Culture-some questions

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Sangom,

Your questions,

1. elevating one's mind through that fulfilment (how? fulfilment of what?)
2. climbing up the ladder of talent (what is ladder of talent?) etc
3. How belief or otherwise in transmigration is related to the previous statement is beyond my ability to grasp.
4. psychiatric disorders, eventually leading to societal disorders, were all there in the India of the past also, they were neatly "taken care of", meaning treated and cured?
5. as long as they didn't show undue keenness or attempts in expanding their territory."
Will you kindly tell where "undue" begins and virtue disappears?

if are to be answered more explicitly needs a thorough debate and I am not surprised you find my statements disjointed and confusing. The ancient sages grasped the universal truths which were intended to be accepted and followed on faith. There is definitely a ratioanale, profound though, underlying all that they said. I am not saying that it is not open to criticism but it is likely that those who uncritically accept it are seeing beyond the surface.
Shri Sangom, I will try to contribute what I could to address your questions.

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear sir,
What is the quality of food given to us Even the cosmetics or any thing for that matter. When ever export is done the food contro parameters are met and when given it to us it is only second grade. But in the case of price we stand first? Why this step motherly attitude towasrds our own people by our own people. It shows the deterioration of culture and trustworthiness. When fearing white people Indians are not considered as worth enough to get good things. Shame on us

krs,

i do not, with due apologies, understand anything of the above. to me these are vague statements without any backed up meat. these are not even skin and bones statements, but more a gathering of dust into a pan.

can you please do us all a favour - each of the above statements is fraught with emotions. can you please unwind, and go through, one by one, giving us concrete examples or extrapolate them to meaningful and understandable paragraphs.

as it stands now, your post could be open to as many interpretations, as there are readers here.

thank you.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

The concept of Soul or Atman is central to all the major schools of Hindu philosophy. There is not a lot that is common among them beyond that. Therefore I think it makes more sense to me to defend and support the school of thought which I think is the most accurate in its description of reality. To my mind the basic tenets of Advaita such as Atman is Brahman and that maya is the cause of the relative reality which is the physical reality sums up the truth beautifully.

Shri Sangom, whenever I talk about Hindu philosophy in my subsequent posts I am referring to Advaita. There is no disrespect or disregard of other schools of thought but only that because of my admiration of the coherence of the tenets of Advaita, I can present my ideas more forcefully

 

[sangom]

Sthapathi would have designed the temple but the actual construction is done by others only - invariably by the so called `Sudras'. I don't know to which `varna' you will classify the `sthapathi'.

Even today Sthapathis are available but they are not classified as Brahmins. They cannot be classifed as `Kshatrias' or `Vysyas' either. I don't know under which `varna' he could be classifed .

Dear RVR,
"Sthapati" was the title of a chieftain in ancient times. There are references to "sthapati Garga", "sthapati nishada", etc., in ancient texts (pAraskAra gr^hyapaddhati, and, Vedic civilization - by R.K. Pruthi, p.114, resp.). Later it came to denote the architect. In Bharata's nATyaSAstra, in the portion dealing with construction of auditoria, it is stated that sthapati was a master builder, knower of all Sastras, and son of viSvakarma. This hints at a possible Aryan origin of sthapati.

mayamatam Ch.5, sl. 14-24 says that a sthapati should be well-versed in the holy scriptures and the puranas. This indicates beyond doubt that the sthapati was supposed to be from the FC. But in the history of hindu caste system there has been a tendency to downgrade all craftsmen and farming castes to the sudra category, perhaps as a result of the very high exclusivity feelings nurtured by the brahmins and those FCs who were powerful enough to maintain their caste status even in the face of such brahminical attempts. (If you ask me for reference I will have to search for the book/s which I don't remember now, but this I have gathered from my reading.)

From the above it will be seen that those who did the job of sthapati once were considered as FC but have now been grouped under sudras with the slight saving grace that during the period of construction of temple, the sthapati should observe austerities, should not go to his house till the work is completed, and is permitted to wear sacred thread for the period. (Similar treatment is given to goldsmiths - sudras in normal times - when they are required to make temple ornaments, to carpenters making "ratham", etc.) Hence we may liken it to a purely temporary "caste-promotion"!

We are rebuilding a village temple and the Sthapathi takes full responsibility for the work but he doesn't move himself a stone even by a single inch. He has a set of skilled people who are well versed in temple construction. Normal `mason' doesn't suit the job of temple construction particularly with respect to `vimana', `Gopuram' etc.

sthapati is an architect, or master, as we usually call even an experienced auto-mechanic nowadays. They don't themselves do the job, but only supervise and demonstrate when there is some difficulty, just as head cooks. But that will not mean that the other workers possess the know-how and will be able to take up the next project themselves.

He is guaranteeing the building life of 200 years only. It means, he is compromising the quality of material used unlike our ancestors whose temples are withstanding thousands of years.

About twenty years back a `Gopuram' was constructed at Srirengam Temple.

The Hindu : Cities / Chennai : Plying of vehicles through Srirangam Rajagopuram banned

It only shows that we have lost the skills of our technicians over the years.

Since the number of new stone temples built has gone down considerably, these people are out of touch; perhaps the ingredients and know-how are still there but people are not able to /prepared to do hard work. A similar situation prevails in regard to "ashTabandha" mixture used for fixing the idols in place in Kerala temples. In the olden days this mixture used to hold the idol intact for god knows how long but now, it does not last for more than a few (5 or 6) years!

I don't want to blame the moghuls since they have no role in this part of the country. More over Moghuls have built Taj Mahal and other monuments which are withstanding for hundreds of years.

But we cannot give a clean chit to the British. They only taught us using Steel, Cement etc in construction. Life of a concrete building is definitely very much less as compared to the technologies used by our ancestors. It has also destroyed the skills of our people which was acquired through generations.

You seem to have an unreasonable grudge against the British. If they taught us to use steel, cement construction, why should we take to it in such a large way? Could not the orthodoxy have stuck to the old architecture, style of construction, etc., instead of imitating those who were following the "mleccha" and his technology? Why did not they have the same attitude towards, railways, telegraph, optical telescope, spectacles, allopathic medicines, buses and cars, and every other thing introduced into India by the British? Were the brahmins against any of these?

Most of the materials used by our ancestors were environmental friendly as they are all very much natural mateirals. But I very much doubt the modern materials used in the construction of buildings as they have artificial chemicals.

If you are referring to stone temples, I am under the impression that they are built in such a way that the additional materials are used only to fill the visible joints, crevices and all that, and the strength of the structure does not depend on the quality of the fillers. Granite should be of the very same old quality, I think.

I earnestly feel that our skills in both material and construction technologies have been destroyed during British rule.

All the best

This is, once again, an unsubstantiated charge, arising out of your "earnest feeling". Hence any argument on this is not possible.

 

[Nara]

... only that because of my admiration of the coherence of the tenets of Advaita, I can present my ideas more forcefully

Dear Shri sravna, Greetings!

I also have no disrespect or disregard for any philosophical school of thought that does not advocate violence or shows contempt towards any group of people.

Advaitam says only Nirguna Brahman is ultimately real. Then, without resorting to analogies like rope and snake, etc., can you say why anyone should take the words of Lord Sri Krishna seriously, as Krishna couldn't possibly be serious when he was teaching Arjuna as he should surely know, he being god himself, that the Arjuna standing in front of him is nothing but an illusion in the ultimate? Why does Krishna even bother about all these unreal stuff?

Given the Vedas can only be understood through perception, and according to Advaitam, perception is fatally flawed, why are we not hopelessly caught in a vicious circle of inability to verify the validity of what we perceive the Vedas are saying?

Cheers!

 

[kr subramanian]

krs,

i do not, with due apologies, understand anything of the above. to me these are vague statements without any backed up meat. these are not even skin and bones statements, but more a gathering of dust into a pan.

can you please do us all a favour - each of the above statements is fraught with emotions. can you please unwind, and go through, one by one, giving us concrete examples or extrapolate them to meaningful and understandable paragraphs.

as it stands now, your post could be open to as many interpretations, as there are readers here.

thank you.

Dear Kunjappu,
Thank u for your valued comments. From the threads and replies read I understand you are one of the learned person in this forum. You have the ability to understand the point and explain in detail what you want to tell.
Here, as a layman with limited knowledge and experience , I only wanted to bring out the point that from vegetables to computer whatever we get here (in INdia) does not match in quality with the same item outside India. Example -Bathing soap in the same name received here and in developed country(same company) differes in quality and price.
Hope as a learned person you could have understood and found bones and skin in the statement. If still you find it as
statements without any backed up meat please be frank so that I can refrain from further posting in this thread. thanking you once again for your valued comments

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri sravna, Greetings!

I also have no disrespect or disregard for any philosophical school of thought that does not advocate violence or shows contempt towards any group of people.

Advaitam says only Nirguna Brahman is ultimately real. Then, without resorting to analogies like rope and snake, etc., can you say why anyone should take the words of Lord Sri Krishna seriously, as Krishna couldn't possibly be serious when he was teaching Arjuna as he should surely know, he being god himself, that the Arjuna standing in front of him is nothing but an illusion in the ultimate? Why does Krishna even bother about all these unreal stuff?

Given the Vedas can only be understood through perception, and according to Advaitam, perception is fatally flawed, why are we not hopelessly caught in a vicious circle of inability to verify the validity of what we perceive the Vedas are saying?

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Lord Krishna needs to be taken very seriously because he points out to Arjuna and to the world in general that whatever you see as a reality such as sufferings, destruction, death etc, are in fact not to be taken seriously. You need to see beyond that, as the nature of reality is a timeless one which is not bound by anything. So something that comes to an end is only unreal in the ultimate sense. If people cannot grasp this truth by themselves they should seek the help of those who are enlightened and try to make the initial progress.

Thus it is not Lord Krishna that needs to be taken lightly but only the physical world that is in front of us.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

The concept of Soul or Atman is central to all the major schools of Hindu philosophy. There is not a lot that is common among them beyond that. Therefore I think it makes more sense to me to defend and support the school of thought which I think is the most accurate in its description of reality. To my mind the basic tenets of Advaita such as Atman is Brahman and that maya is the cause of the relative reality which is the physical reality sums up the truth beautifully.

Shri Sangom, whenever I talk about Hindu philosophy in my subsequent posts I am referring to Advaita. There is no disrespect or disregard of other schools of thought but only that because of my admiration of the coherence of the tenets of Advaita, I can present my ideas more forcefully

Dear Shri sravna,

While I have no objection to your having the opinion that Advaita is the school of thought which is the most accurate, etc., I wish to point out that advaita (of Sankara) suffers from a very fundamental deficiency regarding what Sankara referred to as "adhyaasa" and later advaitins made popular as "maayaa". It was exactly this weakness which Ramanuja successfully attacked, convinced sufficient number of scholars and was able to establish his visishtaadvaita philosophy. Since from your post you appear to have in-depth knowledge of the three main schools, viz., advaita, visishtadvaita and dvaita, I would like to know from you (for my personal benefit) as to how you would explain (away) the "maayaa problem" in advaita. Hence in our future discussions the inadequacies of advaita may also figure from my side. If you prefer not to get into such areas, we may stop here itself.

Just to be clear, I refer to the following (in my own simple language and as I have understood it) as the crux of the adhyaasa, or maayaa problem:

According to Sankara (advaita) brahman is nirguna and is the only reality. Being nirguna by definition, it has no characteristics (or is beyond all gunas). The world, including Isvara and jeeva, is an illusory phenomenon, appearing to us as real due to the effect of maayaa, or avidyaa (adhyaasa). The world is superimposed on the brahman due to the effect of maayaa and it cannot be real or unreal; it is anirvachneeya. If brahman is the only one, it follows that maayaa is also ultimately traceable to that brahman. This maayaa now acts on the individuals to create the illusion of the external world and all the related things. Where does this maayaa originate? Where is it located? If maayaa, a negative power, can create the illusory world, despite the brahman being nirguna, is it a different source of power and action? If so, how can we say that brahman is everything? If maayaa is also part of brahman (sarvam brahmamayam), since it seems to act independently of brahman to create illusion, does it not mean that the brahman has this negative quality ingrained in it or, if that is refuted, that maayaa is independent of brahman? We again come back to whether brahman can then be considered as the one and only reality.

Sankara's arguments for "jeevanmukti" also do not appear (to me) as consistent with his basic advaita tenet that this life itself (jeeva, that is) is illusory. If this life itself is not real why bother whether liberation comes during this (seeming) life, or after its (again seeming) end?

As far as my limited knowledge goes, Sankara got away without having to answer any such searching questions, either because of his charisma and oratorial skill, or because people did not understand his philosophy sufficiently deeply during his life time, but his immediate sishyas themselves gave differing interpretations of maayaa; and, ever since Ramanuja's time, the advaitins and visishtadavitins have been arguing out this question, refuting each other, without any final decision so far. Thousands of books and palm-leaf granthas have come out on this particular issue in the meantime from each side.

 

[RVR]

Dear RVR,
"Sthapati" was the title of a chieftain in ancient times. There are references to "sthapati Garga", "sthapati nishada", etc., in ancient texts (pAraskAra gr^hyapaddhati, and, Vedic civilization - by R.K. Pruthi, p.114, resp.). Later it came to denote the architect. In Bharata's nATyaSAstra, in the portion dealing with construction of auditoria, it is stated that sthapati was a master builder, knower of all Sastras, and son of viSvakarma. This hints at a possible Aryan origin of sthapati.

mayamatam Ch.5, sl. 14-24 says that a sthapati should be well-versed in the holy scriptures and the puranas. This indicates beyond doubt that the sthapati was supposed to be from the FC. But in the history of hindu caste system there has been a tendency to downgrade all craftsmen and farming castes to the sudra category, perhaps as a result of the very high exclusivity feelings nurtured by the brahmins and those FCs who were powerful enough to maintain their caste status even in the face of such brahminical attempts. (If you ask me for reference I will have to search for the book/s which I don't remember now, but this I have gathered from my reading.)

From the above it will be seen that those who did the job of sthapati once were considered as FC but have now been grouped under sudras with the slight saving grace that during the period of construction of temple, the sthapati should observe austerities, should not go to his house till the work is completed, and is permitted to wear sacred thread for the period. (Similar treatment is given to goldsmiths - sudras in normal times - when they are required to make temple ornaments, to carpenters making "ratham", etc.) Hence we may liken it to a purely temporary "caste-promotion"!

sthapati is an architect, or master, as we usually call even an experienced auto-mechanic nowadays. They don't themselves do the job, but only supervise and demonstrate when there is some difficulty, just as head cooks. But that will not mean that the other workers possess the know-how and will be able to take up the next project themselves.

Since the number of new stone temples built has gone down considerably, these people are out of touch; perhaps the ingredients and know-how are still there but people are not able to /prepared to do hard work. A similar situation prevails in regard to "ashTabandha" mixture used for fixing the idols in place in Kerala temples. In the olden days this mixture used to hold the idol intact for god knows how long but now, it does not last for more than a few (5 or 6) years!

You seem to have an unreasonable grudge against the British. If they taught us to use steel, cement construction, why should we take to it in such a large way? Could not the orthodoxy have stuck to the old architecture, style of construction, etc., instead of imitating those who were following the "mleccha" and his technology? Why did not they have the same attitude towards, railways, telegraph, optical telescope, spectacles, allopathic medicines, buses and cars, and every other thing introduced into India by the British? Were the brahmins against any of these?

If you are referring to stone temples, I am under the impression that they are built in such a way that the additional materials are used only to fill the visible joints, crevices and all that, and the strength of the structure does not depend on the quality of the fillers. Granite should be of the very same old quality, I think.


This is, once again, an unsubstantiated charge, arising out of your "earnest feeling". Hence any argument on this is not possible.

Sri Sangom Sir,

I think doing research on whether a `sthapathi' is a `sudra' or not is irrelevant. Personally I am into manufacturing business and as per varnashrama dharma, I have to be classified as a `sudra'. I am proud to be called `sudra' since I am making my bread and butter on an activity meant for `sudra' only. But Government will not accept to classify me as `sudra' and they will prefer to call me as an industrialist to extract more tax revenues.

But my point is both `sudras' of the past and present are always respected with dignity. They only produce goods and services for the entire community.

The other point is regarding British, I have my own views which you may not agree. The entire western world including Britain reaped the inventions made on Internal Combustion engines(popularly known as IC engines) in the late 19th century. The automobile revolution started only after that. In synchronous with the same, petroleum products and its derivatives were also developed. `Nylon' is a combination of the words `New York and London'.

Almost all the western countries reaped rich harvest through the automobile and plastics. They also killed the existing conventional industries in the less developed countries. They also spoiled the `environment' to the maximum extent in the process. Please go through the per capita emission levels county wise

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All the developed countries have already done enough damage to the environment and are continuously doing even now. The worst affected are not only poor and downtrodden communities but also all the living creatures including plants, trees etc.

India should not follow the western model of development and should produce `Green Energy'. India should adopt energy conservation technologies also right from the beginning so that we have to ensure that we are not `spoiling mother earth'. We worship mother earth as God. If I am correct Goddess Mahalaxmi is worshiped as Bhooma Devi. Lord Mahavishnu took `Varaha Avatar' and is known as `Boovaraghswamy' in Srimushnam. We worship Pancha Boothas.

Right from now onwards we should start tapping `Solar Energy', `Wind Energy', `Micro Hydel Energy' etc so that we should not affect environment during our development phase. We should electrify all our railway tracks and avoid using petroleum products for transportation. We should use mass rapid transit systems using electricity in the Cities and towns. We should build our own battery operated cars. We should avoid using plastic to the best possible extent and promote bio degradable products.

The present technologies which we are using are of British origin. On the one side it has killed the technical capabilities of our craftsmen and on the other side are doing damage to our environment.

Enough evidence is available that producers of natural cotton fibre `Dacca Muslin' clothes were driven out of their lively hood by synthetic yarn imported from Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamdani

Personally I am also producing components for polluting automobiles now and we are changing the entire set up to green energy related products.

When we develop, we have to revive our old glory which always respected our natural resources and also environmental friendly. Our research institutions should focus on developing technologies which are not affecting the environment.

By doing the above, we may be doing great service to our future generations also.

All the best

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Maya is something that brings into existence a lower reality. It is neither real nor unreal. Only for the one who is caught in spacetime the effect of maya operates. Therefore it may seem real. But once you transcend the physical-mental realm, the effect of maya disappears, and therefore it is unreal. In simple terms, it is a flaw of the mind that perceives effects as different from the cause. This flaw causes the perception of a differentiated world and starts when a soul begins to embark its journey in the physical world, learning all along till it finally attains moksha. This flaw could be attributed to Brahman as it is the only reality but,

If we delve deeper into this, we may ask the question why do we need a lower reality? For that we need to look into the objective of a soul in the lower reality. Its objective is to gain the knowledge that Brahman is the only reality and therefore logically merge into Brahman once it gains that knowledge. Now the next question is why should it gain that knowledge? What does it do to gain that knowledge? It does that by making its mind equanimous, not affected by pain, not tempted by pleasure, having no attachments or hatred etc. When we ask what is the point in doing that?, we come to the crux of the matter. When something is totally balanced and unaffected by anything it in effect becomes eternal. This eternity of the mind or the timeless nature makes it attain moksha.

So the whole idea of relative reality shows the type of stuff brahman is made of and why it is totally balanced and unaffected and is a timeless entity. So the lower reality is only the glimpse into the knowledge why brahman is eternal with all the experiences and lessons of the souls while already engrained in the fabric of the brahman being played out as the physical reality.

It is because of the way it is set up like this the souls experience the lower reality or the physical-mental reality.

 

[sangom]

Sri Sangom Sir,

I think doing research on whether a `sthapath' is a `sudra' or not is irrelevant.

Dear RVR,

In your previous post you had stated as under:-
"...Even today Sthapathis are available but they are not classified as Brahmins. They cannot be classifed as `Kshatrias' or `Vysyas' either. I don't know under which `varna' he could be classifed ."

I took it that you were interested in knowing the exact caste status of sthapati. Having made such an ambiguous statement, it is not polite to rebuff with a statement such as the one quoted above, when someone replies in right earnest. You could have done so properly, if I had brought up this as an irrelevant new topic from my side.

Now I am at a loss to decide whether there is any point in my replying to the rest of your post at all, because, I am not clear whether it is your desire to "have the last word" or you would like to discuss and find out whether we agree or not.

Only a few points I would make:

Sudras, and that includes the "sthapati" were not treated highly in the historical period (I am not referring to the Vedic, or the period of the brahmana texts). Work was extracted from them and, because of the "suddham & asuddham" feelings, the sthapati and other stone masons doing the work were required to observe some austerities and stay in the separate tents built near the site, till the temple work was over. The very fact that the sthapati himself was not allowed to enter the sanctum once the divine energy was made (supposed to) enter the idol, is standing proof of the type of treatment meted out to the sudras. Today, the sudras like you (according to your own admission, that is, I am not saying this, please note carefully) are definitely treated with dignity but not the workers under you; they have better bargaining powers now than 100 years ago and because of that they may be getting some better wages than otherwise they might have been paid. In this context we had a very recent post by Shri Janam (I think) regarding the factory workers of Madurai and elsewhere; you may like to see those also.

There is a kid's joke in which a boy comes crying to his mother with bruises all over his body. Mother asks him what happened and he replies, "It all started when xyz hit me back!". Your accusations of British and the west reminds me of this joke. Once again, I say, why could not we refuse to use any of the invented products you refer to. (This was one of the points I made in my previous post but you seem to harp on the same old theme; as if the britishers compelled us to have cars, travel in bus and not in bullock carts or boats, etc.) My information is that even in the 1920's many people in Kerala, Tirunelveli, Madurai etc., used to travel mostly by bullock carts or boats (in Kerala). The popularity of automobiles is mostly during the last 50 years and phenemanal during Manmohan Singh's regime. I don't think we can blame the British for that. I am afraid you may again retort saying we need not do iyem-by-item analysis but just accept what you say as correct. Even at the risk of encountering such a reply, I venture to say that Nylon was "invented" only in 1935 and was introduced in India on a large scale by ICI during the late fifties or early sixties, after commercial production of nylon fibre started in India,I think. It was pretty expensive even for the lower middle class then and almost beyond the reach of the poor. The govt. then was very much that of Nehru and not of the British! Why did the government not ban nylon then? Plastic, i.e., bakelite probably had an earlier beginning in India, but, from my personal knowledge, widespread domestic use of plastics is also essentially a post-independence phenomenon.

While the sovereign Indian Government could have stopped all these "bad" thing, even if some of these things had been brought in by the devilish British, they did not, and now you feel contented to blame the British rather than our govt. !! This what is shifting of responsibility is and that is how the kid's story comes to my mind.

Finally, you say you are manufacturing a product which contributes to pollution. Why could not you have desisted the impulse to do just that, or at least withdrawn yourselves from that? You could have started a unit for another, non-polluting item. I am sorry to say I see a deep chasm between your preaching and action.

I appreciate your prescription for the future but am not at all hopeful that those pious hopes will be fulfilled unless there is a cataclysm (like the Mayan prediction of the end of the world) wiping out all but a remnant of the present humanity.

 

[RVR]

Finally, you say you are manufacturing a product which contributes to pollution. Why could not you have desisted the impulse to do just that, or at least withdrawn yourselves from that? You could have started a unit for another, non-polluting item. I am sorry to say I see a deep chasm between your preaching and action.

As a matter of policy we have decided to switchover to green products but it is not possible to do that overnight.

We have protect our employees who are solely dependent on us as well our business and the change over has to be smooth without affecting the existing set up.

However we have already started the process of switching over to greener products and we would like to get out of the present production at the earliest.

All the best

 

[RVR]

While the sovereign Indian Government could have stopped all these "bad" thing, even if some of these things had been brought in by the devilish British, they did not, and now you feel contented to blame the British rather than our govt. !! This what is shifting of responsibility is and that is how the kid's story comes to my mind.

It was the British which did caste based census way back in 1931. After India became a republic, caste based census was discarded.

Today our politicians having divisive agenda are again demanding caste based census.

British played divide and rule policy of Hindu vs Muslims as well between different castes in India. They patronized `Justice Party' which was playing caste based politics even before independence. Justice party also reciprocated by supporting the British rule.

The present dravidian parties are descendants of the erstwhile justice party and they are continuing the same caste based divisive politics.

It is difficult overcome divisive politics.

All the best

 

[sangom]

Today 12:52 PM #35

sravna
Dear Shri Sangom,

Maya is something that brings into existence a lower reality. It is neither real nor unreal.

Shri Sravna,
Before we go into the working of maayaa, you have to explain its origin and location, whether it is beginningless and endless, from what it originates etc., as indicated in my post.

Only for the one who is caught in space-time the effect of maya operates. Therefore it may seem real. But once you transcend the physical-mental realm, the effect of maya disappears and therefore it would seem it is unreal. In simple terms, it is a flaw of the mind that perceives effects as different from the cause.

The phrase "caught in space-time" is not clear. Is there anyone or anything not caught in
space-time, except brahman, according to advaita? Is it not because everything, including the seeming, unreal, universe, caught in space-time, that all these things come to an end? Is the end of the maayaa's effect also unreal? How can a "jeeva", which is the soul located within the physical-mental frame, itself unreal according to Sankara's advaita, perceive reality? Since you sa maayaa is a flaw of the mind, we will have to decide what is the origin of mind and where it its location is; what are your views on these?

This flawed perception of the reality starts when a soul embarks its journey in the physical world and starts learning till it finally attains moksha.

Here we once again have to consider and agree upon the origin of the soul/s. From where does it originate? Why? What causes it to originate and under what sort of circumstances? Once your standpoint is made clear we can discuss the above statement of yours.

If we delve deeper into this, we may ask the question why do we need a lower reality? For that we need to look into the objective of a soul in the lower reality. Its objective is to gain the knowledge that Brahman is the only reality and therefore logically merge into Brahman once it gains that knowledge. Now the next question is why should it gain that knowledge? What does it do to gain that knowledge? It does that by making its mind equanimous, not affected by pain, not tempted by pleasure, having no attachments or hatred etc. When we ask what is the
point in doing that?, we come to the crux of the matter. When something is unaffected by anything it in effect becomes eternal. This eternity of the mind or the timeless nature is gained once it separates from the physical body or attains moksha, after it is fully developed.

So the whole idea of relative reality shows the type of stuff brahman is made of and why it is a timeless entity. Brahman never had a beginning or never will have an end because it is beyond space and time. So the lower reality is only the glimpse into the knowledge why brahman is eternal with all the experiences and lessons of the souls while already engrained in the fabric of the brahman being played out as the physical reality.

It is because of the way it is set up like this the souls experience the lower reality or a constrained reality.

I think any discussion on these points can be made only after getting your views/reply on the previous three items. So I am not giving my comments now.

 

[sangom]

While the sovereign Indian Government could have stopped all these "bad" thing, even if some of these things had been brought in by the devilish British, they did not, and now you feel contented to blame the British rather than our govt. !! This what is shifting of responsibility is and that is how the kid's story comes to my mind.

It was the British which did caste based census way back in 1931. After India became a republic, caste based census was discarded.

Today our politicians having divisive agenda are again demanding caste based census.

British played divide and rule policy of Hindu vs Muslims as well between different castes in India. They patronized `Justice Party' which was playing caste based politics even before independence. Justice party also reciprocated by supporting the British rule.

The present dravidian parties are descendants of the erstwhile justice party and they are continuing the same caste based divisive politics.

It is difficult overcome divisive politics.

All the best

Sir, You are not answering my simple query, why the sovereign Indian Government did not stop all these "bad" things, even if some of these things had been brought in by the devilish British, and once again you start harping on caste based census, politicians' divisive agenda, divide-and-rule policy, JP and, finally DMK/AIDMK. It is for any reader of these posts to come to his own conclusion whether these adequately answer my one question. I, therefore, feel I should stop here.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

Lord Krishna needs to be taken very seriously because he points out to Arjuna and to the world in general that whatever you see as a reality such as sufferings, destruction, death etc, are in fact not to be taken seriously. You need to see beyond that, as the nature of reality is a timeless one which is not bound by anything. So something that comes to an end is only unreal in the ultimate sense. If people cannot grasp this truth by themselves they should seek the help of those who are enlightened and try to make the initial progress.

Thus it is not Lord Krishna that needs to be taken lightly but only the physical world that is in front of us.

I feel Nara's point was this (Shri Nara may please correct me if I am wrong):

Since everything including Arjuna, Pandavas, Kauravas, the empire for which the war was about to start, etc., etc., are/were all unreal and illusory according to advaita, and Krishna being an advaitin God (from the point of view of Sankara and advaitins), why should Krishna have bothered at all about the outcome of the war and worked with undue zeal for Pandavas achieving victory? Is it because he was also under the influence of maayaa that he felt this way? If so, will not Bhagavadgita be simply a sermon given by a person under the illusion effect of maayaa and hence will it not be an undependable text for acceptance as a scripture?

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sravna and Shri Sangom,

Hope i can join in (shd we make a new thread or continue here?). I may not be able to post often, but i will be reading the posts exchanged b/w both of you.

Sravna,

Maya is something that brings into existence a lower reality. It is neither real nor unreal. Only for the one who is caught in spacetime the effect of maya operates. Therefore it may seem real. But once you transcend the physical-mental realm, the effect of maya disappears, and therefore it is unreal. In simple terms, it is a flaw of the mind that perceives effects as different from the cause

1) Am not sure if you are meaning to say that maya is both real and unreal or are you saying definitely that it is unreal..please cud you elaborate on that.

2) How do we know that a "flaw" causes the mind to perceive certain things in certain ways? How do we identify it as a "flaw"? Is (such) a 'flaw" real or unreal?

You say maya is "something" that brings a lower reality into existence. But what is that "something"? Wud that "something" be a flaw of the mind (or a result of the flaw of the mind)?

AFAIK (Shri Nara, please correct me if am wrong), Sri Ramanuja accepts the Satkaaryavaada theory (of the Sankhya system). And therefore found the parinaama (or transformations of Brahman) resulting in what we call the 'world' as real and not illusory.

Sravna, What are your feelings on this line of thot --

Let us say you dream. Are those dreams real or unreal? Are they unreal because they never happen or happened. Or are they real because you have lived thru it as an experience (though in the inner mind).

Sravna, if you don't mind, please can you tell me if the atma real or unreal? Is prakriti real or unreal?

If both, the atma and prakriti are real, then aren't the experiences you go through in your dreams real?

If your dreams are real, then is not your own svabhava (nature) real?

If your own svabhava is real, then are not your thots real?

If your thots are real, then is not the world real?

If the world is real, what wud you call maya?



Shri Sangom,

The literal meanings of maayaa are given as illusion, appartition, unreality and so on.

However, cud it in the literal sense mean (or be used as) a "measure applied to an ontological construct of immeasurability" (like say, "measure" of space in the universe or "measure" of karmas of all births taken by an atma - in essence, can it be taken to mean a measure of something that cannot be measured) ? I read such an explanation (of maayaa as a mesure of immeasurability) in a book by Swami Harshananda of RK Mutt but forgot in which one..

Dear Shri Sangom,

Maya is something that brings into existence a lower reality. It is neither real nor unreal. Only for the one who is caught in spacetime the effect of maya operates. Therefore it may seem real. But once you transcend the physical-mental realm, the effect of maya disappears, and therefore it is unreal. In simple terms, it is a flaw of the mind that perceives effects as different from the cause. This flaw causes the perception of a differentiated world and starts when a soul begins to embark its journey in the physical world, learning all along till it finally attains moksha. This flaw could be attributed to Brahman as it is the only reality but,

If we delve deeper into this, we may ask the question why do we need a lower reality? For that we need to look into the objective of a soul in the lower reality. Its objective is to gain the knowledge that Brahman is the only reality and therefore logically merge into Brahman once it gains that knowledge. Now the next question is why should it gain that knowledge? What does it do to gain that knowledge? It does that by making its mind equanimous, not affected by pain, not tempted by pleasure, having no attachments or hatred etc. When we ask what is the point in doing that?, we come to the crux of the matter. When something is totally balanced and unaffected by anything it in effect becomes eternal. This eternity of the mind or the timeless nature makes it attain moksha.

So the whole idea of relative reality shows the type of stuff brahman is made of and why it is totally balanced and unaffected and is a timeless entity. So the lower reality is only the glimpse into the knowledge why brahman is eternal with all the experiences and lessons of the souls while already engrained in the fabric of the brahman being played out as the physical reality.

It is because of the way it is set up like this the souls experience the lower reality or the physical-mental reality.

 

[RVR]

why the sovereign Indian Government did not stop all these "bad" things, even if some of these things had been brought in by the devilish British,

Just vote bank politics.

All the best

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

My interpretation is that maya is not an entity but the Effect that separates the cause from an effect. In the same way as a cause is related to effect, brahman is related to maya. In our physical world the effects exist and are thought to be real. But in the spiritual world there exists no effect and therefore unreal. In the same way maya is real to the extent the existence of the physical world is real but the existence of the physical world itself is unreal in the spiritual reality and therefore brahman is not affected by maya.

Differentiated realities co-exist with the undifferentiated reality forming the basis of the timeless nature of the latter. The physical realities in my interpretation just unfold and nothing that is not already in the spiritual reality can take the form of physical reality.

As another interpretation, I would say that when you make the right connections in the physical world across space and time you would see the spiritual reality emerging. Since by the limitations of our body and mind we do not see these hidden connections we see the effects as separate from the cause.

 

[Nara]

...Lord Krishna needs to be taken very seriously because he points out to Arjuna and to the world in general that whatever you see as a reality such as sufferings,

Dear Shri sravna, Greetings!

I have discussed this topic with a lot of people and have had Advaitam explained to me by all of them. But none of them were able to give adequate answers to the questions I raised in post #30, at the core of which is Shri sangom's more technical and accurately described question about adhyaasa. The reason I am raising this question again now is because you said you admired the coherence of the tenets of Advaita.

Dear sravna, my intention is not to put you in a spot, but to share with you some problem areas in Advaitam. Perhaps you can research into this and see how the proponents of Advaitam try to answer these question, are their answers satisfactory, etc. In this process I would request you to not unquestioningly accept what is taught.

BTW, the other schools have their own sets of questions that they are not able to answer satisfactorily. For example, VA says, the differences in jiva's lives we see all around is due to anAti karma. But they don't explain why anAti karma gets so divergent over time. They also talk of Dharmabhuta Jnyana as an attribute to Darmi Jnyana, i.e. Jeeva. The other schools pooh pooh this notion. D talks of differences among jeevas, they associate gender and varna to Jeeva. They can't explain any basis in pramana for this.

Further, none of the philosophies arising out of religion and god can explain the "why" question at all. Belief in god presupposes purpose, but they cannot answer what that purpose is. Materialists like Charvaka or even Samkhyas like Kapila don't have this problem because they do not accept the existence of god and therefore there need not be any purpose.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sravna and Shri Sangom,

Hope i can join in (shd we make a new thread or continue here?). I may not be able to post often, but i will be reading the posts exchanged b/w both of you.

Sravna,
1) Am not sure if you are meaning to say that maya is both real and unreal or are you saying definitely that it is unreal..please cud you elaborate on that.

2) How do we know that a "flaw" causes the mind to perceive certain things in certain ways? How do we identify it as a "flaw"? Is (such) a 'flaw" real or unreal?

You say maya is "something" that brings a lower reality into existence. But what is that "something"? Wud that "something" be a flaw of the mind (or a result of the flaw of the mind)?

AFAIK (Shri Nara, please correct me if am wrong), Sri Ramanuja accepts the Satkaaryavaada theory (of the Sankhya system). And therefore found the parinaama (or transformations of Brahman) resulting in what we call the 'world' as real and not illusory.

Sravna, What are your feelings on this line of thot --

Let us say you dream. Are those dreams real or unreal? Are they unreal because they never happen or happened. Or are they real because you have lived thru it as an experience (though in the inner mind).

Sravna, if you don't mind, please can you tell me if the atma real or unreal? Is prakriti real or unreal?

If both, the atma and prakriti are real, then aren't the experiences you go through in your dreams real?

If your dreams are real, then is not your own svabhava (nature) real?

If your own svabhava is real, then are not your thots real?

If your thots are real, then is not the world real?

If the world is real, what wud you call maya?



Shri Sangom,

The literal meanings of maayaa are given as illusion, appartition, unreality and so on.

However, cud it in the literal sense mean (or be used as) a "measure applied to an ontological construct of immeasurability" (like say, "measure" of space in the universe or "measure" of karmas of all births taken by an atma - in essence, can it be taken to mean a measure of something that cannot be measured) ? I read such an explanation (of maayaa as a mesure of immeasurability) in a book by Swami Harshananda of RK Mutt but forgot in which one..

Dear Sravna and Smt. HH,

First, let me inform that due to some urgent repair works to our house, to be statrted next week, I may not be prompt or regular in my replies for two weeks at the least.

Sravna,

I am not sure whether advaita recognises a lower reality and (naturally, as a corollary) a higher reality and perhaps the highest reality which may be the advaitic brahman. Perhaps HH may be able to say more authoritatively.

Happy,

AFAIK, Sankara did not use the word "maayaa"; he used "adhyaaropa" meaning superimposition. This superimposition was not clearly explained by Sankara. Hence we will not know what exactly he had in mind. To a layman like me any 'superimposition' will result either by action of what is superimposed (a person covering himself with a cloth) or by the action of an external agent (some one covering a person with a sheet). If we accept the former, the brahman, which is nirguna and therefore not acting by itself, should be considered as covering itself with adhyaaropa; if we go by the second possibility there should be another agency (entity) to do this covering which will cut at the very roots of advaita. As I said nobody seems to have been intelligent enough to challenge Sankara during his life time and unfortunately Ramanuja came much later, giving adequate time for advaita to take roots.

"ajnaana", "avidya" etc., are all play at words coined by advaitin commentators to answer the "saptavidha anupapatti" of Ramanuja and "Sata dushani" by another visishtadvaita acharya. They don't answer the basic question of where it originates, what is its location, is it anaadi, and if so is it part of brahman or independent of brahman, etc. The "meaure of the immeasurable" itself is a contradiction like the saying "child of a barren woman". IMO this is also a simple play on words.

I would request you and Nara to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Nara]

"Sata dushani" by another visishtadvaita acharya.

Sata dushani is by Swami Sri Desikan. He is known as logician extraordinaire even by his opponents. He once claimed he can prove anything he wanted by logic alone, but, he cautioned, he is bound by the limits of Vedas. Of the 100 faults Swami Sri Desikan expounded in the 100 verses of Sata dushani, only about 60 or so are available today. The others are lost due to carelessness of our great and wonderful ancestors.

I once again wish to emphasize, it is not just Advaita that has some logical inadequacies, all other philosophies do too. At present we are talking about Advaitam, that is all.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear Kunjappu,
Thank u for your valued comments. From the threads and replies read I understand you are one of the learned person in this forum. You have the ability to understand the point and explain in detail what you want to tell.
Here, as a layman with limited knowledge and experience , I only wanted to bring out the point that from vegetables to computer whatever we get here (in INdia) does not match in quality with the same item outside India. Example -Bathing soap in the same name received here and in developed country(same company) differes in quality and price.
Hope as a learned person you could have understood and found bones and skin in the statement. If still you find it as
statements without any backed up meat please be frank so that I can refrain from further posting in this thread. thanking you once again for your valued comments

krs,

hopefully you meant in jest when you referred me as 'one of the learned person in this forum. You have the ability to understand the point and explain in detail what you want to tell'

you only have to go through the several hundred posts, to see the type of replies that i have received, due to misunderstanding of my posts, atleast as i perceived it. writing to be understood 100% is a tough affair.

you have taken the example of soap. believe it or not, indian soaps are of a superior quality. i buy only indian soaps from indian shops here in toronto. each time i come to india, i marvel at the selection of brands and fragrances. so, the choice of soaps, as something where indians get a raw deal, i think, is not deserved.

maybe we should take cars?

please give me your feedback. thank you.

 

[kr subramanian]

you have taken the example of soap. believe it or not, indian soaps are of a superior quality. i buy only indian soaps from indian shops here in toronto. each time i come to india, i marvel at the selection of brands and fragrances. so, the choice of soaps, as something where indians get a raw deal, i think, is not deserved.

maybe we should take cars?

please give me your feedback. thank you.
Dear Kunjuppu,
Either yoiu are aruging for argument sake or you have not marketed in India. Quality of anything exported frojm India is far superior to that we receive in India here. especially in urban and semi urban areas. Do not speak of car, what about the petrol we receive. It is mixed with kerosine?The medicine prices are too high whereas the quality ???. The medicines banned in western countries are used here. Many of banned items in western countries do not get banned here or is banned very late. I can quote many examples But if youhad opioned sarcastically I stop here. If you really mean we can continue argument even though in narroiw sense it is out of scope of this thread. with regards kr subramanian

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara and Shri Sangom,

To me Advaita philosophy appears totally coherent and flawless. Intuitively it seems to me that the truths of atman being brahman and that of maya are the most profound insights one could have and requires sheer super genius to grasp.

To my understanding, maya does not have a beginning or an end. It co-exists with Brahman and is neither created nor has an end and one can say the physical worlds co-exist with the spiritual world each physical world being transient.

A defining aspect of the physical realm is change. Everything undergoes change constantly and perishes eventually. To protect yourself against change or the ability to be totally unaffected by anything is a necessity for a timeless existence. Even the universe is not immune against an end and according to Hindu philosophy it does come to an end.

A mind that is totally evolved attains timeless nature and hence becomes purely spiritual and merges with brahman. We can view maya and therefore physical reality as the operative aspects of brahman, whose function is to produce brahman's timeless nature or we can say that brahman is timeless because maya operates and produces that effect. More accurately while talking of timeless nature we ahould say that the effects are engrained within brahman and because of the nature of the physical reality it has to be acted out in space-time, brahman or the souls seem to experience the space-time effects.