• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

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

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

False notions of Truth

Status
Not open for further replies.

tks

Well-known member
Dear TKS ji,

Kindly transliterate the Sanskrit terminologies used for the benefit of those who might not know Sanskrit.

I have transliterated the terminologies used by you in the above post..but I hope you transliterate future posts so that members too can learn new terms.

सर्वं तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव"



sarvam tatsatya AtmA tatvamasi svetaketo iti bhuya eva.



सामानाधिकरण्यम्'


sAmAnAdhikaraNyam.




Thanks . I need to revise more right after typing and hitting send.
 

tks

Well-known member
Brahman when has the power of Maya is called Eshwara or Saguna Brahman.
The Upanishads make it crystal clear that before creation there was only Brahman.
Three states of Brahman are
Eswara – the Causal form
Hiranyagarbha – the Subtle form
Virat – the Gross form.

As Chinmaya says “Vedanta is a subjective science” – most interpretations and concepts depend on the seeker alone.

The apparent form of Brahman (as Eswara) is the result of Avidya or Ignorance. A Form is attributed to Brahman only, to serve the needs of the Embodied Souls during the period of the embodiment.

In that respect, it is confusing to introduce Mahavakya and Eswara in this discussion.
Mahavakya, in my opinion, is only talking about Brahman and not Eswara.


Some help from http://www.saibaba.ws/vahini/jnanavahini/jnanavahini.htm
Mahavakya Tat Tvam Asi - namely 'You are That'. The "That" is Brahman and not Eswara.
We hear terms such as the one above and feel that we understand them by sheer repetition.

However if Brahman is an entity that cannot be described by words, cannot be visualized by thoughts and not accessible by any of the sense organs ( and I previously quoted a specific Upanisadic verse to support this statement).

How is it then possible to assert that this entity has three states. In fact states imply that it can undergo some kind of modification which will not make sense with the very definition of Brahman.

Maya is an entity that by its very name does not exist at all. More specifically it is considered to neither exist nor not exist.

If that is so, when it is said Brahman has the power of Maya is Isvara can be rewritten as an entity that cannot be described by words and cannot be visualized by thoughts and inaccessible to any of the sense organs has a power of an entity that neither exists nor not exists and with that power we have an almighty, all powerful, all knowing being !

There is nothing crystal clear about any of the above statements.

One can then create newer entities out of the above two.

The whole thing becomes one of the beliefs like any other religious beliefs which appear as true over time based on repetition.

There is nothing wrong with the way I used the Mahavakya. I noted in the same sentence that I did not want to be technically precise talking about entities that cannot be comprehended.

Isvara is understood as all powerful, all knowledge, etc. One can deny or agree on the existence of such an Isvara but at least they do so based on something they can understand.
 

renuka

Well-known member
There is nothing wrong with the way I used the Mahavakya. I noted in the same sentence that I did not want to be technically precise talking about entities that cannot be comprehended.

.
Dear TKS ji,

I beg to differ here.

By saying that you do not want to be technically precise you can not alter the meaning of the Mahavakya by linking it with Ishwara.

The Mahavakya meant Brahman...that I feel is crystal clear.

When it comes to Mahavakyas we understand better if our view is holistic and not see each Mahavakya separately.

As we know the Four Mahvakyas talk about the Ultimate State that is BRAHMAN.


  1. Prajnanam Brahma (प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्मा)
  2. Aham Brahma Asmi (अहम् ब्रह्म अस्मि)
  3. Tat Tvam Asi (तत् त्वम् असि)
  4. Ayam Atma Brahma (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म)


Logically all 4 echo Brahman.

So why should Tat Tvam Asi alone speak about Ishwara?

In fact 3 of the Mahavakyas clearly use the word Brahman but Tat Tvam Asi uses Tat.

What is Tat?

Tat is translated into English to mean That.

That is a Demonstrative.

In this case..it denotes Brahman becos for all practical purposes Brahman is beyond description and beyond comprehension but we still need to denote it ..hence best called That(Tat) as a Demonstrative.

Its pure Grammar here for the word Tat to be used.

But the fact remains that Tat is NOT Ishwara..cos if it was Ishwara then this Mahavakya would not make any sense if the other 3 Mahavakyas are specific about Brahman.

Why should 3 talk about Brahman and just 1 talk about Ishwara?

Does not make sense right?

Therefore it is not accurate to link Ishwara to Tat and cite that one does not want to go into technicalities.
 

prasad1

Well-known member
Dear TKS ji,

I beg to differ here.

By saying that you do not want to be technically precise you can not alter the meaning of the Mahavakya by linking it with Ishwara.

The Mahavakya meant Brahman...that I feel is crystal clear.

When it comes to Mahavakyas we understand better if our view is holistic and not see each Mahavakya separately.

As we know the Four Mahvakyas talk about the Ultimate State that is BRAHMAN.


  1. Prajnanam Brahma (प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्मा)
  2. Aham Brahma Asmi (अहम् ब्रह्म अस्मि)
  3. Tat Tvam Asi (तत् त्वम् असि)
  4. Ayam Atma Brahma (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म)


Logically all 4 echo Brahman.

So why should Tat Tvam Asi alone speak about Ishwara?

In fact 3 of the Mahavakyas clearly use the word Brahman but Tat Tvam Asi uses Tat.

What is Tat?

Tat is translated into English to mean That.

That is a Demonstrative.

In this case..it denotes Brahman becos for all practical purposes Brahman is beyond description and beyond comprehension but we still need to denote it ..hence best called That(Tat) as a Demonstrative.

Its pure Grammar here for the word Tat to be used.

But the fact remains that Tat is NOT Ishwara..cos if it was Ishwara then this Mahavakya would not make any sense if the other 3 Mahavakyas are specific about Brahman.

Why should 3 talk about Brahman and just 1 talk about Ishwara?

Does not make sense right?



Therefore it is not accurate to link Ishwara to Tat and cite that one does not want to go into technicalities.


Thank you, I was trying to say the same thing, but you explained it much better.
Then again none of really "KNOW" Brahman or Inswara for that matter.
 

tks

Well-known member
Dear TKS ji,

I beg to differ here.

By saying that you do not want to be technically precise you can not alter the meaning of the Mahavakya by linking it with Ishwara.

The Mahavakya meant Brahman...that I feel is crystal clear.

When it comes to Mahavakyas we understand better if our view is holistic and not see each Mahavakya separately.

As we know the Four Mahvakyas talk about the Ultimate State that is BRAHMAN.


  1. Prajnanam Brahma (प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्मा)
  2. Aham Brahma Asmi (अहम् ब्रह्म अस्मि)
  3. Tat Tvam Asi (तत् त्वम् असि)
  4. Ayam Atma Brahma (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म)


Logically all 4 echo Brahman.

So why should Tat Tvam Asi alone speak about Ishwara?

In fact 3 of the Mahavakyas clearly use the word Brahman but Tat Tvam Asi uses Tat.

What is Tat?

Tat is translated into English to mean That.

That is a Demonstrative.

In this case..it denotes Brahman becos for all practical purposes Brahman is beyond description and beyond comprehension but we still need to denote it ..hence best called That(Tat) as a Demonstrative.

Its pure Grammar here for the word Tat to be used.

But the fact remains that Tat is NOT Ishwara..cos if it was Ishwara then this Mahavakya would not make any sense if the other 3 Mahavakyas are specific about Brahman.

Why should 3 talk about Brahman and just 1 talk about Ishwara?

Does not make sense right?

Therefore it is not accurate to link Ishwara to Tat and cite that one does not want to go into technicalities.
The point of this thread and even the last message is different. It is about people thinking they understand the teachings but when one considers what the various words indicate it is not comprehensible. To keep that focus, I did not want to get technical but Tat as Iswara is accepted usage also.

In fact for many such expressions there are two meanings - a superficial translation referred to as Vachyartha and a core meaning referred to as Lakshyartha.

In the former usage Tat is equated to Isvara (and there are more technical reasons justifying this and I prefer not to get into that if I can) . But the essential meaning which is precise is usage of the word Brahman whatever that means.

These words are not like any other objects that can be related to at any level. The focus of this thread and prior post is that one can feel as if they 'know' these words and argue into specifics when in actuality all such notions are superficial.

So if I have to be providing the essential usage for the word Tat it would be Brahman. However, Vachyartha is not incorrect usage in a specific context (purposeful use of double negatives) and one can find this usage by some Mahatmas.
 

renuka

Well-known member
The point of this thread and even the last message is different. It is about people thinking they understand the teachings but when one considers what the various words indicate it is not comprehensible. To keep that focus, I did not want to get technical but Tat as Iswara is accepted usage also.

In fact for many such expressions there are two meanings - a superficial translation referred to as Vachyartha and a core meaning referred to as Lakshyartha.

In the former usage Tat is equated to Isvara (and there are more technical reasons justifying this and I prefer not to get into that if I can) . But the essential meaning which is precise is usage of the word Brahman whatever that means.

These words are not like any other objects that can be related to at any level. The focus of this thread and prior post is that one can feel as if they 'know' these words and argue into specifics when in actuality all such notions are superficial.

So if I have to be providing the essential usage for the word Tat it would be Brahman. However, Vachyartha is not incorrect usage in a specific context (purposeful use of double negatives) and one can find this usage by some Mahatmas.




Vachyartha....Verbal Meaning

Lakshyartha....Indicative/Implied Meaning.



Actually Tat is never really directly denoted to mean Ishwara.

Two words are used here.. Tat and Tvam and to ultimately reach to the understanding that Tat = Brahman...firstly a relationship of Jeeva has to be established with Iswara.

One needs to know how Jeeva is "related" to Iswara..this is when the
Vachyartha (Verbal Meaning) is employed to aid understanding.

Before that we need to understand that the Microcosm(Pindanda) and the Macrocosm(Brahmanda) have corresponding counterparts.

The Jeeva is Tri-state though appearing to have 3 states in fact its just 3 aspects of the same Jeeva.

1)Viswa
2)Taijas
3)Prajna


In the Macrocsomic state..even Ishwara is Tri-state..appearing to have 3 states when in fact its just 3 aspects of the same Iswhara.

These 3 states are:

1)Virat
2)Hiranyagarbha
3)Ishwara

Its thru this comparison that Jeeva is thought to be complementary to Ishwara.

But does Tat refer to Ishwara?

Nope...that is just the beginning of the whole formula.

Now we have to take into consideration the effect of Avidya on Jeeva and the effect of Maya on Ishwara.

This is where we have to get all specific and
Lakshyartha(Indicative/Implied Meaning) is applied.

When the effect of Avidya on Jeeva is nullified and effect of Maya on Ishwara is also nullified what remains?

Atma remains instead of Jeeva.

Brahman remains instead of Ishwara.

Hence we can now co-relate to the other Mahavakyas.. Aham Brahmaasmi,Ayam Atma Brahma.

Final Diagnosis: The actual meaning of Tvam is Atma and the actual meaning of Tat is Brahman.





 
Last edited:

renuka

Well-known member
The point of this thread and even the last message is different. It is about people thinking they understand the teachings but when one considers what the various words indicate it is not comprehensible. To keep that focus, I did not want to get technical but Tat as Iswara is accepted usage also.

The focus of this thread and prior post is that one can feel as if they 'know' these words and argue into specifics when in actuality all such notions are superficial.

.
LOL!

So this whole thread was started assuming others do not have an understanding and you are trying to keep things "simple" and less technical to make its "easy" for most people to understand but in that process you are omitting important points and to be frank its only going to be confusing and might qualify to be classified as The False Notion of Truth.

Tell me the truth...is there anyone of us here who can understand Maya,Ishwara and Brahman?

I can safely say everyone of us here are Makkus when it comes to Maya,Ishwara and Brahman!LOL
 

tks

Well-known member
Continuing from Post 62

B. Gita is said to embody the teachings of this Mahavakya Tatvam Asi.
Tvam - the person like you and I are addressed in Chapters 1 to 6
Tat - Isvara is addressed in Chapters 7- 12

The equation is revealed in Chapters 13-18.

Yet the Mahavakya as it stands has seemingly logical issues if one tries to comprehend the meaning, as articulated in earlier posts

The words in our scriptures do not have any parallel in anything that we see in the world or even imagine. As mentioned in post #62 many self proclaimed advaitins are completely comfortable with arguing about semantics in detail while the building block words (e.g., Maya, Brahman) are themselves beyond the reach of human intellect and cannot be grasped by the tweezers of the mind. This has nothing to do with how intelligent a person may be but the lack of ability to understand is spelled out by the very scriptures that have defined these terms.

Yet people are comfortable with statements like "An entity that cannot be described by words and cannot be visualized by thoughts and inaccessible to any of the sense organs has power of an entity that neither exists nor not exists and with that power it is (or it becomes?) an almighty, all powerful, all knowing being. But I am that which cannot be described by words and cannot visualized by thoughts or sense organs.

These points are not addressed as responses to any post here or about anyone here. In an open forum we have people that cannot understand these higher level points and message oriented statements.

Most people in the world have not heard of these teachings and could not care less about them. They have their religious viewpoints for most part. Then there are few that accept these Mahavakyas like a "Boom Boom Madu" saying Yes to everything

Atma - yes
Brahman - yes
Maya - Yes
Nirguna becomes Saguna with Maya - Yes

etc.

Essentially the words of some people in teacher role and internet blogs are believed as is without need to question why scriptures talk about words that the scripture itself says cannot be comprehended by human mind. If so, is there a role for the intellect in all these teachings?
 
Last edited:

prasad1

Well-known member
Swami Vivekananda said
There is one thing to be remembered: that the assertion—I am God—cannot be made with regard to the sense-world.
The Self when it appears behind the universe is called God. The same Self when it appears behind this little universe—the body—is the soul.

As body, mind, or soul, you are a dream; you really are Being, Consciousness, Bliss (satchidananda). You are the God of this universe.

The essence of Vedanta is that there is but one Being and that every soul is that Being in full, not a part of that Being.
 
Last edited:

renuka

Well-known member
Then there are few that accept these Mahavakyas like a "Boom Boom Madu" saying Yes to everything

Atma - yes
Brahman - yes
Maya - Yes
Nirguna becomes Saguna with Maya - Yes

etc.

sraddhavan labhate jnanam
 

renuka

Well-known member
These points are not addressed as responses to any post here or about anyone here. In an open forum we have people that cannot understand these higher level points and message oriented statements.


etc.
Its not about anyone not able to understand so called Higher level points....Its just that some explanations do not seem to jive with the actual most accepted understanding

God..I am so uncomfortable even typing such words..I personally dare not even think someone might not be capable of a higher understanding..just becos points of view differ that does not mean another does not posses the ability for a higher understanding.

There has been various well accepted schools of thoughts that did not even hold the Vedas as Pramanyam(Authority)..yet those school of thoughts showed a high level of analysis.

Anyway the word Ishwara has varied understandings in different philosophy.

Samkhya philosophy for eg does not even talk about Ishwara.
Patanjali Yoga Sutras denotes Ishwara in a more Metaphysical way and different from the Advaita concept.

I guess what we can all do as homework is to read up about Ishwara concept in various philosophies to be open enough to differing concepts before we jump to any conclusion that some are not endowed with higher thinking capability.
 

tks

Well-known member
Continuing from my previous post #69

Why do our scriptures use words that the scripture itself says cannot be comprehended by human mind. If so, is there a role for the intellect in all these teachings?

If it is all based on beliefs then all these teachings can only be called preaching. There is no knowledge or understanding involved in any beliefs which is why it makes no sense to debate with someone who is into a given religion.

Most people who call themselves Advaitins accept the statements as 'gospel' and believe them. In that sense they are no different than a person who is promoting a different belief system.

Yet our knowledge scriptures insist on understanding which is why Sri Krishna took 500+ verses in teaching Arjuna before asking him to do the right thing. He also ended the teaching with a description of people who are not eligible to be taught.

Why would Bhagavan who is the Lord of all beings describe people who are not eligible for this teaching? After all the very words one is supposed to realize itself is outside of senses, not describable by words or even imagined. In fact in this reference below there is a description of people that are deemed to be not eligible to have fulfilled the prerequisites.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=34809&p=371691#post371691

In the above post, there is a brief discussion and description of B.Gita verse 18.67.

Perhaps one way to understand why Sri Krishna says some people are not eligible is because every being is unique and not like another. Therefore all beings do not fulfill the prerequisites for the knowledge due to their past vasanas. It is possible to overcome the issues of the mind to become eligible but it is something that a person must choose to do using their free will experience.

Even in our own forum, the prerequisite to joining the forum is to have an established email ID and nothing more. There is no way to know what the motivations are when one posts or responds etc.

Reference: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=34809&p=371688#post371688

There is a saying that if one goes around with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

In other words, whatever we have in our mind we project onto the world we perceive. That is why over time I have chosen not to respond or engage with certain posts especially when one tries repeatedly to move the focus away from adding to the discussions into attacking a person with their worldview.

This mind is an impediment to understanding the truth and creates all kinds of false notions that appears like truth.

With words that have no parallel to our lives, our teachings paint a lofty vision of human life. One can make an analogy of the vision to a painting. While I am not an art buff, I know that to appreciate art I have to see it from a distance.

Imagine someone who has their nose next to a piece of art which is few 100 years old. It may not smell much, they will see strokes of paint missing and focus on what appears as blemishes. This is about missing the big picture and focusing on irrelevant details. Inability to see the vision or listen to the teaching is one of the kind of people described to be ineligible to the teaching (B.Gita 18.67).

However, anyone wanting to make the effort with Shraddha (initial faith to be ratified by understanding later) can make progress.

One way to make progress is to see if we can answer the seeming contradictions. In this thread so far, I have raised a group of questions. One can think if they have satisfactory answers to those questions.

Studying and clarifying false notions is one way to make progress. There is a struggle involved in the process which contributes to learning and provides firmness in one's understanding. If the misunderstandings are not cleared up they can form basis for rejection of the teaching itself. This is like a Boom Boom Madu always saying NO :)

So far I have raised sample questions and possible misconceptions (e.g., taking a core belief to be taken as understanding) about our knowledge scriptures. However, when one takes logic of some kind, and in some instances theological beliefs there emerges a systems of schools of thought. As stated earlier there are false notions within the teaching subject to logic itself and then there are false notions embedded within the schools of thought itself.

All schools of thought, other than truth includes beliefs as a basis which cannot be refuted by logic since beliefs cannot be reasoned with. But one thing that our schools of thought struggled with is to align with Upanishads and B.Gita in order to be accepted as valid.

In the next few posts I will share my understandings on the grammatical gymnastics they employed in fitting Tatvam Asi into their schools of thought.
 

renuka

Well-known member
If Lord Krihsna mentions about eligibility that is a total different scenario all together cos He is GOD....but

before a human decides others have no eligibility and higher thinking capacity he/she should ask himself/herself "Am I really eligible myself before I pronounce others unfit?"

If he/she has never asked himself/herself that question that denotes absence of introspective capability...I am just being very polite here!LOL

But a hall mark of a balanced person is one who is not judgmental cos he/she would know its next to impossible to assess even self..what more can be said about accessing others...the balanced person never PLAYS God.

Playing GOD is a total disorder by itself.
 
Last edited:

Vaagmi

Well-known member
Dear Sri tksji,

74 posts and you have yet to state your case. I have a few suggestions. If you think they are unnecessarily riling you up please excuse me. But I am a member reading your posts and I have a right to tell you what occurs to me. Please take it easy. If it rings a bell somewhere I will be happy. You need not reply.

1. You use complex sentences frequently and they are a drag. Please state whatever you want to say in a few simple sentences. Presume that you are introducing the subject to someone who does not know it. That will help you use simple language avoiding excess verbiage.

2. Please avoid making "position statements" (தன் நிலை விளக்கம்) frequently. We are all matured enough here and so we are not interested in knowing what made you do a thing or not. Please forget the "I" and try to write about your view point. That will help remove an irritant.

4. While a little bit of positive sarcasm and banter makes the posts eminently readable, if they rile you up please refuse to recognize them and move. Dont get distracted/ambushed.

5. You have just come to the second point. You have a long distance to go, i believe. Please present what you have. Let us see.

Thank you.
 

tks

Well-known member
Dear Sri tksji,

74 posts and you have yet to state your case. I have a few suggestions. If you think they are unnecessarily riling you up please excuse me. But I am a member reading your posts and I have a right to tell you what occurs to me. Please take it easy. If it rings a bell somewhere I will be happy. You need not reply.

1. You use complex sentences frequently and they are a drag. Please state whatever you want to say in a few simple sentences. Presume that you are introducing the subject to someone who does not know it. That will help you use simple language avoiding excess verbiage.

2. Please avoid making "position statements" (தன் நிலை விளக்கம்) frequently. We are all matured enough here and so we are not interested in knowing what made you do a thing or not. Please forget the "I" and try to write about your view point. That will help remove an irritant.

4. While a little bit of positive sarcasm and banter makes the posts eminently readable, if they rile you up please refuse to recognize them and move. Don't get distracted/ambushed.

5. You have just come to the second point. You have a long distance to go, i believe. Please present what you have. Let us see.

Thank you.
Sri Vaagmi,

Thank you for your feedback.

I have stated the case in the first two posts. . I can offer a few summary statements if that is helpful. You can communicate what you want without feeling the need to assert any rights. The thing I ask anyone is to respect the topic area (related to our wisdom scriptures), sincerity of purpose in engagement and staying within the message (and not veer into personal attacks).

Now point by point response.

1. The proper way to create a post is to write elsewhere, revise it once or twice and then 'publish' it here. The first draft of an excellent writer is often not very different from that of a relatively poor writer. While I am careful about choice of specific expressions, attempting to be consistent, and respectful to the topic area I do not have the time to do the necessary revisions. I tend to type directly and 'publish' the message. That may be fine for a chit-chat but not here. So sentences may appear complex and I will pay more attention to keeping them simple.

2. Will try. There are some that impute motives that may not be there to a post.

3. Partly this is fun, I have no grudge against anyone. There is no feelings of being riled up. Usually I have a hearty laugh at myself and at the situation.

4. There is no beginning or destination to this topic area. The opening post has this line "Even when absolute Truth is possibly the most natural to know, it eludes a person due to false notions that a person has". As you know in the word Upanishad, the preposition Upa signifies being close to Sat being the truth. Nothing can be closer or more 'natural'. Yet our mind which has all kinds of notions prevents us from seeing this. It just happens that this truth cannot be spelled out by words (and I don't want to get into reasons here). The vision is expounded by saying what is NOT this truth and by suggesting what one needs to do to get the mind 'purified'. My minimal attempt here is to use examples of false notions and raise questions that reveal possible contradictions in beliefs.

When something is a pure belief, we can only ask if the belief contradicts anything known. If it is not, then it can considered a reasonable belief. If it does, it is an unreasonable belief. Regardless, reasons cannot be applied to a belief to change it. Only major events in a person's life can make a person think about their beliefs.

Our knowledge scriptures not only teaches this Truth but it also includes a method of how to communicate this knowledge without any loss.
The reason why Shraddha is necessary is because people in today's lifestyle look for 'take aways' and bottom-line that are contrary to the teaching methods.

There is a universal problem of inability to listen and understand the vision in all walks of life. This inability arises from our mind putting up a screen and hence people listen with their own 'autobiography'. They take what they want and discard what is not suiting to their mental framework thereby even more convinced about their long held positions and beliefs, unchanged by possibly new paradigms. That is why in B.Gita 18.67, Bhagavan says not to teach someone who is incapable of listening. This listening capacity is about perceiving (your favorite word) as is and is often translated to some kind of 'spiritual' maturity.

This makes any discussion very difficult in an open forum.

5. People have to put up with the fact that with time available this is the best I can do. The second point is going to be brief because there is nothing to debate a theology or beliefs. The only place for any comment is when claim of rationality is made. Hence it is likely to be short

PS: Besides opening two Posts, I have added only 5 more content oriented posts, others are replies or posts of others making up 74+ posts
 
Last edited:

tks

Well-known member
Continuing from Post #73

At some point in our growth as human beings we wonder who made all these things.
We see ourselves distinct from everyone else, we see living and non-living things and wonder who made all these.
Anyone inculcated in any religious setting gets exposed to the idea of God at some point in their life. Often this idea of God comes with its own set of theologies based on our upbringing.

For Hindus, the theology is dictated by Puranas and Itihasas.

We all feel truly insignificant when we try to perceive the world around us.
Learning Science only makes us realize how speck of an existence we seem to have.

The universe we are told is 13.6 billion years old and human being's life span of 100 years is but a blip. There are speculations that there may be infinite such universes unreachable from our universe which itself has billion galaxies, with each galaxy having billion or so stars with many stars being billion times the size of earth!

Can anyone even imagine the size of this universe which is expanding at speeds that cannot be even imagined.

The space observed itself is expanding at a speed that mind cannot even fathom. Space that is farther from us at say 3 million light years (it would take light about 3 million years to reach us) is expanding at 45 miles per second. If the place away from us at say 3 billion light years, space is expanding at a rate which is far higher of about 45 million miles per second. Soon light from anything in those areas of space can never reach back to our telescopes.

In this vastness, the little man here on earth, an insignificant speck with body made up atoms from star dust (cooked several billion years ago) think he owns this world, wants to assert his rights and fights with people.

If we look at sub atomic level, it is just as intriguing. Laws of science works precisely and entire reality itself is very different from what we feel in our world. In fact reality seemingly does not 'exist' at atomic levels until one tries to measure where the act of measurement by a conscious being itself alters the very thing that is measured. When it is not measured the reality is explained as being in a potential form of infinite possibilities expressed in an infinite dimensional space!

If we look at our own body we have over 7 trillion (unimaginable number) of microbes in our body whose DNA is different from our own. These living microbes that call our body their planet, are necessary for our very survival though a large number of them are causes for our diseases and death.

In this magnificent multiverse/universe our ego thinks we are something.

Many sincere people of all schools of thoughts that are ready to let go the dominance of their ego have beautiful tradition of surrender to an entity they call God.

In all major religions of the world the act of devotion to Isvara is truly beautiful. Worshiping for one's welfare and security is not wrong.

Where it all goes wrong are in two areas at a minimum.

1. Allowing the religious ego to take over. Most theologies and belief systems are not just about simple acts of worship but expression of religious ego of many of its leaders. Much of the fights in the name of religion is because of this and the human being causes destruction by thoughts, words and deeds.

2. Trying to justify that the belief is all logical. In the case of schools of thoughts of India it is all about justifying why their thinking is aligned with Vedas / Upanishads.

There is no need to justify anything to include devotion to Isvara in one's life. However, fortunate are those who will develop an intense desire to know this Isvara.

To be continued
 

tks

Well-known member
Devotion to Isvara in all religious theologies are the same when it comes to a basic model of the universe. Theologies may differ as to why and how the universe and beings came about but the basic notion is the same that Madhvacharya articulated.


It goes like this


Madhvacharya declares division between God, Beings and material things of this world in asserting a model for reality. These difference are declared to exist

1. Between material things of the world in this universe (Jagat) ;
2. Between Jagat and Beings
3. Between Jagat and Godhead
4. Between Beings
5. Between Beings and Godhead


The distinctions exist because all of the above entities are postulated to be real (and hence true).


Is there a need of a model of truth/reality in postulating the above because the above distinctions are directly from our experience.


An understanding or model could makes sense only if there is thinking needed in the unification of all or some of the above entities.


Let me assert the above point with an example in Science which also tries to understand the reality of this Jagat.


Ancient human beings have known about magnetic materials, and static electricity. With their eyesight they see objects in light and know light exists. So a model of reality that declares magnetic materials exist, static electricity exists and that light exist, is really not a model.


However it is a model when the teaching is that Light is made up fluctuating electric and magnetic fields. In other words disparate phenomena are unified in this understanding that is useful.


Our Upanishads describe a model that is actually a unification of the 3 entities that are described - namely beings, Godhead and Jagat.


It has descriptions that the underlying truth of all these cannot be expressed in words, imagined by any thought and is outside the reach of our sense organs. The references were provided earlier.




This would contradict the model of reality as expounded by religious theologies. Because of reverence to Upanishads the religious theologies try to find a way to say that their view of the world is aligned with the reality expounded in the Upanishads.


You can be the judge if there is force fitting involved or not.


Let me take only one example to illustrate which is alignment with the Mahavakya Tatvam Asi.


There is a grammatical gymnastics involved in making this happen in my view.


They say the Mahavakya is really saying that it is atatvam asi - In other words You are not that Isvara (therefore you will never be).
It is not clear how Svetaketu is supposed to understand the knowledge by which every other knowledge is known by being told that you are not Isvara. Is that even necessary to say that to Svetakaetu.


Let us see how this exact opposite interpretation is asserted.


Recall that the Mahavakya occurs in this sentence


सर्वं तत्सत्य स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव"
sarvam tatsatya AtmA tatvamasi svetaketo iti bhuya eva.


They argue that आत्मा तत्त्वमसि (AtmA Tatvamasi) should really be Atman Atatvamasi !


The argument that AtmA+atat(आत्मा+अतत् ) cannot happen just as brahmaa + ashiraha(ब्रह्मा+अशिरः) cannot is not valid. In the word brahmārpanam (ब्रह्मार्पणम्), it cannot be split as brahma+ rpanam (ब्रह्मा+ र्पणम्), but it can only be brahma+ arpanam (ब्रह्मा+अर्पणम्). One cannot even argue that since rpanam is meaningless, it has to be arpanam. The argument that AtmA+atat(आत्मा+अतत् ) cannot happen is baseless, just as brahma+arpanam (ब्रह्मा+अर्पणम्) cannot happen is also baseless. AtmA+atat(आत्मा+अतत् ) means Atman+atat(आत्मन्+अतत् ).


Next topic area is the way Ramanujacharya interprets Tatvam Asi
 

auh

New member
The argument that AtmA+atat(आत्मा+अतत् ) cannot happen just as brahmaa + ashiraha(ब्रह्मा+अशिरः) cannot is not valid. In the word brahmārpanam (ब्रह्मार्पणम्), it cannot be split as brahma+ rpanam (ब्रह्मा+ र्पणम्), but it can only be brahma+ arpanam (ब्रह्मा+अर्पणम्).
i
To me (ब्रह्मा+अर्पणम्) seems wrong. It should be ब्रह्म+अर्पणम् ??
 

auh

New member
Continuing from Post 62

B. Gita is said to embody the teachings of this Mahavakya Tatvam Asi.
Tvam - the person like you and I are addressed in Chapters 1 to 6
Tat - Isvara is addressed in Chapters 7- 12

The equation is revealed in Chapters 13-18.

Yet the Mahavakya as it stands has seemingly logical issues if one tries to comprehend the meaning, as articulated in earlier posts

The words in our scriptures do not have any parallel in anything that we see in the world or even imagine. As mentioned in post #62 many self proclaimed advaitins are completely comfortable with arguing about semantics in detail while the building block words (e.g., Maya, Brahman) are themselves beyond the reach of human intellect and cannot be grasped by the tweezers of the mind. This has nothing to do with how intelligent a person may be but the lack of ability to understand is spelled out by the very scriptures that have defined these terms.

Yet people are comfortable with statements like "An entity that cannot be described by words and cannot be visualized by thoughts and inaccessible to any of the sense organs has power of an entity that neither exists nor not exists and with that power it is (or it becomes?) an almighty, all powerful, all knowing being. But I am that which cannot be described by words and cannot visualized by thoughts or sense organs.

These points are not addressed as responses to any post here or about anyone here. In an open forum we have people that cannot understand these higher level points and message oriented statements.

Most people in the world have not heard of these teachings and could not care less about them. They have their religious viewpoints for most part. Then there are few that accept these Mahavakyas like a "Boom Boom Madu" saying Yes to everything

Atma - yes
Brahman - yes
Maya - Yes
Nirguna becomes Saguna with Maya - Yes

etc.

Essentially the words of some people in teacher role and internet blogs are believed as is without need to question why scriptures talk about words that the scripture itself says cannot be comprehended by human mind. If so, is there a role for the intellect in all these teachings?
It seems that you are meandering just to showcase a one-sided view... information that perhaps this forum visitors have been long accustomed to.

It is easy to define something in the abstract and pile up volumes of material on it. At the end of the day, no one will really have a clue of what it is, including the one delivering the sermon !

A lot of debate and research material is readily available on the internet about these topics. Besides a lot of upanyasams by scholars belonging to various schools of philosophies are also available. There is no reason to belabor about the syntax and interpretations aimlessly. It only displays lack of understanding or lack of sufficient material to really discuss on, imo.

These interprations by learned sanskirt scholars are themselves subject to questioning, either by members of another sect or by rationalists. Nothing is clear about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top