• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • 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.

intercaste marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
just to add one more thing...

Karma is not for the Atma..Karma is recorded in the Lingashareera(Subtle body)..All imprints of Karma are stored in the Subtle Body..to be worked out in the Bhuloka through a Sthulashareera(Gross Body)..or even worked out in the Subtle Plane/Astral Plane Via Lingashareera...

Atma is ever pure..eternal witness as explained ever so clearly in the Atma/Nirvana Shatakam...


YouTube - CHIDANANDA ROOPAH SHIVOHAM by Pandit Jasraj Shiv Upasana Vol 3
 
The athma is 'Gnyanamaya'; according to SV, the karmas are attached to the athma, and nobody knows how. There is no beginning; or the beginning cannot be traced. We just have to accept that, since we are born, there is a truckload of karma to be exhausted.

Different schools interpret this differently.

The athmashatakam is based on the advaithic philosophy, in which maya is the barrier to athmasakshaatkaaram. But then that would not explain the concept of karma and punarjanma; that is why lingasareera?

Regards,
 
But then that would not explain the concept of karma and punarjanma; that is why lingasareera?

Dear sapthjihva of compassionate eyes, lingasareera, sookshama sareera, etc., are just a huge big misunderstanding according to Advaita. So, karma, punarjanma, are also just illusions, call it vyavaharika satya or whatever satya, in the final analysis it is all a big mistake. Why, even Vedas must also be a big illusion as pratyaksha pramanam is fundemantally flawed in their opinion. Since Vedas cannot be perceived without the aid of pratyaksham, the whole things is just a waste of time.

SVs believe jeevatma's sareeram is made of sthoola shariram and sookshma shariram. Sthoola shareeram is made of material that you can see. Sookshma sareeram is what we refer to as manas, and other jnyana indriyam. Atma can get rid of the Sookshma sariram only before crossing the celestial Viraja river. On the other bank of Viraja is Sri Vaikuntam where the jeevatma will take on a completely new shariram made of Sudda Satva substance unique to Sri Vaikuntam. Perhaps these are allegorical, otherwise it is too ridiculous give a second thought. But then, what about this untraceable root of karma, seems as far fetched as the claims of Advaitees if you ask me.

Well, now that I have riled up just about everyone here, let the snow job begin.

Cheers!
 
... So, karma, punarjanma, are also just illusions, call it vyavaharika satya or whatever satya, in the final analysis it is all a big mistake....
Agreed, if according to advaithees, the world is just maya, then the question of karma would not arise. It just becomes complicated to include it, as there is no question of individual jeeva.:der:

... Perhaps these are allegorical, otherwise it is too ridiculous give a second thought. But then, what about this untraceable root of karma, seems as far fetched as the claims of Advaitees if you ask me.
I dont know about the allegory, but why cannot karma be untraceable? Just as Ishwara, Chit and Achit always exist, so too karmas...

Regards,
 
somehow the Vishistaadvaitam concept of getting a new body once you cross the Viraja river somehow sounds like christianity...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm1g8FFRArc
progress.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm1g8FFRArc
 
Last edited:
....I dont know about the allegory, but why cannot karma be untraceable? Just as Ishwara, Chit and Achit always exist, so too karmas...

Saptha, you need to get a little deeper to realize how ridiculous this anadhi karma is.

First, SVs believe there are what you call Nitya Soories who were never in Samsaram, but all other jeevas were in samsaram. Given all jeevas are equal in essence, how come some, the nitya soories, were never tainted by karma.

Of the baddha jeevas, many have since graduated out of samsaram into Sri Vaintam and now living as Muktha jeevas. The rest are still suffering in samsara. Does this mean the untraceable anadhi karma was different for different jeevas? If so, once again some jeevas were more equal than others. If not, where did the differences in karma come from that made them make different bad or good choices resulting in some transmigrating to Sri Vaikuntam, and the rest wallowing in Samsaram.

If you scratch the surface the whole theory of karma comes tumbling down.

Cheers!
 
Saptha, you need to get a little deeper to realize how ridiculous this anadhi karma is.

First, SVs believe there are what you call Nitya Soories who were never in Samsaram, but all other jeevas were in samsaram. Given all jeevas are equal in essence, how come some, the nitya soories, were never tainted by karma.

Of the baddha jeevas, many have since graduated out of samsaram into Sri Vaintam and now living as Muktha jeevas. The rest are still suffering in samsara. Does this mean the untraceable anadhi karma was different for different jeevas? If so, once again some jeevas were more equal than others. If not, where did the differences in karma come from that made them make different bad or good choices resulting in some transmigrating to Sri Vaikuntam, and the rest wallowing in Samsaram.

If you scratch the surface the whole theory of karma comes tumbling down.
The question of why can be easily applied anywhere; answers may not be satisfactoty. If something is so, then it is so. we can accept that bones can be white, but not the existence of nithyasoories? Why cant humans have colourful skins?

Jivas which combine with achit (the three gunas) may take on forms, and what they do in those forms further contributes to their state. We see this inequality everywhere. Do all human beings think alike? They dont even look alike!

The Dharmignyana and Dharmaboothagnyana are the two attributes of the Athman; I think that initially, these are restricted to only the lower states of achit matter. How the jivas used their gnyana to identify their state and of the other could be absolutely random. All Athmas need not necessarily think the same. That could be the reason why there are differences.

I have, in fact on many occasions, reflected on karma; it is too sound a premise to be fragile to such observations.

Regards,
 
Agreed, if according to advaithees, the world is just maya, then the question of karma would not arise.

Maya is only perceived as maya when one is free of it, not before. A dream is realised as a dream only when one wakes up. Until then it is very much 'real'. The snake nearby is very much real, the mind is terrified, the body freezes and sweats. Until and unless it is seen as a rope. Even then the object does not disappear, so it is not as if the material world disappears completely to the realised person! It is seen for what it actually is.
 
Maya is only perceived as maya when one is free of it, not before. A dream is realised as a dream only when one wakes up. Until then it is very much 'real'. The snake nearby is very much real, the mind is terrified, the body freezes and sweats. Until and unless it is seen as a rope. Even then the object does not disappear, so it is not as if the material world disappears completely to the realised person! It is seen for what it actually is.
In the tripura rahasya, a sage (I do not recollect his name) shows how he has created a whole world within. It suggests that a thought is real depending on the strength of the thought. Much like illusion. In such a case there can be no karma for the thoughts to progress; they just progress as per the wish of the thinker.

---------------------------

If the whole world we see, our state and that of others is only a dream, then how can the person in the dream realize himself? If I have a dream, the character which I am dreaming about cannot know that he is a dream character; there is no question of him knowing the same, as it would mean that I am deluding myself unnecessarily.

What reason has Brahmam to dream about such a universe? And then handing out vedas to the dream characters to let them know that they are only dream characters!!!

----------------------------

Moreover, it follows that if we are all dream characters, there is really nothing that could be restricted, is it not? There is no question of pain or pleasure or dharma or adharma. Rape, murder, loot and arson need not be condemned as they are all a dream sequence.
 
In the tripura rahasya, a sage (I do not recollect his name) shows how he has created a whole world within. It suggests that a thought is real depending on the strength of the thought. .

Yes, thought and the world of thought is 'real' until realisation.

.
Much like illusion. In such a case there can be no karma for the thoughts to progress; they just progress as per the wish of the thinker. .

The 'thinker' is also a creation of thought.

If I have a dream, the character which I am dreaming about cannot know that he is a dream character; there is no question of him knowing the same, as it would mean that I am deluding myself unnecessarily. .

The person in the dream is not asking these questions! We cannot mix the two states. Unless one wakes up these are indeed 'real'.


.
Moreover, it follows that if we are all dream characters, there is really nothing that could be restricted, is it not? There is no question of pain or pleasure or dharma or adharma. Rape, murder, loot and arson need not be condemned as they are all a dream sequence.

One can after all imagine anything and come to any conclusion in a dream. If a person uses this 'justification', then he would not be bothered if he is put to extreme punishment or even death since his own punishment is also a dream! That would show whether the person is realised or a phony!
 
The question of why can be easily applied anywhere; answers may not be satisfactoty. If something is so, then it is so. we can accept that bones can be white, but not the existence of nithyasoories? Why cant humans have colourful skins?

Saptha, you are asking for the same level of credulity for your religious doctrine as that of உள்ளங்கை நெல்லிக்கனி. That is just preposterous.

If at least all the religious people have a single theory we can give it some scrutiny, even if grudgingly. But that is clearly not so. Here is another why question, -- why does this god give so differing an account of himself to people from different parts of a single planet, let alone the planets never to be known to us from billions and billions of stars (h/t Carl Sagan).

So, religious dogma cannot be simply taken seriously without asking why questions. It shall remain dogma only, unless you can give a satisfactory answer to the why questions.

Cheers!

p.s.
The Dharmignyana and Dharmaboothagnyana are the two attributes
of the Athman;
Pardon me for correcting you, only Dharmabhootha jnyanam is an attribute, Dharmi-jnyanam is the atma itself. The prefix Dharmi means the object or substratum upon which a dharmam inheres i.e. jeeva.
 
Yes, thought and the world of thought is 'real' until realisation.
Then there is no law of karma; everything works as per the dream, and a dream need not have logic.
The person in the dream is not asking these questions! We cannot mix the two states. Unless one wakes up these are indeed 'real'.
But how does the person know that he has to wake up and the present state is a dream?
One can after all imagine anything and come to any conclusion in a dream. If a person uses this 'justification', then he would not be bothered if he is put to extreme punishment or even death since his own punishment is also a dream! That would show whether the person is realised or a phony!
Irrespective of whether a person is in the dream state or waking state, it is all but a thought process by Brahmam; in such a case, what is there to be proved? Anything and everything that a person does is but a part of the macro level thought process (or dream).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saptha, you are asking for the same level of credulity for your religious doctrine as that of உள்ளங்கை நெல்லிக்கனி. That is just preposterous.
I will stop now; we will be entering into another endless loop of discussions, at the end of which neither would have changed our initial stance.

... why does this god give so differing an account of himself to people from different parts of a single planet, let alone the planets never to be known to us from billions and billions of stars (h/t Carl Sagan).
We think that god gave different accounts; that is due to our inherent doshas.

... Dharmabhootha jnyanam is an attribute, Dharmi-jnyanam is the atma itself. The prefix Dharmi means the object or substratum upon which a dharmam inheres i.e. jeeva.
You are right; I stand corrected.
 
Then there is no law of karma; everything works as per the dream, and a dream need not have logic. ).

Anything can be claimed and 'proven' in the dream state and is valid within that domain but it may have no validity in the awakened state. After we wake up, we don't worry whether our dreams were logical or not.

But how does the person know that he has to wake up and the present state is a dream? ).

As mentioned in a previous post, if a person knows the 'present' state is a dream, then he is awake. The snake and rope do not appear at the same time. The misperception of the snake totally disappears when the rope is perceived.

Irrespective of whether a person is in the dream state or waking state, it is all but a thought process by Brahmam;

Unless we are actually in the awakened state these are just more theories and conjectures from our dreams about another state. In any case, the awakened state is not a thought process going by the sages.
 
The misperception of the snake totally disappears when the rope is perceived.

This analogy uses three distinct entities to make the point that there is only one and no other, i.e. advaitam. The three entities are (i) perceiver, (ii) snake, and (iii) rope. Further, for this analogy to make sense, the entities snake and rope must be endowed with sufficient attributes, and, the perceiver must be endowed with the attribute of knowledge about the distinguishing attributes of the other two objects, or else there could not be any adhayasa on the part of the perceiver. To mistake a rope for snake, one must have knowledge about both a rope and a snake.

It is indeed a supreme irony that an analogy with three entities, each with several attributes, is used to assert an advaitic Brahmman devoid of any attributes.

regards ....
 
This analogy uses three distinct entities to make the point that there is only one and no other, i.e. advaitam.
....

Analogies are just that. Analogies. It is only used to prod a person into investigation and can hardly make a point by itself, for or against advaita or any other system. Even in this analogy, there are two entities at a time, not three.

....
The three entities are (i) perceiver, (ii) snake, and (iii) rope. ....

Wrong. Even literally speaking there are only two at a time. The whole point is to see how objects can appear and disappear in one's mind inspite of all the "knowledge" one has acquired; how the mind accepts whatever is seen to be 'real'. And to explore the possibility that all visible objects that have been accepted to be 'reality' could also turn out as illusion.


....
Further, for this analogy to make sense, the entities snake and rope must be endowed with sufficient attributes, and, the perceiver must be endowed with the attribute of knowledge about the distinguishing attributes of the other two objects, or else there could not be any adhayasa on the part of the perceiver. To mistake a rope for snake, one must have knowledge about both a rope and a snake. ....

The whole point here is to see how ones supposed knowledge can turn out to be illusion. What was once taken to exist can turn out to be non existant.

It is indeed a supreme irony that an analogy with three entities, each with several attributes, is used to assert an advaitic Brahmman devoid of any attributes.

The greatest irony is when people cannot distinguish between a sign post and the destination. They would rather debate the attributes and various aspects of the sign post than make any effort to move to the destination.
 
Dear all..

I see the Advaitam Vs Vishisthaadvaitam fight has started again..way to go man...
but only thing this time I am not participating..you know why?

We are just going to go in circles...
no one is right and no one is wrong..
both are right..

God might be just laughing at us right now...He might be thinking..

"Knowing very well that I(God) am beyond the intellect and even beyond imagination..these guys are commiting the error of contemplating on Me and describing Me.."

"They are even Subdividing approaches to Me..Dvaitam,Vishisthadvaitam and Advaitam..when I am One..they are calling Me many.."

"Some call themselves Atheist but still cant help describing Me..thats why I have a soft corner for that Atheist"

"and that stupid Renuka..she is actually trying to describe My thoughts..why did she even type that I am beyond intellect and imagination in the first place?"

"Well what to do..I started it all..with my desireless desire of Ekoham Bahusyam"
 
Last edited:
Nara said in post no.68:
This analogy uses three distinct entities to make the point that there is only one and no other, i.e. advaitam. The three entities are (i) perceiver, (ii) snake, and (iii) rope. Further, for this analogy to make sense, the entities snake and rope must be endowed with sufficient attributes, and, the perceiver must be endowed with the attribute of knowledge about the distinguishing attributes of the other two objects, or else there could not be any adhayasa on the part of the perceiver. To mistake a rope for snake, one must have knowledge about both a rope and a snake.

It is indeed a supreme irony that an analogy with three entities, each with several attributes, is used to assert an advaitic Brahmman devoid of any attributes.
=====

In the rajju-sarpa--snake-rope, analogy, the perceiver is the knower, the rope is knowledge and the snake is the known. Yes, there are three entities in toto in the vyavahArika satyaM of the world. The message of Advaita is that in the unltimate state of Self-Realization all the three entities will get merged into the one Absolute Reality of Brahman. In that ultimate state, there would be no perceiver, no rope, no snake and no other perceived/imagined reality.

The perceiver is chetana--sentient. The rope is achetana--insentient. And the snake is kalpita-adhyAsa--imagined superimposition. Because the perceiver is chetana, the perception itself arises; and because the perceiver is under the avidyA of mAyA, the wrong perception arises. This wrong perception is due to impure reflection of the inherent Atman in an individual antaHkaraNa which is the jIva. The impurity is due to the pent-up vAsanas--impressions, of past lives.

The Atman as the Self which is Brahman, is for ever making an effort to shine through the impurities of antaHkaraNa. In the jAgrat--waking, state, the mind is in incessant action, so it stirs up the vAsanas and the light can only shine feebly. When the mind is stilled in meditation, the light will shine through enough to give the knowledge of the Reality, first as a glimpse and gradually as a sustained state.

The svapna--dreaming, state is worse than the jAgrat because here the minds starts creating its own world dramatizing the contents of the vAsanas, which is why there could be no meditation in the dream state, howevermuch one is able to make it lucid and control it. However, the grace of Ishvara can make one have the realization in a dream.

In the suShupti--deep sleep, state, the antaHkaraNa goes down and returns to its source which is the Atman, so there could be no realization.

The barrier of deep sleep is broken and its unity in darkness could be realized as the unity in the light of sat-chit-Ananda, upon intensive and persistent meditation which leads to the fourth state--turIya and gets the seeker into savikalpa and then nirvikalpa samAdhis. Once this goal is reached, the seeker will be able to see the perceiver, rope and snake for what/how/when they are, as appearances in their own domains of conditional realities.

*****
 
=====

In the rajju-sarpa--snake-rope, analogy, the perceiver is the knower, the rope is knowledge and the snake is the known. Yes, there are three entities in toto in the vyavahArika satyaM of the world. The message of Advaita is that in the unltimate state of Self-Realization all the three entities will get merged into the one Absolute Reality of Brahman. In that ultimate state, there would be no perceiver, no rope, no snake and no other perceived/imagined reality.

The problem arises because people have different levels of intellectual understanding. Many would not simply accept the fundamental message of advaita or any system. The Master then has to come down to the level of the individual and give suitable examples acceptable to him. So there is no point in going to great depth and dissecting any particular example. In this case, for the understanding of people who mistakenly equate all visible objects with reality, an example has been given that shows how illusion works. If this example is not suitable, other examples (like the objects in a mirage) are given to disprove the notion that everything that is seen is real. The student has to take it from there and do his own investigation if he is interested. Like the Zen saying, different fingers point to the moon. Look at the moon, don't argue over the fingers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top