S
Sastri
Guest
This should have dawned upon men a long time ago.
Did God insist upon any Religion as a means to know Him?
-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
"Complicatedism"
- Thread starter renuka
- Start date
- Status
This should have dawned upon men a long time ago.
Did God insist upon any Religion as a means to know Him?
sangom
0
Continued from #249...
Nobody "knows" rationally and logically, whether God exists and whether the God is the 'creator'; religion forces the people to believe in some creator god or the other and since people are brain-washed right from their birth, they are unable to accept or even examine this belief because their ego will not allow them to admit that they had been fooled grandly. This is the usual position and there is no point in finding fault with it. Perhaps this is also part of the mAyA of advaita!
I don't know whom you refer to by the word "divinities". If you are referring to the deities, then I feel most deities are results of human imagination, pure and simple. After the advent of advaita and the concept of Parabrahman as the only reality, it became a sort of fashion for the non-vaishnavas, to attribute to each and every such deity or divinity, the attributes of that Parabrahman. This became a two-way project; every deity including some who were held to be evil in the past, got promoted to the "Parabrahman" rank while, people thought that their advaitic credentials have been adequately displayed by positioning every deity as representing the Parabrahman!! That has given us our present day "advaita-with-pan-entheism" nature of hinduism. I am not qualified to discuss about the divinities of other religions but AFAIK, Islam has only one God and no other divinity or deities. It is thus more advaitic than Shankara's.
Firstly, no deva has ever come and asked or sought that he/she be compensated with gifts, sacrifices, etc. It is necessary to completely discard this notion. Humans have made the religion and human minds have said ever so many untenable things about their own imagined gods or deities. To believe these as if those devas themselves have asked for gifts etc., is one facet of the religious brain washing which happens all the time. I am therefore not commenting on the further speculations made by you.
I hold the firm view that Krishna (Rama and various other deities/avataras) are all fictional characters. Worshipping such divinities, asking these for favours - material or spiritual - are all foolish actions which add to our Karmas. As regards "treading the path", it is one's freewill; one has as much freedom to tread the path shown by Krishna or Rama or Don Quixote, but when one does so he/she should also be prepared to experience the results of such action (of treading the path). I personally will like to emulate persons whom I have seen or about persons who have actually lived during or about my lifetime in so far as their positive aspects are concerned rather than tead the path of such fictional characters.
Frashokereti is also one such fictional or imaginary paradise which may not be actually there.
God Bless has no special meaning according to me; it is as good and current as 'many many happy returns of the day' and such like things. If we are well-wishers of someone why can't we be straight forward about it and wish "I bless (wish) you with all good things in life" or some such thing? Why should there be a phony humility of bringing in God here just to show that you are a very devout person and all that? Even
the trditional brAhmin blessing is दीर्घायुष्मान् भव or दीर्घसुमन्गली भव (dīrghāyuṣmān bhava dīrghasumangalī bhava); it does not bring in God unnecessarily into it.
Brahman cannot be thought of directly since, according to the original advaita (as different from whatever is practised today) since Brahman has no attributes; it cannot be experienced or realized (as commonly understood) for the very same reason. Brahman can only be understood by constant and deep self-contemplation (nididhyAsana). Hence there is no point in "thinking" about Brahman in the manner one will "think" of one's children, parents, wife/husband etc. If somebody "thinks" so about Bahman, it is foolish, not illusory
The hindi "Bhram" means to be perplexed, deluded, embarassed and so on; it is different from "brahman" one who goes on expanding infinitely from the root verb brahm. Brahman does not cause life in the original advaita; it is everything - life, jagat and all else. Viewed from the standpoint of this world as real, brahman is illusory. The illusion of Jagat depends on mAyA which is not brahman. But in reality this Jagat does not depend on anything except you, the perceiver.
Nobody "knows" rationally and logically, whether God exists and whether the God is the 'creator'; religion forces the people to believe in some creator god or the other and since people are brain-washed right from their birth, they are unable to accept or even examine this belief because their ego will not allow them to admit that they had been fooled grandly. This is the usual position and there is no point in finding fault with it. Perhaps this is also part of the mAyA of advaita!
I don't know whom you refer to by the word "divinities". If you are referring to the deities, then I feel most deities are results of human imagination, pure and simple. After the advent of advaita and the concept of Parabrahman as the only reality, it became a sort of fashion for the non-vaishnavas, to attribute to each and every such deity or divinity, the attributes of that Parabrahman. This became a two-way project; every deity including some who were held to be evil in the past, got promoted to the "Parabrahman" rank while, people thought that their advaitic credentials have been adequately displayed by positioning every deity as representing the Parabrahman!! That has given us our present day "advaita-with-pan-entheism" nature of hinduism. I am not qualified to discuss about the divinities of other religions but AFAIK, Islam has only one God and no other divinity or deities. It is thus more advaitic than Shankara's.
Firstly, no deva has ever come and asked or sought that he/she be compensated with gifts, sacrifices, etc. It is necessary to completely discard this notion. Humans have made the religion and human minds have said ever so many untenable things about their own imagined gods or deities. To believe these as if those devas themselves have asked for gifts etc., is one facet of the religious brain washing which happens all the time. I am therefore not commenting on the further speculations made by you.
I hold the firm view that Krishna (Rama and various other deities/avataras) are all fictional characters. Worshipping such divinities, asking these for favours - material or spiritual - are all foolish actions which add to our Karmas. As regards "treading the path", it is one's freewill; one has as much freedom to tread the path shown by Krishna or Rama or Don Quixote, but when one does so he/she should also be prepared to experience the results of such action (of treading the path). I personally will like to emulate persons whom I have seen or about persons who have actually lived during or about my lifetime in so far as their positive aspects are concerned rather than tead the path of such fictional characters.
Frashokereti is also one such fictional or imaginary paradise which may not be actually there.
God Bless has no special meaning according to me; it is as good and current as 'many many happy returns of the day' and such like things. If we are well-wishers of someone why can't we be straight forward about it and wish "I bless (wish) you with all good things in life" or some such thing? Why should there be a phony humility of bringing in God here just to show that you are a very devout person and all that? Even
the trditional brAhmin blessing is दीर्घायुष्मान् भव or दीर्घसुमन्गली भव (dīrghāyuṣmān bhava dīrghasumangalī bhava); it does not bring in God unnecessarily into it.
Brahman cannot be thought of directly since, according to the original advaita (as different from whatever is practised today) since Brahman has no attributes; it cannot be experienced or realized (as commonly understood) for the very same reason. Brahman can only be understood by constant and deep self-contemplation (nididhyAsana). Hence there is no point in "thinking" about Brahman in the manner one will "think" of one's children, parents, wife/husband etc. If somebody "thinks" so about Bahman, it is foolish, not illusory
The hindi "Bhram" means to be perplexed, deluded, embarassed and so on; it is different from "brahman" one who goes on expanding infinitely from the root verb brahm. Brahman does not cause life in the original advaita; it is everything - life, jagat and all else. Viewed from the standpoint of this world as real, brahman is illusory. The illusion of Jagat depends on mAyA which is not brahman. But in reality this Jagat does not depend on anything except you, the perceiver.
Advaita's nirguna brahman is not atman. JeevAtmA or Atman as you call it, is different and is stained by ignorance caused by adhyAsa or mAyA, though in its essence the JeevAtmA also has to be the Parabrahman since the latter is axiomatically the only reality according to advaita. The rest of your statement has to follow because there can be no other possibility, like JeevAtmA getting destroyed or the JeevAtmA becoming a second reality by itself and shining brightly in the Brahmaloka, etc.
I am not replying to you, but in general. Jainism & Buddhism & all religions originate from the Vedic Religion, if ones wants to understand the correct history - pl read my earlier post - "Brahmins - Our True Origins".
<edited - praveen>
Last edited by a moderator:
C RAVI
0
IMHO, this statement is False, Sir.
There will be millions of people from all religion who would admit that their belief in God/Spirituality has strengthened and even became the very foundation of their life after personally have experienced what spirituality can do.
Your claim that all the Theists are blindly following God/Spirituality having been Brain Washed right from their birth and without any personal efforts in realizing the truth behind spirituality is totally wrong.
Humans are not machine to operate on programmed modulations. Every human at some point of time evaluate what he/she does and concludes in its validity in their own terms, understanding and experiences.
You call Rama or Allah or Jesus or Budha or Guru Nannak etc..etc, the basic fact is, its all about "Spirituality" as one entity, that human folks across the Globe have identified, accepted, benefited and are continuing to practice. This would ever remain so!!
Ego has nothing to do here!! EGO can not allow oneself to accept God/Spirituality!!
sangom
0
"Rationally and logically" are the crucial words you seem to have omitted. Spirituality is a vague usage. Kindly elaborate. Human folks might have identified Rama or Allah or Jesus or Budha or Guru Nannak etc..etc, but it is wrong to say that all of them agree that these are just one entity; have you any evidence for this? Again, can you say with surety that all humans across the board have benefited from their respective god?
Many gods like those of the Egyptians, the Incas, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the native tribes of USA and so on have disappeared. How are you so sure that the present day gods will ever remain?
I consider this very response as arising out of your ego because your views get contradicted and your religious intolerance which is caused by ego, shows out.
C RAVI
0
God/Spirituality.... I said in all "Spirituality" in ONE!!!
Here is the excerpt from my previous post, addressed to you -
"You call Rama or Allah or Jesus or Budha or Guru Nannak etc..etc, the basic fact is, its all about "Spirituality" as one entity, that human folks across the Globe have identified, accepted, benefited and are continuing to practice. This would ever remain so!!"
This post Brahmins - Our True Origins is just a wagon full of imagination, as also claims of whatever is "vedic religion". Good luck with it. (Btw Nobody asked you to learn. Nobody in their right mind could have ever asked you to do that).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,
The Shramana traditions owe nothing to Vedas. The Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs put up with a lot of politics in colonial period (and earlier too, when these religions were formed). Even now they have to put up something like this. However, we are many years removed from the mainstream politics of those days. Today they have no reason to accept the RSS version or brahmin version of who they are (no matter how hard the hindutva faction tries, they are never going to get control of their religious institutions again). A Buddhist is a Buddhist. A Jain is a Jain. A Sikh is a Sikh. Respect for their religions means respecting their teachers for what they taught; and respecting the people for the teachings they follow. As long as they are not hurting anyone, they are entitled to it.
hello there,
buddhism and jainism were born out of reaction to ritualized brahminism - the vedsas, yagas and such. you might have forgotten the wars conducted in tamil nadu by saivaites against the jains - about vaigai flowing red with the blood of the jain monks.
over years, today there is no animosity between us the hindus and buddhists/jains, because we are facing the assault of islam and christianity over which we feel powerless. so we need allies, and these india originated religions, along with sikhism, are our natural allies. but try telling a sikh that he too is a hindu, and watch out that his kirpan is not drawn
you go to jain shops and you find hindu gods. and pullayars. and goddesses. these jains worship money above all things, and it is good business, omen and ambiance, to adorn a wall with colourful portraits of images of hema malini or padmini, dolled up as lakshmi or saraswathi.
but, you try to go to the newly converted dalit buddhist, and tell him, that he too is a hindu, and you will start a riot. you should read ambedkar on why he turned a buddhist - definitely not to identify as a hindu, but to get away as far away as possible from it, but still maintain an indian idenitity which he felt, that he will lose, if he adopted the followers of abraham. ok?
from now on, please quote whatever you say in grand statements. and you have two likes, but i think, these people too, like wishful thinking. dont you think it is good to look at reality as it is, for then there is a chance to redeem. with living in a castle built on air, one is definitely guaranteed to be blown away. no?
Yes Sir, I agree. We have to depend on our sense organs to understand, and to pursue knowledge. The knowledge obtained is not illusory, nor would the existence of earth depend on our understanding of it. In whatever form we understand it, it will still exist.
I agree fully with this part sir. All concepts of the hereafter, afterlife, etc in various religions are just conjectures. No one knows what happens after death.
But sir, such a definition of unreal is very limited to humans, on our cognition and how we perceive things. I have nothing against such a description, for it too is one of the paths to understand the world; and where we stand in relation to it and the self. There is room for other paths and beliefs too. Imo, by brushing off the world as unreal based on human cognition will not help explain reality as it is (in terms of existentialism of the universe). If everything is an illusion, we are illusions, the world is an illusion, then why illusion (prakriti or maya) wants to create us and put us here? Why does the one reality or life force (brahman) depend on illusion to create?
Sir, the superstring theory is one of the many theories out there. It may well be true that particles can be understood through vibrations of supersymmetric strings. But fundamental particles have not gone; the quarks, leptons and their antiparticles are very much being studied. The CERN is attempting to understand these very particles. Research into particles is not ending anytime soon. Questions still unanswered are what is dark matter and what happened to antimatter, where did it go after the big bang? CERN even found neutrinos traveling faster than light. A new particle, speculated for now to be the higgs boson, has also been found. Could we say all these particles are an illusion? If so why do they exist?
So true sir, no one knows if a creator exists. Many times i too hold a creator responsible for my condition, then later i think why so.
We humans, are such that, we like to hold a creator responsible for everything. There was a time when i firmly believed in a creator, who was responsible for everything, including poisonous gases produced in nature, and hostile conditions which do not support life (then used to think, whether the creator (if s/he exists) wants to be held responsible or not).
All the same, i also accept the view faith can strengthen our mind, and help cope, and so it would not be ego alone.
Yes sir, i meant deities. Some may be imagination, some may be war heroes, some may be ancestral (ancestor worship), some may be gurus also. As long as there is a good thing to learn, i feel, no problem, even if it be an imaginary god associated with an imaginary story or philosophy. Also sir, ultimately we do not know if (creator) god exists or not.
I agree sir. Humans have created the system (pratha) of offering things to those they think are Gods. Maybe humans like to venerate, its in them. No issues. Just wish there is awareness of resources, so tons of milk is not wasted, and humans and animals are not harmed.
Sir, i do have a manasikaguru who is god to me, and there are times i wish for his blessings for others. Wish i had said this also earlier instead of the karma point alone. Also sir, all my life my expression has been blunt. Yet it is difficult to change.
But sir, can not thinking help in understanding?
Sir, am aware the hindi "brahm" is different from the sanskrit "brahman", i do not know about the root verb brahm. I very well submit to you. I differ only on one point. The jagat, imo, is not dependent on the perceiver. The perceiver is dependent on the jagat for his existence, sense organs, perception, and all forms of information and knowledge about jagat.
I stand corrected sir.
Sir, i feel, whatever philosophy we believe in, and whatever philosophers did in the previous centuries, finally, today physicists understand the jagat a lot more. The immense research into particles may also explain why really do particles change direction and behavior. As such, study of particles may greatly impact our understanding of the human brain also.
Last edited:
But JK did not tell this to a Sikh. Neither did he go to a newly converted dalit buddhist. So why this outrage and a deluge of responses?
If a buddhist is a buddhist, a sikh a sikh and a jain a jain, then perhaps, any attemps to glorify their teachings here should be subjected to censure as it would amout to proselytization. Would it not? It so happens if Renuka had not done this, this argument would not have even risen
palindrome (as per your wish, I am dropping all the other 'fixes' I have used to address you),
Your question is excellent, as this goes directly to the model constructed by Guru Shankara's thesis.
The axiom of Advaitha, as supported by several Vedas and Upanishads is that there is a Brahman, who is Nirguna, who is the most ancient, who is not sublatable and therefore the ultimate reality. This entity, always exists, is beyond time and space. However, for some odd reason (leela?), this entity spins itself and creates the physical world out of itself and is the cause and foundation of this world, including the appearance of time and space at it's inception.
The above can not be proved or disproved (modern physics tend to agree with this postulate on the creation part with the big bang theory), but can only trace it's validity through the statements in the Srutis. If one does not accept these axioms, then Advaitha philosophy is not for them.
But, if one accepts, then, we will go to the next step.
The other reality is the world in which the sentient beings see the world through their senses and experience distinctive perceptions that validates the 'real' existence of 'I' and 'others'. But from the axiom above, we know that there is only one ultimate reality - Brahman, who created this physical world out of himself and by inference the world is that entity. So, this means that the physical world is sublatable to this entity and therefore is empirical, relative and not absolute.
Because to defend the hypothesis according to the rules of Nyaya, Guru Shankara accepts this reality of the existence of this empirical world as 'real'. But 'real' relative to what? It can only be real to our perceptions, but since everything in the physical world is made of the entity, it can not be absolute real.
So there is 'relative real' with respect to the functioning of the empirical world we experience daily, and there is the 'absolute real' with respect to Brahman. So then what explains these differences in reality - why don't we experience the Brahman?
Here is where Maya/Avidya (interchangeable) comes in. While the 'I' thinks that it is the subject and perceives objects as external, the real 'I', which is the stuff of Brahman is the real subject and there can not be any object as everything else is this stuff and therefore, everything is subject only. Once one 'understands' this (through 'knowledge' - not the academic kind), Maya/Avidya disappears with its two qualities: ability to conceal and ability to project.
I would not bore you with the examples of rope and snake, mirage of water or dream state to explain these two qualities of Maya/Avidya, except to say that none of the three examples often cited, by themselves can explain the concept of Maya/Avidya, but together, they come close.
This is why the Maya/Avidya concept is central to Guru Shankara's thesis, because that explains the relationship between the relative real to the absolute real. I personally don't like the word 'illusion' to describe Maya, because while it's meaning is true in terms of the absolute reality, it is wrongly perceived as Guru Shankara saying that it applies to the relative reality or the empirical world's experiences.
To the epistemological questions of when does Maya rise, where it is located and what are it's origins etc., it is stated that Maya arises simultaneously in the creation process as part of the process, like the empirical world it is rooted in Brahman, but yet is not part of the Brahman in the empirical sense, and as we do not know why the creation takes place, we do not know it's origins.
Because the main two Advaitha schools after the Guru believed in different answers to these questions about Maya, and since Guru Ramanuja raised the well known questions about them, it is perceived that there are 'holes' in the model. IMHO, if you read closely, these differences in opinions can be answered, or outright dismissed. Most of these questions arise, because of the misunderstanding that Guru Shankara states that the physical world and the 'jivas' are illusory, and the misconception about the nature of Maya.
I tried my best to explain this. But, a philosophical construct perspective, Advaitha philosophy is accepted as a valid one, not only from the Vedic perspective, but also from the western canons of the construct of a philosophical system. The main difference is, from the Eastern perspective, it is not just a philosophical theory, but also a guide path for exercising one's spirituality.
In addition to reading Professor John Grime's book that I and Sri Sangom Ji have cited, you may want to read : 'Advaita Vedanta - a philosophical reconstruction' by Professor Eliot Deutsch', published by University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, to understand this philosophy from the principles of the western philosophical construct discipline.
Regards,
KRS
Your question is excellent, as this goes directly to the model constructed by Guru Shankara's thesis.
The axiom of Advaitha, as supported by several Vedas and Upanishads is that there is a Brahman, who is Nirguna, who is the most ancient, who is not sublatable and therefore the ultimate reality. This entity, always exists, is beyond time and space. However, for some odd reason (leela?), this entity spins itself and creates the physical world out of itself and is the cause and foundation of this world, including the appearance of time and space at it's inception.
The above can not be proved or disproved (modern physics tend to agree with this postulate on the creation part with the big bang theory), but can only trace it's validity through the statements in the Srutis. If one does not accept these axioms, then Advaitha philosophy is not for them.
But, if one accepts, then, we will go to the next step.
The other reality is the world in which the sentient beings see the world through their senses and experience distinctive perceptions that validates the 'real' existence of 'I' and 'others'. But from the axiom above, we know that there is only one ultimate reality - Brahman, who created this physical world out of himself and by inference the world is that entity. So, this means that the physical world is sublatable to this entity and therefore is empirical, relative and not absolute.
Because to defend the hypothesis according to the rules of Nyaya, Guru Shankara accepts this reality of the existence of this empirical world as 'real'. But 'real' relative to what? It can only be real to our perceptions, but since everything in the physical world is made of the entity, it can not be absolute real.
So there is 'relative real' with respect to the functioning of the empirical world we experience daily, and there is the 'absolute real' with respect to Brahman. So then what explains these differences in reality - why don't we experience the Brahman?
Here is where Maya/Avidya (interchangeable) comes in. While the 'I' thinks that it is the subject and perceives objects as external, the real 'I', which is the stuff of Brahman is the real subject and there can not be any object as everything else is this stuff and therefore, everything is subject only. Once one 'understands' this (through 'knowledge' - not the academic kind), Maya/Avidya disappears with its two qualities: ability to conceal and ability to project.
I would not bore you with the examples of rope and snake, mirage of water or dream state to explain these two qualities of Maya/Avidya, except to say that none of the three examples often cited, by themselves can explain the concept of Maya/Avidya, but together, they come close.
This is why the Maya/Avidya concept is central to Guru Shankara's thesis, because that explains the relationship between the relative real to the absolute real. I personally don't like the word 'illusion' to describe Maya, because while it's meaning is true in terms of the absolute reality, it is wrongly perceived as Guru Shankara saying that it applies to the relative reality or the empirical world's experiences.
To the epistemological questions of when does Maya rise, where it is located and what are it's origins etc., it is stated that Maya arises simultaneously in the creation process as part of the process, like the empirical world it is rooted in Brahman, but yet is not part of the Brahman in the empirical sense, and as we do not know why the creation takes place, we do not know it's origins.
Because the main two Advaitha schools after the Guru believed in different answers to these questions about Maya, and since Guru Ramanuja raised the well known questions about them, it is perceived that there are 'holes' in the model. IMHO, if you read closely, these differences in opinions can be answered, or outright dismissed. Most of these questions arise, because of the misunderstanding that Guru Shankara states that the physical world and the 'jivas' are illusory, and the misconception about the nature of Maya.
I tried my best to explain this. But, a philosophical construct perspective, Advaitha philosophy is accepted as a valid one, not only from the Vedic perspective, but also from the western canons of the construct of a philosophical system. The main difference is, from the Eastern perspective, it is not just a philosophical theory, but also a guide path for exercising one's spirituality.
In addition to reading Professor John Grime's book that I and Sri Sangom Ji have cited, you may want to read : 'Advaita Vedanta - a philosophical reconstruction' by Professor Eliot Deutsch', published by University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, to understand this philosophy from the principles of the western philosophical construct discipline.
Regards,
KRS
Last edited:
Dear Sangom,
It looks like you had given the same example before as a reply to one of my posts. I did not get it fully then.
It appears, from what you say, that the karma balance is like a grand universal stock index that changes constantly based on the activities of each and every jiva of this life. When a new life is born, the karma it inherits is a function of this karmic balance and because this karmic balance is constantly changing and so does the inheritance, it explains the inequities that one sees at birth. Whether one accepts your theory or not, I must say it is logical.
Sir, i will most certainly get the 2 books you recommend. Since i do not have them with me as of now, would be glad if you could clarify some things.
The observer perceives whatever is relative real (or the observable). Advidya can be overcome by (a) understanding that the only (absolute) reality is nirguna (b) understanding what is not real (here it involves an understanding that if someone were to think "I" is real, it is an illusion). So the relative real is phenomenological and perishable, whilst absolute real remains whether we (humans or any life forms) exist or not.
I very well accept the premise above. The only point unresolved would be, being in a state of relative real, how do we know there exists an absolute real? How do we know we are in a state of relative real? Since we are part of the observable (relative real), we may not be able to perceive the absolute real.
It appears to me, the Relative real can be explained through the phenomena of life and death, so we are able to say, our existence is an illusion because the body ceases to exist or perceive the universe on death. However, it may not explain, how we being part of the relative real, know what we 'understand' to be absolute real ?
Does Advaita explain why the entity creates a physical world out of itself?
With the big bang hot and dense plank epoch burst and began expanding. The universe still is expanding, which some say is due to dark matter (which however no one knows what it is yet). The universe also has an age, ie., an estimate value when the big bang took place. If nirguna is beyond time and space, it means it (nirguna) existed before the big bang, and is beyond the means of understanding of plank time. So nirguna is either nothingness, or is an entity at the beginning of everything that created something. If nothingness, with nothing to create, wud rest my case. But if an entity which begins to create, then doubts remain. Since the created is what we see, we must say it (nirguna) creates. We can say, creation started from nothingness. Does advaita say something on the entity which the nothingness creates? If nirguna is nothingness, how and why did it (a) acquire the means to create and (b) start to create ?
Since the Shruti is a vast expanse of literature, with verses which may be interreted in different ways, i do have a request, please could the topic involve the Shruti but is not limited to Shruti.
The premise is very interesting. You have explained it very well also. So Relative real = our sense perceptions. Absolute real = brahman. The observable universe is observable because of our sense perceptions. The absolute real is nothingness (nirguna).
The observer perceives whatever is relative real (or the observable). Advidya can be overcome by (a) understanding that the only (absolute) reality is nirguna (b) understanding what is not real (here it involves an understanding that if someone were to think "I" is real, it is an illusion). So the relative real is phenomenological and perishable, whilst absolute real remains whether we (humans or any life forms) exist or not.
I very well accept the premise above. The only point unresolved would be, being in a state of relative real, how do we know there exists an absolute real? How do we know we are in a state of relative real? Since we are part of the observable (relative real), we may not be able to perceive the absolute real.
It appears to me, the Relative real can be explained through the phenomena of life and death, so we are able to say, our existence is an illusion because the body ceases to exist or perceive the universe on death. However, it may not explain, how we being part of the relative real, know what we 'understand' to be absolute real ?
Am not very comfortable using the words maya and avidya interchangeably. Avaidya is lack of knowledge specifically to me. Once the word maya has been used for illusion, one may give any number of examples to describe what illusions are.
In terms of absolute reality (brahman), it is well true that relative real is an illusion since we can see death is the end of life. But again as said earlier, being in a state of illusion, how do we know that an absolute real exists? Does advaita explain this through the locus of avidya? Something which needs to be "penetrated through" or needs "to be cleared", to understand that an absolute real exists? Not only Guru Shankara's but if anyone else has explained this, would like to understand their premise.
This is the big question, "we do not know why creation takes place"; and "we do not know its origins". Which in effect also could mean, we do not know how maya or prakriti (that which creates) relates to brahman (that which is nirguna or null). We are only able to say maya (creation) is rooted in brahman (nirguna) but yet is not part of brahman. This in effect could mean, (a) brahman is not nirguna, (b) brahman was nirguna (nothingness) at first but acquired the guna (propensity) to create. If (b) then again, the question remains how and why does nirguna acquire the propensity to create.
Thanks very much sir. I very much value your inputs, which creates a format for my senses to try and understand. Am aware it may not be possible to explain 'creation' wholly, either in advaita or anywhere else at all, including science. We are all attempting to gain insights on it. Here thru philosophical means. Sometimes with questions we pose to others, sometimes with questions posed to ourselves, with the hope of understanding things we entirely had not known earlier, or did not understand well enough before. Understanding new perspectives always helps.
Last edited:
your posts are wagon cart full of silly imagination. since you already preached me in your earlier post about showing respect, disservice, blah blah blah, by your own statement, you are not in the right mind !. Buddhism & Jainism & Sikhism originate from Vedic Religion - this is a fact. Truth is always bitter, one needs to get used to it.
Hello there - Jains themselves are claiming they were Brahmins in the past. so there is no need to be more loyal than the Kinghello there,
buddhism and jainism were born out of reaction to ritualized brahminism - the vedsas, yagas and such. you might have forgotten the wars conducted in tamil nadu by saivaites against the jains - about vaigai flowing red with the blood of the jain monks.
over years, today there is no animosity between us the hindus and buddhists/jains, because we are facing the assault of islam and christianity over which we feel powerless. so we need allies, and these india originated religions, along with sikhism, are our natural allies. but try telling a sikh that he too is a hindu, and watch out that his kirpan is not drawn
you go to jain shops and you find hindu gods. and pullayars. and goddesses. these jains worship money above all things, and it is good business, omen and ambiance, to adorn a wall with colourful portraits of images of hema malini or padmini, dolled up as lakshmi or saraswathi.
but, you try to go to the newly converted dalit buddhist, and tell him, that he too is a hindu, and you will start a riot. you should read ambedkar on why he turned a buddhist - definitely not to identify as a hindu, but to get away as far away as possible from it, but still maintain an indian idenitity which he felt, that he will lose, if he adopted the followers of abraham. ok?
from now on, please quote whatever you say in grand statements. and you have two likes, but i think, these people too, like wishful thinking. dont you think it is good to look at reality as it is, for then there is a chance to redeem. with living in a castle built on air, one is definitely guaranteed to be blown away. no?
Cheers,
Last edited:
Since this is a pre dominant Brahmin forum, there will be a lot of Brahminical views here, there is no point in peddling some anti-B theories here. there are millions of forums that peddle such theories. LOL !!
if you really look at it, by your views, you are anti brahmin enough to peddle half baked theories. a learned brahmin, is more modest, and is willing to quote sources. reputable sources.
which jain says he is brahmin? have you read jainism. atleast read the preliminary wikipedia resource.
Jainism
here is an excerpt for your benefit.. 'Around the 8th century CE, Hindu philosophers Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and Adi Shankara tried to restore the orthodox Vedic religion, and Shaivite singers introduced Jains to Shaivism. Under these influences, Jain kings became Shaivite.[17] Sundara, a Pandaya ruler, is known to have persecuted about eight thousand Jain monks who refused to convert along with him. During the 11th century Brahmana Basava, a minister to the Jain king Bijjala, succeeded in converting numerous Jains to the Lingayata, a Shaivite sect hostile to Jains. They destroyed various temples belonging to Jains and adapted them to their use.[17] Vishnuism appeared around the same time as Shaivism; the Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana, also known as Bittideva, became a follower of Vishnu under the influence of Ramanuja. It is said that he ordered the Jains to be thrown in an oil mill and crushed if they did not convert. Events such as these resulted in the growth of Hinduism to the detriment of Jainism. Jains compromised by following Hindu rituals and customs and invoking Hindu deities in Jain literature.[17]
The Muslims who conquered India, like Mahmud Ghazni (1001) and Mohammad Ghori (1175), further oppressed the Jain community.[18] They vandalized idols and destroyed temples or converted them into mosques. They also burned Jain books and killed Jains.'
hopefully, you will read up more, and come up with more erudite posts, which i can, though differ, accept as genuine. nough of this quackery. thank you.
Just because Shaivites & Vaishnavites fought in the past does not make it different religion, similarly just because they fought with Jains doesn't make it different. Please do not peddle such quarter baked theories like this by doing a cut & paste - LOL !!. Such cut & paste posts cannot be called as erudite posts - enough of this quackery !!. By the way, I will introduce to many Jains personally who will tell you they were Brahmins in the past !!.
hello there - here you go. some cut & paste references for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira
According to svetambara tradition, the embryo of Mahavira was transferred from a Brahmin woman Devananda to a Kshatriya woman Trisala. This is described in Acharanga-sutra and Kalpa-sutra. In Vyākhyāprajñapti, Mahavira acknowledges Devananda to be his real mother.[SUP][6][/SUP]
The first convert of Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara of Jainism was Indrabhuti (aka Gautamswami) the Brahmin, who headed a group of other Brahmins and converted them to Jainism. He was from the village Gobbar (also called Govarya) near Rajgriha. It is said that the Tapsas, who were competing with Gautama to reach the top of a hill, achieved moksha by seeing Gautama win.[SUP][58][/SUP]
Acharya Vidyanand is a Brahmin of the Dhigambar Jain sect and compiled in the Sanskrit language, "Ashta Shahastri" with eight thousand verses
Many of the major Buddhist followers and teachers were from Brahmins. They include Sariputra, Maudgalyayana, Mahakashyapa, Nagarjuna, Asvaghosha, Padmasambhava, Shantarakshita, Nagasena, Kumarajiva and Shantideva, all of whom were referred by their titles devoid of their caste as Arahats etc. The word Brahmin, meaning "priest class", was redefined by the Buddha and it continued to be used alongside Arahat in their relevant contexts.[SUP][52][/SUP] Max Muller points out that in the Dhamapada, Buddha etymologizes the word "Bahama", the Prakrit form of "Brahmana", by playing off the Sanskrit/Prakrit etymon -bra.
Descendants of the Brahmins
Lord Buddha was a descendant of Angirasa through Gautama.
Angiras (अंगिरस्, pronounced [əŋɡirəs]; nominative singular Angirā, अंगिरा [əŋɡirɑː]) is a rishi (or sage) who, along with sage Atharvan, is credited to have formulated ("heard") most of the fourth Veda called Atharvaveda. He is also mentioned in the other three Vedas. Sometimes he is reckoned as one of the Seven Great Sages, or saptarishis of the first Manvantara, with others being, Marichi, Atri, Pulaha, Kratu, Pulastya, and Vashishtha [SUP][1][/SUP] Bharadwaja maharshis was his descendant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira
According to svetambara tradition, the embryo of Mahavira was transferred from a Brahmin woman Devananda to a Kshatriya woman Trisala. This is described in Acharanga-sutra and Kalpa-sutra. In Vyākhyāprajñapti, Mahavira acknowledges Devananda to be his real mother.[SUP][6][/SUP]
The first convert of Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara of Jainism was Indrabhuti (aka Gautamswami) the Brahmin, who headed a group of other Brahmins and converted them to Jainism. He was from the village Gobbar (also called Govarya) near Rajgriha. It is said that the Tapsas, who were competing with Gautama to reach the top of a hill, achieved moksha by seeing Gautama win.[SUP][58][/SUP]
Acharya Vidyanand is a Brahmin of the Dhigambar Jain sect and compiled in the Sanskrit language, "Ashta Shahastri" with eight thousand verses
Many of the major Buddhist followers and teachers were from Brahmins. They include Sariputra, Maudgalyayana, Mahakashyapa, Nagarjuna, Asvaghosha, Padmasambhava, Shantarakshita, Nagasena, Kumarajiva and Shantideva, all of whom were referred by their titles devoid of their caste as Arahats etc. The word Brahmin, meaning "priest class", was redefined by the Buddha and it continued to be used alongside Arahat in their relevant contexts.[SUP][52][/SUP] Max Muller points out that in the Dhamapada, Buddha etymologizes the word "Bahama", the Prakrit form of "Brahmana", by playing off the Sanskrit/Prakrit etymon -bra.
Descendants of the Brahmins
Lord Buddha was a descendant of Angirasa through Gautama.
Angiras (अंगिरस्, pronounced [əŋɡirəs]; nominative singular Angirā, अंगिरा [əŋɡirɑː]) is a rishi (or sage) who, along with sage Atharvan, is credited to have formulated ("heard") most of the fourth Veda called Atharvaveda. He is also mentioned in the other three Vedas. Sometimes he is reckoned as one of the Seven Great Sages, or saptarishis of the first Manvantara, with others being, Marichi, Atri, Pulaha, Kratu, Pulastya, and Vashishtha [SUP][1][/SUP] Bharadwaja maharshis was his descendant.
Last edited:
C RAVI
0
YES!!! Jainism, Buddhism & Sikhism have originated from Vedic Religion. On this very foundation of Vedic Religion, these religions have cropped up.
Vedic Religion/Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma is the oldest living major religion in the World
Dear Sri Jaykay767 Ji,
I wish you temper the style of your expression. None of our members are 'silly'. They spend their valuable time in the Forum to understand and to be understood. Let us have civilized discourse.
It is correct that within Hinduism we have Astika and Nastika branches, with the former accepting the authority of Vedas and the latter not. While this is true from the viewpoint of Hinduism, as palindrome and Sri Kunjuppu Ji rightly point out, Buddhism and Jainism came out of the long standing Shramana tradition of not accepting the authority of the Vedas. Sikhism is a special case, somewhat, as is the Thenkalai Visishtadwaitham tradition, but these involve much more discussion.
But the point is this: these religions do not accept Vedas as the final authority and therefore stand on their own merits and identity. While most of the practitioners were perhaps disgruntled Hindus, not satisfied with the caste orientation (read it as the birth based brahminical domination in terms of the religious dogma and practice), that should not be confused with these religions springing out of the Vedic tradition. In fact, Buddha would have accepted Vedas as the authority for his philosophy, if he had not felt that the original concepts of Vedas were either altered or mis interpreted by the brahmins of his time. He clearly stated so.
So, let us not try to say that these religions sprung out of Hinduism. On the contrary, they sprung out of opposition to the way Hinduism was practiced in those times..
This is what palindrome and Sri Kunjuppu Ji are pointing out. Let us look at it from the factual view point, instead of an emotional one.
If you have argument against this with examples, I am all ears.
Regards,
KRS
I wish you temper the style of your expression. None of our members are 'silly'. They spend their valuable time in the Forum to understand and to be understood. Let us have civilized discourse.
It is correct that within Hinduism we have Astika and Nastika branches, with the former accepting the authority of Vedas and the latter not. While this is true from the viewpoint of Hinduism, as palindrome and Sri Kunjuppu Ji rightly point out, Buddhism and Jainism came out of the long standing Shramana tradition of not accepting the authority of the Vedas. Sikhism is a special case, somewhat, as is the Thenkalai Visishtadwaitham tradition, but these involve much more discussion.
But the point is this: these religions do not accept Vedas as the final authority and therefore stand on their own merits and identity. While most of the practitioners were perhaps disgruntled Hindus, not satisfied with the caste orientation (read it as the birth based brahminical domination in terms of the religious dogma and practice), that should not be confused with these religions springing out of the Vedic tradition. In fact, Buddha would have accepted Vedas as the authority for his philosophy, if he had not felt that the original concepts of Vedas were either altered or mis interpreted by the brahmins of his time. He clearly stated so.
So, let us not try to say that these religions sprung out of Hinduism. On the contrary, they sprung out of opposition to the way Hinduism was practiced in those times..
This is what palindrome and Sri Kunjuppu Ji are pointing out. Let us look at it from the factual view point, instead of an emotional one.
If you have argument against this with examples, I am all ears.
Regards,
KRS
sangom
0
Shri Ravi,
First of all let me repeat that "spirituality" is a very vague term. I do not think the Christians view it as anything other than the properties owned by the Church. In both Islam and Christianity one can be devout, religious etc., but there is no special "spirituality" in Islam except the Five Pillars of that religion. Hence, it is not a fact to use "spirituality" as an umbrella term and try to paint as though all the religions are similar; it is sadly wrong.
If, in case you are of the firm view that all religions have the same "Spirituality" as one entity, that human folks across the Globe have identified, accepted, benefited and are continuing to practice, why should there be so much difficulty for hindu Indians to accept conversion to Xianity and Islam here? Even if Taliban comes tomorrow to India and compels people (at gunpoint) to change over to Islam, you should have no objection, since all the paths lead to the one and only entity, viz., "Spirituality".
sangom
0
Palindrome,
I think the problem lies in the fact that not many here are aware that śramaṇa, ājīvikā, etc., were non-vedic (even anti-vedic) systems of philosophical thought which were very much there in pre-buddhist India. Both Buddhism and Jainism adopted certain aspects of these miscellaneous traditions into their own and thus the word śramaṇa has come to be identified with Buddhism mainly. Your fault lies in "trying to teach veda by reciting into the ears of the quadruped known for its highly musical sound", as the adage goes
.- Status
