and you have yours. I simply asked you to understand that you should not presume your views are some unwritten laws to be followed and those of others are just prejudices that need to be corrected..

 

[renuka]

It need not be he or she. God could send transgenders too if one buys into the idea of a God creating and sending messengers to fix his creations. In belief anything is possible.

If there was a God creating all this and had to periodically send messengers to fix the created, then it would represent a major flaw in creations. It is like a massive recall that God cannot implement and so sending patchwork of fixes and not succeeding. That would be absurd.

Kindly state your opinion on these 2 stanzas from the Bhagavad Geeta.
Do you think Lord Krishna was also stating about a faulty mechanism in creation and a massive recall and patchwork?

yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmānaṁ sṛijāmyaham

paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśhāya cha duṣhkṛitām
dharma-sansthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge

 

[renuka]

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

I think you your observation here could be clouded by the previous posts of Sravna about spiritual powers etc.
This thread of his isnt about spiritual powers.
Sravna is discussing Brahman and Maya concept here.
None of the post have anything to do with his spiritual powers.

I hope we can also be fair to him that not all of his threads are about powers.

 

[renuka]

A poem by Ibn Arabi

I marvel at a being that comprises every form,
Whether of essential angels, jinn, or humankind;
Whether of this world or of the world-supernal,
Of animal, vegetable, or mineral.
These are naught beside it,
Nor yet are they its essence,
But in any form it wills, it manifests itself.
It is what appears, by definition, to perception,
Yet it is what remains veiled from conception.
For minds cannot know it by the force of their thinking,
But Imagination makes it manifest to sense.
It is the Living, although no life supports its Essence
In the way that all the forms subsist in [life].
Inform me then, who it may be that I have indicated
In what we have described (and cast aside conceptions):
There it is – concealed, but without being absent;
And there, again, envisaged, but hidden from vision!
I would like to know: Of the likes of it have you
Ever heard or no? – Inform me, then, who is it?
But no one knows what we have adduced here
Except for One, and that is God.
No creature can ever comprehend it.
None there is like unto it, except one personage:
I marvel at the One Perfect that he epitomizes!

 

[prasad1]

Kindly state your opinion on these 2 stanzas from the Bhagavad Geeta.
Do you think Lord Krishna was also stating about a faulty mechanism in creation and a massive recall and patchwork?

yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmānaṁ sṛijāmyaham

paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśhāya cha duṣhkṛitām
dharma-sansthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge

A perfect "GOD", or "BRAHMAN" can not be creating an IMPERFECT world. So there is basic flaw in the logic.
So I can not justify these two Gita stanzas.
I suppose even Gita or any other preachings are Man-Made they are imperfect.

 

[renuka]

A perfect "GOD", or "BRAHMAN" can not be creating an IMPERFECT world. So there is basic flaw in the logic.
So I can not justify these two Gita stanzas.
I suppose even Gita or any other preachings are Man-Made they are imperfect.

So going by this logic ..so how do we explain the flaws around in the world?
You do subscribe to the concept of Brahman isnt it?
So what is Brahmans role in this flawed system?

Somehow existence seems like an Android with apps and every now and them it needs updates to fix bugs for smooth running of software.
Android Geeta:
"For protection of Android and for fixing the bugs..I manifest latest updates

Whenenever there is decline in function ..to reestablish functionality..I update from time to time"

So what say you?
What is wrong in an update to maintain a system?
After all Dharma itself is a system of law of being.
Every system has operators and operations and malfunction.

In a manifested state everything is subject to change...in an un-manifested state..verily Brahman is.

 

[prasad1]

So going by this logic ..so how do we explain the flaws around in the world?
You do subscribe to the concept of Brahman isnt it?
So what is Brahmans role in this flawed system?

Somehow existence seems like an Android with apps and every now and them it needs updates to fix bugs for smooth running of software.
Android Geeta:
"For protection of Android and for fixing the bugs..I manifest latest updates

Whenenever there is decline in function ..to reestablish functionality..I update from time to time"

So what say you?
What is wrong in an update to maintain a system?
After all Dharma itself is a system of law of being.
Every system has operators and operations and malfunction.

In a manifested state everything is subject to change...in an un-manifested state..verily Brahman is.

The concept of Brahman is abstract.
To explain in a man-made language is impossible.
Just as the entity INFINITY can be expressed, so too Brahman is beyond language.
Yes I do believe in Brahman as I have no other word for it.


In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.

Brahman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[prasad1]

If there was a God creating all this and had to periodically send messengers to fix the created, then it would represent a major flaw in creations. It is like a massive recall that God cannot implement and so sending patchwork of fixes and not succeeding. That would be absurd.

I do not believe that God is needed.
Brahman according to Advaita is all-encompassing.
If there is a God, avatar, etc are in Brahman.
I do not believe Brahman interferes with the universe.
The concept of God, the active god of Abrahamic religion is foreign to Advaitic philosophy.
All this Active and partial God is very difficult to reconcile with.

 

[sravna]

What is the point in making everyone perfect in the physical world when God is seeking a different type of reality than the spiritual reality?

I agree with Renuka that the physical world is about change. The change is from imperfection to perfection. If God by his design is able to bring perfection eventually to all, is it not a perfect but also an interesting, purposeful and brilliant design?