• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

BrhadAranyaka Upanishad - sloka 1.4.9 and Sloka 1.4.10

thebigthinkg

Active member
Background

The desire (preyas) for Atman that is deep inside in every being is spoken externally, spills out as love (priyam) of other beings also, and thus this desire/love gets 'banked', binding all the matter/beings of the Universe.


Thus Izvara manifests. Izvara is the love of not just the Atma inside, but other Atmas outside. All beings remain on that love and worship/serve that love. Beings that remain on that love never imperish due to that love.

This was the message of Upanishad upto sloka 1.4.8.

But that love, priyam that binds beings, if excessive, may not allow beings to evolve further or have their own self. This is seen in the sloka with mahA vAkya 'Aham Brahma asmi'.

Summary of Sloka from 1.4.1 to 1.4.8

Atma tore apart the Purusha. Stri filled the empty space/vacuum. Yajnavalkya says tearing apart was like a pea torn apart, which means it is so swift. In cosmic science parlance, it is the Cosmic inflation that expanded the space and filled it with background oscillations of vacuum.


The 'Svah' (the heavens) which was just AkAsa (empty space or vacuum) got filled with Stri. (Stri are the background quantum oscillations of vacuum).

Stri are the oscillations that becomes the blood of all manifestations. Stri was 'alomaka' (hairless) at the start. It was hairless in the sense, oscillations of energy was homogenuous all through the space.

From mouth of the Yoni of Stri, Agni, usable/transferable energy comes out. Agni leads to Soma. (Now Agni develops 'Hair' (loma) or different regions of space become different with different manifestations). Soma and Agni lead to best of Devas.

All creations are from Stri and through Stri. On Stri, all manifestation occurs in pairs. From these manifestations, the manuSya take birth.

Thus from just oscillations immortal devas are produced. Hence this super creation or evolution is called ati sRsti. Brahman is process of evolution, ati-sRsti.

Manifestations of Universe have different forms/shapes/functions (rupA) with identifiable 'names' (nAma). Like a Sword shut in a case, Agni is shut inside the names (nAma) and forms (rupA) that thrive on it. Agni is called Visvambhara, the universal sustainer, as it is the usable/transferable energy that sustains all the manifestations.

What is that uniquely identifiable 'rupA' that can have a nAmA..? Each 'rupa' or 'form/shape' has some 'karma' or 'function' associated with it. A 'rupa' is one that performs a particular 'karma'. That 'rupa' gets a particular 'nAmA'. (That's how primitive particles, composite particles, atoms, matter forms and biological beings evolve)

While a karma performing rupA gets a nAma, that rupA does not have information to function independently, like all our body organs have a function, but cannot work independently

Atma makes all the rupA (forms) with nAma (names) to function together and hence makes them complete. (Thus Atma virtually manifests in all the rupA that perform a karma)

Every rupA excessively desires the Atma than sons, wealth and all others, as Atma only makes them complete. This Atma is deep inside (and hence not perceivable).

The desire for Atman that is deep inside in every being is spoken externally, spills out as love of other beings also, and thus this desire/love gets 'banked', binding all the matter/beings of the Universe.

Thus Izvara manifests. Izvara is the love of not just the Atma inside, but other Atmas outside. All beings remain on that love and worship/serve that love. Beings that remain on that love never imperish due to that love.

But that love, priyam that binds beings, if excessive, may not allow beings to evolve further or have their own self. That's seen in the next two slokas.

Sloka 1.4.9

tad āhuḥ, yat ‘brahma vidyayā sarvam bhaviṣyantaḥ manuṣyā manyante, kim u tad brahmā vedyasmāt tat sarvam abhavad iti

Translation

It is said(ahuh) that (tad) manuSya think/consider (manuSya manyante) by brahma-vidya everything manifests (brahma vidyaya sarvam bhavisyantah), what is that knowledge of brahman (kim u tad brahma vedya), that manifests everything (tat sarvam abhavat iti)

Meaning

It is said that manuSya considers by learning of the brahman everything manifests. What is that learning of brahman, by which everything manifest..?

Sloka 1.4.10.1
brahma vā idam agra āsīt, tadātmānamevāvet, aham brahmāsmīti | tasmāttatsarvamabhavat;
tadyo yo devānām pratyabubhyata sa eva tadabhavat, tathārṣīṇām, tathā manuṣyāṇām;

Translation

Brahma or (brahma va) this (idam) seated at first/before (agra asit) that (tad) beings (Atmanam) alone (eva) knows (avet) myself (aham) brahman in me (brahma asmi) thus (iti) From that/therefore (tasmAt) that (tat) everything (sarvam) took birth/gets created (abhavat), that (tad) which which (yah yah) energies (devanam) at its command/to be at hand (pratyabhubyata) together with they manifest (sa tad abhavat), same way manusya (tatha manusyanam).


Meaning

Brahman is the process of ati sRsti (super creation) in which beings more intelligent than previous manifest. This Brahman is seated first in'physical manifestation of Atma' (AtmAnam). When the physical manifestation of Atman knows/realizes this brahman, the process of ati-sRsti is in 'Self' or 'inside'; then all manifestations happen.


The matter forms (Atmanam) manifest with whatever energies (yah yah devanam) at their command/at hand together with these energies.

The same happens for Rsi and manuSya manifestation. They manifest with whatever energies at their command together with these energies.

Sloka 1.4.10.2
tad atha itat paśyann ṛṣir vāmadevaḥ pratipede aham manur abhavaṃ sūryaśceti |

Translation

That (tad) then (atha) these (etat) seeing (pasyann) rsi vAmadeva offers (pratipede) self (aham) manifests (abhavam) thus the surya and manu (manur ca surya iti)


Meaning

On seeing matter forms (Atmanam) manifesting with whatever energy at their command, Rsi vAmadeva offers 'aham'/the self, makes visible the Surya and Manu.


Rsi are symmetry breaking events. Surya are nucleons or baryons (1) that make the nucleus. The symmetry breaking event 'vAmadeva' offers the 'Self' to make visible Surya and the Manu.

Chiral symmetry breaking event leads to formation of baryons. This chiral symmetry breaking is the Rsi vAmadeva. vAma means 'left'.

Before Chiral symmetry breaking, the right and left handed quarks were at symmetry. Right handed quarks do not interact with weak force. Left handed quarks interact with weak force. Post this vAmadeva, the Chiral symmetry breaking, the Left handed particles (vAma deva) acquired dominance. Hence the name Rsi vAma-deva.

This left-handed dominance leads to formation of baryons or what is called hadronization. In this quarks with very light mass form heavy baryons due to the energy at their command, which is called the QCD binding energy.

The evolutionary 'self' (aham) is offered to matter by Rsi vAmadeva (Chiral symmetry breaking) and particles manifest with whatever energies at their command together with those energies.

Sloka 1.4.10.3

tad idam apye tarhi ya evaṃ veda, aham brahmāsmīti, sa idaṃ sarvam bhavati, tasya ha na devāś ca na abhūtyā īśate, ātmā hyeṣāṃ sa bhavati;

Translation

That (tad) this (idam) at the end (apaya) then (tarhi) which knowledge /which knows/realizes (ya evam veda) i am myself brahma (aham brahma asmi) iti, with this (sa idam) they become (bhavati) everything (sarvam). Unto them (tasya) certainly not (ha na) energies (devas) not the matter (abhutya) control/govern (iSate), All those (esam) become/manifest (bhavati) with Atma (sa atma).

Meaning

Only those that know brahman in the 'Self', they become/create everything. Neither the energies (with which they manifest) nor
other non-physical/non-matter forms control or govern them. They all manifest/become with Atman.


This evolutionary self (aham with brahman) was offered by Rsi vAmadeva and those with this aham manifest and create further (or evolve). These are the baryons that evolve the Universe further.

Sloka 1.4.10.4


atha yo'nyāṃ devatāmupāste, anyo'sāvanyo'hamasmīti, na sa veda, yathā paśurevam sa devānām

Translation


Then (atha) which (yah) other (anyAm) stand/depend/serve other energies (devatam upaste), different (anya) that one (asau) different (anya) myself (aham), not (na) with (sa) know (veda) just as (yathA) domesticated cattle (pazur) thus (evam) with (sa) devas (devanam)


Meaning

Then those other devas, dependent on other devatas, like the pazur, not with the knowledge of the differentiated 'self' (He other, me other), not with this knowledge (of brahman, the evolution).


Then there are also those particles/devas that do not have this evolutionary knowledge of the Self, but become like pazu, domesticated cattle, dependent on Purusha for sustenance.

Sloka 1.4.10.5


yathā ha vai bahavaḥ paśavo manuṣyam bhuñjyuḥ, evamekaikaḥ puruṣo devān bhunakti; ekasminneva paśāvādīyamāne'priyam bhavati, kiṃu bahuṣu? tasmādeṣām tanna priyam yadetanmanuṣyāvidyuḥ

Translation

Just as (yathA) certainly (ha vai) multiple (bahavah) domesticated cattle (pasava) feeds on/depend on (bhunjyuh) manusya (manusyam), the devas (devan) nourish/depend on (bhunakti) thus (evam) each each (eka eka) puruSa. Just on one (ekasminn eva) domesticated cattle (pasavad) this (iyam) brings (Ane) love/dependency (priyam), what about multiple..? (kim u bahusu). Therefore (tasmAt) all these (esam) that in us (tat nah) love/dependency (priyam) which (yat) these (etat) manuSya should unlearn (avidyuh).


Meaning

Just as a manuSya enjoys multiple pazu (multiple pazu serve a manuSya), each and every Purusha nourishes these (multiple) devas/energies (that do not evolve, that are like pazu). Such particles and energies that do not have a differentiating self, that do not evolve are tied to Purusha (like the pazu).

If one cattle manifests love/desire in us(to hold it), what about multiple..? Likewise Purusha holds a lot of these devas/energies that do not have a differentiating self, that do not have the Brahman in the Self, with a lot of 'priyam', as manuSya holds their multiple pazu.

Therefore manuSya needs to unlearn this love (of pazu) in us. What is tied with 'Priyam', with 'love' or or with 'desire', does not evolve, does not have its own self and does not have the evolutionary Brahman in it.

Summary of Sloka 1.4.9 and 1.4.10

So what is the Brahma-Vidya or Evolutionary learning that every matter has to have to evolve further..?


Every matter form (AtmAnam) has to 'know' that Brahman (evolution) is in its 'Aham' or 'Self'. Only those matter forms that have this 'knowledge' manifest with whatever energies they have at hand. So every matter form has to have a 'differentiating' self.

This is illustrated by Rsi vAmadeva.

Left Handed dominance - Rsi vAmadeva - Chiral symmetry breaking

The Universe was a 'completely bounded' Quark Gluon Plasma at one point of time. It had no particles that had their own differentiating 'Self'. Hence there was no Brahman or evolution in them.

There were left-handed quarks and right-handed quarks as part of this QGP. The handedness of quarks was called 'Chirality'. The left and right handed quarks were at symmetry.

Rsi are symmetry breaking events. The Chiral symmetry breaking event that breaks this symmetry of Right-handed and Left-handed quarks and gave dominance to Left-handed quarks is called Chiral symmetry breaking event.

It is called 'Rsi vAmadeva'. vAma means left. Since this Rsi gives left-handed particle dominance, this symmetry breaking event is called Rsi vAma-deva.


The Chiral symmetry breaking event 'vAma-deva' leads to formation of hadrons. Some of the hadrons like Protons and Neutrons form the nucleus and hence they are called nucleons. Surya are Nucleons (1).

Thus the Chiral symmetry breaking event, Rsi vAmadeva, creates particles with 'distinct' self from a bounded set of quarks. This distinct 'self' has the 'brahman' or evolution in it.

The evolutionary 'self' (aham) is thus offered to matter by Rsi vAmadeva (Chiral symmetry breaking) and particles manifest with whatever energies at their command together with those energies.

Such particles acquire distinct identity (aham anya, asau anya) and a differentiating self. Only such particles become/create everything further. Neither the energies with which they manifest nor other non-physical/non-matter forms control or govern them. They all manifest/become with Atman.

Pazu - Domesticated cattle

Then there are those other particles/energies, dependent on other devatas, like Pazu (domesticated cattle). They are not with the knowledge of the differentiated 'self' (He other, me other). Hence they do not have this knowledge of brahman, the evolution.

These matter forms do not have a differentiating 'self' and hence become like 'pazu/domesticated cattle' for the Purusha. The particles/energies are tied to Purusha and hence do not evolve further.

Just as a manuSya enjoys multiple pazu (multiple pazu serve a manuSya), each and every Purusha enjoys these (multiple) devas/energies that are tied to it. Hence these forms are tied to Purusha like the pazu and do not evolve further.

If one cattle manifests love/desire in manuSya to hold it, what about multiple..? That love is excessive.

Therefore manuSya needs to unlearn this love in us. What is tied totally with 'Priyam', with 'love' or or with 'desire', does not evolve, does not have its own self and does not have the evolutionary Brahman in it.

When a manuSya is bounded too much to the extent manuSya loses the self, then the evolutionary zeal, the brahman in the manuSya is also lost.

The right kind of priyaM

All the matter forms are physical manifestation of Atman. Every matter form desires that 'Atman'. This desire for Atman spills out as 'Priyam' or 'love' of the self and other beings. This love is the 'Izvara'. This Izvara, the bonding between different matter forms controls or governs the Universal evolution.

Izvara is priyaM. But the priyaM to extent of making oneself a domesticate cattle, a pazu, makes one lose the differentiating self and hence the brahman or evolution. In such a mater form without self, brahman does not manifest and that form does not evolve/create further. So manuSya should unlearn this kind of priyaM.

-TBT

References

1. https://vedabhasya.blogspot.com/2018/02/aditya-hrdayam-again-part-57-particles.html

2. https://vedabhasya.blogspot.com/2018/08/brhadharanyaka-upanishad-sloka-148.html

 
Dear "thebigthinkg"

Read with bemused interest your latest diatribe. Sorry to have to disabuse you of some fantasies.

To begin, you apparently confuse preyas (affection) and priyam (fondness) with premam (love) in your very first section. titled "Background". Further, you confuse humans with Aathman, and try to imply that the one is not and cannot be co-existent with the other but assert that "the desire for Aathman" binds all matter/beings". You go on to posit that there is not only "the Athman inside but other Athmans outside". The summit of .absurdity is when you claim and proclaim that beings in love "never imperish" due to that love.

In your second section "Summary of slokas 1.4.1 to 1,4.8" in 14 paras. you ignore slokas 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 altogether, and pounce on the mention of "Stree" in 1.4.3, but get it wrong again. Nowhere does it say, "Athma tore apart the purusha and Sthree filled the empty space/vacuum," as you boldly mis-translate. What it does say is that the Prajaapathi, dissatisfied with his aloneness, and wanting a Sthree to assuage that state, increased his own size and split it into two - creating pati and pathni. You also talk about your fanciful but non-existent "oscillations of vacuum". What it also says is that by union of Prajaapathi and Sthree, mankind came into being.

Slokas 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 describe the generation of various types of animals by Prajaapathi and Sthree taking respectively the male and female form of these animals, and Prajapathi acquiring for himself the name of "Srushti" because all things were created by him/originated from him.

Slokas 1.4.6 to 1.4.8 recount Prajaapathi's creation of Agni from his mouth, and various other devathaas. These other devathaas are essentially Prajaapathi Himself. Also other items such as soma (drink-juice), annam (edible food). Because he created the immortal devathaas who are of a higher order than mortal himself he was named athi-srushti (super-creator).

Before creation all existed in seed form. Undifferentiated. On creation they acquired/assumed form and name, and were known accordingly. Nevertheless, the Aathma was innate even before creation, and manifested individually in beings after creation, like sword in scabbard and fire in firewood.. Each person is absorbed in bis own activity, hence does not realise fully the Aathma within him and therefore is unaware that the Aathma pervades everything..

This Aathma is to be loved more than sons, valued more than wealth, indeed to be prized above everything. Therefore it is the Aathma that should be revered above all else.

This is all for now. Shall deal later with the other topics in your tiny-font (almost indecipherable) five-page e-mail.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
 

thebigthinkg

Active member
Thanks for that feedback. Do consider the following responses.

Your thoughts:

To begin, you apparently confuse preyas (affection) and priyam (fondness) with premam (love) in your very first section.

My response:

1. I translate Preyas as 'desire' or 'something for immediate benefit'. This is in line with how prabhupAda translates and what the sanskrit dictionaries say.

'Priyam' as love/affection/pleasing etc. Love is indeed affection. I did not see the word premam in the Upanishad in the slokas of 1.4. Premam is used as 'love' more in the sense of sexual attraction. Priyam is Love/affection of all kinds.

Your thoughts:

"Background". Further, you confuse humans with Aathman, and try to imply that the one is not and cannot be co-existent with the other but assert that "the desire for Aathman" binds all matter/beings". You go on to posit that there is not only "the Athman inside but other Athmans outside". The summit of .absurdity is when you claim and proclaim that beings in love "never imperish" due to that love.

My response:

1. The nature of Atma is defined here in sloka 1.4.8 "ad etat preyaḥ putrāt, preyo vittāt, preyo' anyasmāt sarvasmāt, antarataraṃ, yad ayam ātmā " - Atma is what is desired more than sons, wealth any other, that is deep inside".

Only those AtmAnam (AtmAnam is all matter and beings in the Universe) that which are situated on the 'priyam' of Atma, those become imperishable says this sloka "ātmānam eva priyam upāsīta; sa ya ātmānam eva priyam upāste na hāsya priyam pramāyukam bhavati ".

So if this is absurdity, it comes from the Upanishad. :)

Your thoughts:

In your second section "Summary of slokas 1.4.1 to 1,4.8" in 14 paras. you ignore slokas 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 altogether, and pounce on the mention of "Stree" in 1.4.3, but get it wrong again. Nowhere does it say, "Athma tore apart the purusha and Sthree filled the empty space/vacuum," as you boldly mis-translate. What it does say is that the Prajaapathi, dissatisfied with his aloneness, and wanting a Sthree to assuage that state, increased his own size and split it into two - creating pati and pathni. You also talk about your fanciful but non-existent "oscillations of vacuum". What it also says is that by union of Prajaapathi and Sthree, mankind came into being.

My response:

You can read my previous sloka translations (1.4.1, 1.4.2-3) to get a better understanding.

The sloka 1.4.1 started with saying “ātma iva idam agra āsīt puruṣavidhaḥ” - Atma alone existed before any kind of Purusha.

Then it went onto say in 1.4.1 “sa yatpūrvo'asmaat sarva asmāt sarvānpāpmana auṣat tasmāt puruṣah”. That which is before all of us, into which all things burn that is Purusha.

Then it goes onto say in 1.4.3 “sa imam eva atmānaṃ dvedha apātayat, tataḥ patiśca patnī ca abhavatām;” - That Atma divides into two and thus manifests the pati-patni. That is the Purusha-Stri manifests.

It continues ‘tasmāt idam ardha bṛgalam iva svaḥ iti ha smāha yājñavalkyaḥ- Yajnavalkya says the svah/heavens are said to be (established) like the pea split into half’. So how was purusha and stri established, like a pea torn into two.

‘tasmād ayam ākāśaḥ striyā pūryata eva’ - The AkAsa (the empty space of Svah) got filled with Stri.

'tāṃ samabhavat tato manuṣyā ajāyanta" Those manifestations leads to manuSya.

There is no word like ‘Prajapati’ mentioned in this sloka except in the interpretations based on the translation.

Your thoughts

Slokas 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 describe the generation of various types of animals by Prajaapathi and Sthree taking respectively the male and female form of these animals, and Prajapathi acquiring for himself the name of "Srushti" because all things were created by him/originated from him.

My response

Sloka 1.4.4 says every manifestation happens in ‘Pairs’ on top of Stri, from Stri. Like Cow and bull and from them the class of milch cows, Mare and stallion and from them the equines, ass and she-ass and from them the one-hoofed animals, ram and ewe and from the class of goats and sheep, Stri is made to produce 'pairs'. She produces 'pairs'. The minutest (ants) are also produced in pairs.

Sloka 1.4.5 says “She (Stri) knows "I am myself creation" "myself is the 'blood' of everything", in that way creations manifest. All creations are through her and unto her is well known”

Your thoughts

Slokas 1.4.6 to 1.4.8 recount Prajaapathi's creation of Agni from his mouth, and various other devathaas. These other devathaas are essentially Prajaapathi Himself. Also other items such as soma (drink-juice), annam (edible food). Because he created the immortal devathaas who are of a higher order than mortal himself he was named athi-srushti (super-creator).

My response

There is no word ‘Prajapathi’ mentioned in sloka 1.4.x. The word prajapati is mentioned in 1.3.1 in this way. “dvayā ha prājāpatyāḥ, devāścāsurāśca” - Two are classes of prajapati, deva and asura. There is no prajapati afterwards.

Sloka 1.4 start from Atma alone being manifest. It talks of Purusha and stri manifesting as I explained before.

Then Sloka 1.4.5 says “She (Stri) knows "I am myself creation" "myself is the 'blood' of everything", in that way creations manifest. All creations are through her and unto her, this is known (or knowledge)”

Then the next line is sloka 1.4.6

The sloka 1.4.6 says “atha etyabhya manthat, sa mukhācca yoner hastābhyāṃ ca agnim asṛjata; tasmād etad ubhayam alomakam antarataḥ, alomakā hi yonir antarataḥ”

“Then from the oscillations (which are mantha is oscillation, a to and fro movement, which is the stirring), with mukha and yoni by the hasta, agni got created.

So translators translate it as someone put hand in the mouth, did to and for movement and created agni. But there is no prajapati here. The previous sloka was about Stri.

It is the stirrings or oscillations on Stri, that produces pairs. That’s what science says. The background oscillations of vacuum, does pair production, is the blood/energy of all creations in universe and from whose oscillations particles are produced.

Sloka 1.6 further defines Brahman as ati-sRsti that creates superior and superior beings, immortals from mortals “saiṣā brahmaṇo ati sṛṣṭir yac chreyaso devān asṛjata, atha yad martyaḥ sann amṛtān asṛjata tasmād ati sṛṣṭiḥ”.

Ati-sRsti, the extreme/superior creation is that produces higher and higher order beings. That is Brahman. That is evolution.

-TBT
 

thebigthinkg

Active member
Please ignore #3 and consider only #4.

Apart from the above, what happens on Stri, I explained it here.
https://vedabhasya.blogspot.com/2018/07/brhadharanyaka-upanishad-sloka-146.html

From the mouth of Stri, from the oscillation of Stri, from the hands that flame up, Agni, energy that is transferable is born/created.

What is loma..? Loma is traditionally interpreted as 'Hair' or more precisely 'Soft hair'. It is indeed the soft-hair. Loma or 'soft-hair' differentiates across different regions, matter or beings. Loma is used to indicate this differentiation or heterogeneity.

Even modern quantum science uses this description of 'hairless' for indicating homogeneity or no difference across regions of space.

Stri is homogeneous across the empty space/vacuum that Stri occupies. (the background quantum oscillations of vacuum are indeed homogeneous). They cannot be differentiated. Stri cannot be differentiated across the empty space it fills.

From the oscillations of the 'face' (mukha) of Stri, that come out of the 'womb' of Stri, Agni, the usable/transferable energy manifest. But once Agni, the energy that is transferable comes out, that Agni has 'loma' or 'hair'. Agni, brings in differentiation across regions of space and makes the heterogeneous.

The Agni, or the energy that comes out of the Womb of Stri, wets the space, produces/creates the 'sperm of'' Soma. Soma is not just the sperm (retas), but it is also the 'annam' (food grain) that germinates from the 'sperm'. Foodgrains are also their seeds.

Soma, the sperm, falls in the space, using Agni, the energy produces more Soma (like foodgrains). From Soma the best of devas are created. Thus everything in this Universe is Soma (annam) and Agni (eater of Soma).

Science also says energy manifests in Strong force-field (Soma) and from the Strong interaction of Quarks (Soma) and from them all matter forms with energy are created.

-TBT
 

thebigthinkg

Active member
Oops.. I was unable to delete an incomplete post and reported it. In that background, I wrote do not consider post #3. But post 3 got deleted by admin it seems and the post numbers have changed.

Do consider both #3 and #4. Sorry for confusion.

-TBT
 
Dear, dear "thebigthinkg". You end your dissociated response by appealing, "Sorry for the confusion."

Please try to understand that I have read and re-read the whole of the text you try to give "Background" to and try to"Summarise". Plainly, you are thoroughly. hopelessly and irretrievably (incorrigibly?) confused throughout: not only in your initial diatribe which I have attempted to review, but even more in your subsequent "Responses".

In this state of utter confusion, your pronouncements transcend the bounds of absurdity and reach the Himalayan heights of Ignorance, Untruth, Avidya, Asathyam.

Illustration No.1: You say, "...... This was the message of Upanishad upto sloka 1.4.8.......... This is seen in the sloka with mahA vAkya 'Aham Brahma asmi".

Comment: From slokam 1.4.1 it is manifest that the Aathma, looking around and perceiving nothing but Itself, exclaimed, "aham asmi", i.e. "I am". It did not say, as you boldly mis-claim, "aham Brahmaasmi".

Illustration No.2: You say, "Stri are the background quantum oscillations of vacuum."

Comment: This appears nowhere in the text, and is presumably your own baffling personal invention and unauthorised interpolation.

Illustration No.3: You say, "From the mouth of the yoni of Stri, Agni came out." Obviously implying that the created female being (pathni) had a vagina (yoni) which in turn had a mouth (mukham), and which in turn produced the god of fire (agni). You go on, undeterred, "From the oscillations of the 'face' of Stri, that come out of the 'womb' of Stri, Agni manifest. But once Agni comes out, that Agni has 'loma' or 'hair'. Agni, brings in differentiation across regions of space and makes the heterogeneous. The Agni, or the energy that comes out of the Womb of Stri, wets the space, produces/creates the 'sperm of'' Soma.


Comment: Utter rubbish. Slokam 1.4.6 says nothing of the sort. It says Prajaapathi (the originator) from his mouth (the place of origin) with his hands by stirring (mathanam) produced agni. What a startling difference!

I can go on ad nauseam, but these illustrations should suffice for the time being. Should you challenge them, I shall resort to further comment.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
 

thebigthinkg

Active member
Dear, dear "thebigthinkg". You end your dissociated response by appealing, "Sorry for the confusion."

Please try to understand that I have read and re-read the whole of the text you try to give "Background" to and try to"Summarise". Plainly, you are thoroughly. hopelessly and irretrievably (incorrigibly?) confused throughout: not only in your initial diatribe which I have attempted to review, but even more in your subsequent "Responses".

In this state of utter confusion, your pronouncements transcend the bounds of absurdity and reach the Himalayan heights of Ignorance, Untruth, Avidya, Asathyam.

Illustration No.1: You say, "...... This was the message of Upanishad upto sloka 1.4.8.......... This is seen in the sloka with mahA vAkya 'Aham Brahma asmi".

Comment: From slokam 1.4.1 it is manifest that the Aathma, looking around and perceiving nothing but Itself, exclaimed, "aham asmi", i.e. "I am". It did not say, as you boldly mis-claim, "aham Brahmaasmi".

Illustration No.2: You say, "Stri are the background quantum oscillations of vacuum."

Comment: This appears nowhere in the text, and is presumably your own baffling personal invention and unauthorised interpolation.

Illustration No.3: You say, "From the mouth of the yoni of Stri, Agni came out." Obviously implying that the created female being (pathni) had a vagina (yoni) which in turn had a mouth (mukham), and which in turn produced the god of fire (agni). You go on, undeterred, "From the oscillations of the 'face' of Stri, that come out of the 'womb' of Stri, Agni manifest. But once Agni comes out, that Agni has 'loma' or 'hair'. Agni, brings in differentiation across regions of space and makes the heterogeneous. The Agni, or the energy that comes out of the Womb of Stri, wets the space, produces/creates the 'sperm of'' Soma.


Comment: Utter rubbish. Slokam 1.4.6 says nothing of the sort. It says Prajaapathi (the originator) from his mouth (the place of origin) with his hands by stirring (mathanam) produced agni. What a startling difference!

I can go on ad nauseam, but these illustrations should suffice for the time being. Should you challenge them, I shall resort to further comment.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
Sir,

I had given you original texts and my translations. If you find fault with translations you can highlight. If you say that's your opinion, then I agree, as there is nothing much we can match between a translation and a perceived opinion.

Your thoughts:

Illustration No.1: You say, "...... This was the message of Upanishad upto sloka 1.4.8.......... This is seen in the sloka with mahA vAkya 'Aham Brahma asmi".

Comment: From slokam 1.4.1 it is manifest that the Aathma, looking around and perceiving nothing but Itself, exclaimed, "aham asmi", i.e. "I am". It did not say, as you boldly mis-claim, "aham Brahmaasmi".

My response:

No, I never said anywhere sloka 1.4.1 says 'aham Brahma asmi'. Not sure what you are reffering to.

I wrote " But that love, priyam that binds beings, if excessive, may not allow beings to evolve further or have their own self. This is seen in the sloka with mahA vAkya aham Brahma asmi". - That's what I explained in this OP #1, in the sloka of 1.4.10".

If you find something wrong in these translations, you can highlight. Thanks for that help.

Your thoughts

llustration No.2: You say, "Stri are the background quantum oscillations of vacuum."

Comment: This appears nowhere in the text, and is presumably your own baffling personal invention and unauthorised interpolation.

My response

Yes. Understanding stri as background quantum oscillations is my personal understanding (call it invention) and my understanding of Stri as such quantum oscillatiosn is consistent across Vedas and saMkhya kArika.

Your thoughts

Illustration No.3: You say, "From the mouth of the yoni of Stri, Agni came out." Obviously implying that the created female being (pathni) had a vagina (yoni) which in turn had a mouth (mukham), and which in turn produced the god of fire (agni). You go on, undeterred, "From the oscillations of the 'face' of Stri, that come out of the 'womb' of Stri, Agni manifest. But once Agni comes out, that Agni has 'loma' or 'hair'. Agni, brings in differentiation across regions of space and makes the heterogeneous. The Agni, or the energy that comes out of the Womb of Stri, wets the space, produces/creates the 'sperm of'' Soma.


Comment: Utter rubbish. Slokam 1.4.6 says nothing of the sort. It says Prajaapathi (the originator) from his mouth (the place of origin) with his hands by stirring (mathanam) produced agni. What a startling difference!

My response

I explained this in OP #3. Show me the word prajapati in sloka 1.4. Also as i explained Sloka 1.4.5 is talking about stri and 1.4.6 is continuing it. There is no reason to introduce prajapati into it suddenly.

Again read Post #3 and #4. If you find some objections in translations, please highlight. That would be a great help.

*****

I don't expect people to agree to my understanding. Thanks for giving your valuable mind-space to read though this. Any faults in translations, please do highlight, if you can.

-TBT
 
Dear "thebigthinkg"

Your rebuttal: No, I never said anywhere sloka 1.4.1 says 'aham Brahma asmi'. Not sure what you are reffering to.

My answer: Please do not prevaricate. Your actual words on written record were:

"This was the message of Upanishad upto sloka 1.4.8........ This is seen in the sloka with mahA vAkya 'Aham Brahma asmi'."

You can run,. but you cannot hide the fact that you were actually referring to "up tp sloka 148."

Now you bare-facedly deny that slokam 1.4.1. is not included in your quoted reference. In your confessed state of utter mental confusion, were you trying to attach the head of the horse (ashvam) to the tail of the ass (garddabhee)?

Your rebuttal: Understanding stri as background quantum oscillations is my personal understanding (call it invention) .

My answer: Exactly. Your unauthorised interpolation of your uncalled-for "inventions" into our sacred texts only pollutes those texts shamefully and exemplifies your faulty approach to our revered scriptures.

Your rebuttal: Show me the word prajapati in sloka 1.4. There is no reason to introduce prajapati into it suddenly.

My answer: Any sane and sober scholar reading the text will realise that the creator of "manushyaa" (another name for "prajaa" i.e. subjects/citizens) occurring at the end of slokam 1.4.3, will be aware fthat the reference is to prajapathi and to no one else. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Your rebuttal: If you find some objections in translations, please highlight. That would be a great help.
I don't expect people to agree to my understanding.

My answer: Yes, practically all your purported "translations" are tainted by your uncalled-for "inventions". Normal people will not agree to your intentional and accidental mis-translations as being genuine and reliable. Your imperfect "understanding" should not p;revail over the undeniable truth.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
 

thebigthinkg

Active member
Sir

Your thoughts

My answer: Please do not prevaricate. Your actual words on written record were:

"This was the message of Upanishad upto sloka 1.4.8........ This is seen in the sloka with mahA vAkya 'Aham Brahma asmi'."

You can run,. but you cannot hide the fact that you were actually referring to "up tp sloka 148."

Now you bare-facedly deny that slokam 1.4.1. is not included in your quoted reference. In your confessed state of utter mental confusion, were you trying to attach the head of the horse (ashvam) to the tail of the ass (garddabhee)?

My response:

I wrote this " But that love, priyam that binds beings, if excessive, may not allow beings to evolve further or have their own self. This is seen in the sloka with mahA vAkya aham Brahma asmi"

You delete what I write into "........'. If that's a debating style, well, that obfuscation does not add value.

Your thoughts

Any sane and sober scholar reading the text will realise that the creator of "manushyaa" (another name for "prajaa" i.e. subjects/citizens) occurring at the end of slokam 1.4.3, will be aware fthat the reference is to prajapathi and to no one else. Quod erat demonstrandum.

My response

What you are doing is interpretation. Sloka 1.4.5 talks about stri. So the 'mantha' in sloka 1.4.6 should be referring to stri. If someone wanted to write prajapati did to and fro oscillation in mouth with his finger, they would have written so directly. That's not what is written.

Your idea is the creation happened through that 'manthat' (oscillations or to and fro movements). Since I know prajapati is creator, prajapati did the manthat. My idea is creattion happened through manthat (oscillations). Since I know all matter creation happened from fluctuation on background quantum field, Stri, which is referred in the immediate preceding line is the background quantum oscillation.

Your thoughts

Yes, practically all your purported "translations" are tainted by your uncalled-for "inventions". Normal people will not agree to your intentional and accidental mis-translations as being genuine and reliable. Your imperfect "understanding" should not p;revail over the undeniable truth.

My response

Easwaro Rakshathu

-TBT
 
Dear "thebigthinkg"

A very narrow-minded reading of scriptural texts and merely transliterating them instead of actually translating them in the spirit and context of other scriptures only confuses the mind as it has done in your case, and departs from the sanctity and deep meaning in those texts.

You remind me of the tale told by a lawyer who was formerly a court interpreter. Following an objection from counsel, the judge ordered the interpreter to give literal translations and not his own versions of the witness' evidence. The case was about a street fight where someone was injured.

Counsel asked witness: Then what happened?

Interpreter (rendering literal translation): Then the fighting was walking away.

Judge and counsel to interpreter: That makes no sense.

Interpreter: Your Honour, I was ordered to translate literally, and I did. That is the literal translation of the witness' evidence. "Then the fighting was walking away."

Note: The witness had said, "appuram adi-thadi nadanthathu." (The Tamil-Brahmins in this forum will have no difficulty in following the tale.)

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
 

sravna

Well-known member
Dear Shri Narayanaswamy Iyer,

You can get such amusements in plenty when try to translate something using the machine translation systems such as those of google, IBM etc. I think these people should change their marketing strategies and market such systems in the entertainment market.
 
Dear Sri sravna (Srinivasan Vaidyanathan)

Sure.

It becomes even more hilarious when one grand guru tries to resemble a blinkered quadruped and sees only the narrow path ahead but intentionally ignores totally the surrundings, the environment, the very atmosphere.
S Narayanaswamy Iyer
 

thebigthinkg

Active member
Dear "thebigthinkg"

A very narrow-minded reading of scriptural texts and merely transliterating them instead of actually translating them in the spirit and context of other scriptures only confuses the mind as it has done in your case, and departs from the sanctity and deep meaning in those texts.

You remind me of the tale told by a lawyer who was formerly a court interpreter. Following an objection from counsel, the judge ordered the interpreter to give literal translations and not his own versions of the witness' evidence. The case was about a street fight where someone was injured.

Counsel asked witness: Then what happened?

Interpreter (rendering literal translation): Then the fighting was walking away.

Judge and counsel to interpreter: That makes no sense.

Interpreter: Your Honour, I was ordered to translate literally, and I did. That is the literal translation of the witness' evidence. "Then the fighting was walking away."

Note: The witness had said, "appuram adi-thadi nadanthathu." (The Tamil-Brahmins in this forum will have no difficulty in following the tale.)

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
Agree. That's from your perspective.

My translations are consistent across scriptures as of now. That tells something to me.

Philosophy, in my view, in particular in what I understand from Upanishads, started as learning from nature/science and applying it to social living, so that we can benefit from those learning.

But from that people started building castles of their own, with their own understanding and we have ended up somewhere. We stopped learning from nature, we stopped studying nature as we ended up building on top of the philosophies. We have come far away from nature. We started seeing the philosophies as the foundation.

We have to be like our Rishis and Munis. Which Rishi or Muni indulged in philosophies..? In my view they were observing nature, learning from it and breaking the symmetries of society to evolve it further.

Anyway, thanks for the interaction and time.

-TBT
 
"Breaking the symmetries of society to evolve it further."

Breaking symmetries merely makes society lopsided, ungainly, unstable, collapsible.

Evolution does not mean importing and introducing by force incompatible indigestible substances into a harmonious society.

Accusing all our ancient rishis of this anti-social behaviour is recklessness.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer
 
Top