First things first... from where did you derive this interpretation...?
- Status
First things first... from where did you derive this interpretation...?
S
s007bala
Guest
>>as VA says a part is non-god<<
Asesha Chit-Achit Prakaaram Brahmaikameva Tatvam - Brahman as qualified by the sentient and insentient modes ,aspects or attributes, is the only reality.
wikipedia definition.
sb
Asesha Chit-Achit Prakaaram Brahmaikameva Tatvam - Brahman as qualified by the sentient and insentient modes ,aspects or attributes, is the only reality.
wikipedia definition.
sb
OP
OP
malgova.mango
Guest
omi god - after all the talk yesterday.
NOW I GOT TO GO BACK AND PULL THE THREAD - PLEASE WAIT
NOW I GOT TO GO BACK AND PULL THE THREAD - PLEASE WAIT
OP
OP
malgova.mango
Guest
Sesh !
Please do go back - there are many no of post written about the non-god part to which you replied.
Please do go back - there are many no of post written about the non-god part to which you replied.
sb, as far as insentient beings goes, narayanan has control over them... but this is natural as they too are a part of him only...
mango,
you are looking at VA from the angle of A... narayanan is the superset... we all are subsets... what do you not understand from this?
you are looking at VA from the angle of A... narayanan is the superset... we all are subsets... what do you not understand from this?
again, you said that we are all brahman... to which i asked you to contemplate on a parallel universe to create it... you are mum on this...
so, according to adhvaitham, oru kallum nanna meditate pannina brahman aagum nu solrela?
According to adhvaitham, everything (me, you and the stone) are all but a mere contemplation of the supreme consciousness...
Loopholes:
1. This cannot be for if we are a dream or an illusion, our consciousness is also but a dream and there is no question of liberating it or attaining the state of nirguna...
2. If there is a contemplation, it implies a guna, which obviously means that the consciousness is not nirguna...
According to vishishtadhvaitham, narayanan is the supreme lord and we are all within him, but yet are different entities by virtue of our combination of the gross and the subtle. The world is real and not imaginary...
It is not the same adhvaitham as Shri S meant, rather in a different sense... one has to first realize this to understand vishishtadhvaitham... it is adhvaitham in the sense that narayanan (the supreme lord) encompasses all, it is vishisht in the sense that he contains different entities within himself...
Loopholes:
1. This cannot be for if we are a dream or an illusion, our consciousness is also but a dream and there is no question of liberating it or attaining the state of nirguna...
2. If there is a contemplation, it implies a guna, which obviously means that the consciousness is not nirguna...
According to vishishtadhvaitham, narayanan is the supreme lord and we are all within him, but yet are different entities by virtue of our combination of the gross and the subtle. The world is real and not imaginary...
It is not the same adhvaitham as Shri S meant, rather in a different sense... one has to first realize this to understand vishishtadhvaitham... it is adhvaitham in the sense that narayanan (the supreme lord) encompasses all, it is vishisht in the sense that he contains different entities within himself...
S
s007bala
Guest
Vishistadvaitha :-
The understanding of the 3 principles of VishishtAdvaita namely, Tattva, Hita and PurushArtha are essential pre-requisites for an aspirant of that knowledge which leads to liberation.
* Tattva: The knowledge of the 3 real entities namely, jIvA (the sentient); Jagat (the insenient) and Ishvara (Vishnu-Narayana or Parabrahman)
* Hita: The means of realisation i.e. through Bhakti (devotion) and Prapatti (self-surrender)
* PurushArtha: The goal to be attained i.e. moksha or liberation from bondage.
Advaitha :-
Advaita is not about any worship of any kind of deity, not even a singular all powerful supreme being/Ishwara/God. It is about realising the self i.e.Atman as the Bramhan itself which is apparently manifested eternally and simultaneously into animate or inanimate.This realization is limited and/or inhibited by lack of knowledge and discrimination i.e. Jnana and this verily is the foundation of non-duality(Advaita). Bramhan is described as neti neti(ná iti ná iti - not this, not this or not so not so) in the Upanishads. All principal Upanishads, Bramha Sutras as well as Badarayana Vyasa,Adi Shankara and Ashtavakra have explicitly and repeatedly stated and expounded this with much emphasis.
source wikipedia.
sb
The understanding of the 3 principles of VishishtAdvaita namely, Tattva, Hita and PurushArtha are essential pre-requisites for an aspirant of that knowledge which leads to liberation.
* Tattva: The knowledge of the 3 real entities namely, jIvA (the sentient); Jagat (the insenient) and Ishvara (Vishnu-Narayana or Parabrahman)
* Hita: The means of realisation i.e. through Bhakti (devotion) and Prapatti (self-surrender)
* PurushArtha: The goal to be attained i.e. moksha or liberation from bondage.
Advaitha :-
Advaita is not about any worship of any kind of deity, not even a singular all powerful supreme being/Ishwara/God. It is about realising the self i.e.Atman as the Bramhan itself which is apparently manifested eternally and simultaneously into animate or inanimate.This realization is limited and/or inhibited by lack of knowledge and discrimination i.e. Jnana and this verily is the foundation of non-duality(Advaita). Bramhan is described as neti neti(ná iti ná iti - not this, not this or not so not so) in the Upanishads. All principal Upanishads, Bramha Sutras as well as Badarayana Vyasa,Adi Shankara and Ashtavakra have explicitly and repeatedly stated and expounded this with much emphasis.
source wikipedia.
sb
Last edited:
sb, adhai thaan naanum ithana naala sollindiruken... sanskrit words use pannalai... avlothaan...
neenga wiki lerundhu dabaal nu potutel...
neenga wiki lerundhu dabaal nu potutel...
according to adhvaitham, everything that we see is an illusion... a contemplation of the consciousness as a result of which our perception seems to be covered by layers of ignorance...
this is pure adhvaitham... and that is why shri s advocated nirguna brahman... meaning that consciousness that does not contemplate anything... but he probably overlooked the fact, that he himself (along with his thoughts) are as a result of such contemplation... (if we were to go by his theory)... and this self defeating logic is the major flaw in his theory
this is pure adhvaitham... and that is why shri s advocated nirguna brahman... meaning that consciousness that does not contemplate anything... but he probably overlooked the fact, that he himself (along with his thoughts) are as a result of such contemplation... (if we were to go by his theory)... and this self defeating logic is the major flaw in his theory
S
s007bala
Guest
re
S S
Om saha naa vavatu saha nau bhunaktu
saha viryam kara vaa vahaiH
tejaswi navadhI tamastu maa vid vi shavahaiH
om shanti shanti shantiH
O God Almighty! Protect us both, nourish us both, and let us be strong together in unity, let our knowledge shine and let us not be defeated in intellectual exercises; let us be joined together in friendship for ever, and let no enmity ever come between us.
Let there be Peace! Peace!! Peace!!!:whoo:
sb
S S
Om saha naa vavatu saha nau bhunaktu
saha viryam kara vaa vahaiH
tejaswi navadhI tamastu maa vid vi shavahaiH
om shanti shanti shantiH
O God Almighty! Protect us both, nourish us both, and let us be strong together in unity, let our knowledge shine and let us not be defeated in intellectual exercises; let us be joined together in friendship for ever, and let no enmity ever come between us.
Let there be Peace! Peace!! Peace!!!:whoo:
sb
There is no imagination here... everything is real... that is why shri sankara's adhvaitham is a fallacy...
Everything we see is real... only the combination of the supreme differs... and hence vishishtadhvaitham is the correct reasoning...
Everything we see is real... only the combination of the supreme differs... and hence vishishtadhvaitham is the correct reasoning...
S
s007bala
Guest
S S
>>but he probably overlooked the fact, that he himself (along with his thoughts) are as a result of such contemplation... (if we were to go by his theory)... and this self defeating logic is the major flaw in his theory<<
Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that. It is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine), though not a substance, is the basis of the material world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.
Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable (not generally the object of worship but rather of meditation). Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best "Satchidananda" (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", ie, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differences because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differences because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.
According to Adi Shankara, Māyā is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. It has two main functions — one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Māyā is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Māyā, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. It is also said that Māyā is neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Māyā, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge," or perception of the more fundamental reality which straddles Māyā.
Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the material world to be real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power Māyā.
source wikipedia.
sb
>>but he probably overlooked the fact, that he himself (along with his thoughts) are as a result of such contemplation... (if we were to go by his theory)... and this self defeating logic is the major flaw in his theory<<
Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that. It is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine), though not a substance, is the basis of the material world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.
Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable (not generally the object of worship but rather of meditation). Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best "Satchidananda" (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", ie, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differences because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differences because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.
According to Adi Shankara, Māyā is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. It has two main functions — one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Māyā is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Māyā, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. It is also said that Māyā is neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Māyā, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge," or perception of the more fundamental reality which straddles Māyā.
Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the material world to be real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power Māyā.
source wikipedia.
sb
sb, neti neti means "not just this" "not just this"... which shows that brahman is not a part but the whole...
do you mean to say that we are not real??????????
do you mean to say that we are not real??????????
S
s007bala
Guest
re
Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.
source wikipedia.
sb
Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.
source wikipedia.
sb
but will the image of the pen have the power to reason out that for itself????? simple... isnt it...
so, if we are only an image we wont have the consciousness to realize it... dont say that as maya... we wont even be near that... we would just be jada porul as the reflection of the pen is...
S
s007bala
Guest
That is why Lord Krishna says to Shri Arjuna,about Material World and Spiritual World.The spiritual world is real and material world is unreal.A parallel universe exists to the universe which we mortals see,perceive and understand.Uttaryanam is the best time to attain liberation and escape from repeated birth & death ie Dec 21/22 till Jun 21/22,the favorite month of the Lord being Margazhi ie dec 15 till Jan 14........and so on
sb
sb
sb
sb
S
s007bala
Guest
re
S S
When we start parsing words and mention things,then it would appear out of context.Which is what we are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Salient_features_of_Advaita_Vedanta
Adavaitha,Dvaitha,Visistaadvaitham......etc are different streams of rivers finally merging into sea.Each has a place under the Sun which is Part of Milky way which is part of Galaxies.......
There is one white light,when entering and coming out of the prism,we get vibgyor of varying wavelength.So,which is Maya here?
sb
S S
When we start parsing words and mention things,then it would appear out of context.Which is what we are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Salient_features_of_Advaita_Vedanta
Adavaitha,Dvaitha,Visistaadvaitham......etc are different streams of rivers finally merging into sea.Each has a place under the Sun which is Part of Milky way which is part of Galaxies.......
There is one white light,when entering and coming out of the prism,we get vibgyor of varying wavelength.So,which is Maya here?
sb
Material world is that in which the athmas have not attained the state of the paramathma... simple... please do not confuse yourself...
S S
When we start parsing words and mention things,then it would appear out of context.Which is what we are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Salient_features_of_Advaita_Vedanta
Adavaitha,Dvaitha,Visistaadvaitham......etc are different streams of rivers finally merging into sea.Each has a place under the Sun which is Part of Milky way which is part of Galaxies.......
There is one white light,when entering and coming out of the prism,we get vibgyor of varying wavelength.So,which is Maya here?
sb
Precisely, that is what i am asking you... for maya you need two objects... i cannot deceive myself... so if we accept maya, then monoism is gone... which is again self-defeating...
hence the correct thing is the prism, the light, the viewer and the divergent rays emerging from the prism all form part of the supreme... ie., the superset...
S
s007bala
Guest
>>Material world is that in which the athmas have not attained the state of the paramathma... simple... please do not confuse yourself..<<
S S.
where is atma?for it to reach paramathma?Can you un-confuse me!
sb
S S.
where is atma?for it to reach paramathma?Can you un-confuse me!
sb
S
s007bala
Guest
>>hence the correct thing is the prism, the light, the viewer and the divergent rays emerging from the prism all form part of the supreme.. ie., the superset...<<
S S
prism is a new developmental object.Before that our rishis gave examples using the chariot with surya as god with seven horses.The one light of Bhagavan Suryan splitting into seven rays.And in bhu-loka,rishis were there who could walk on each one of these rays and merge with surya bhagavan.Now for us it would appear nonsense.Maya is the one light appearing as seven rays of light with different color.An optical illusion like rainbow.Realise the self realise brahman.For normal human beings we see things as one light.But if you have faith in sanathana dharma,you will believe it,isn't it?There is only one set ie brahman-period.roger that - over and out.
Vishista-Advaitha is Advaitha and Advaitha is Vishista-Advaitha.Is my understanding.As cyber gyaanis behind a computer,we pour out our thoughts.Each one of us,trying to explain,the Samskritam Works of ancient masters.Avaalodo Kaal Thusikkudo Naan Samam Illai..is my abhipraayam.
sb
S S
prism is a new developmental object.Before that our rishis gave examples using the chariot with surya as god with seven horses.The one light of Bhagavan Suryan splitting into seven rays.And in bhu-loka,rishis were there who could walk on each one of these rays and merge with surya bhagavan.Now for us it would appear nonsense.Maya is the one light appearing as seven rays of light with different color.An optical illusion like rainbow.Realise the self realise brahman.For normal human beings we see things as one light.But if you have faith in sanathana dharma,you will believe it,isn't it?There is only one set ie brahman-period.roger that - over and out.
Vishista-Advaitha is Advaitha and Advaitha is Vishista-Advaitha.Is my understanding.As cyber gyaanis behind a computer,we pour out our thoughts.Each one of us,trying to explain,the Samskritam Works of ancient masters.Avaalodo Kaal Thusikkudo Naan Samam Illai..is my abhipraayam.
sb
OP
OP
malgova.mango
Guest
advaitham ennagratha apparam parpoom
you siad...
"It is not the same adhvaitham as Shri S meant, rather in a different sense... one has to first realize this to understand vishishtadhvaitham... it is adhvaitham in the sense that narayanan (the supreme lord) encompasses all, it is vishisht in the sense that he contains different entities within himself... "
but the entities are HIM only what?
you siad...
"It is not the same adhvaitham as Shri S meant, rather in a different sense... one has to first realize this to understand vishishtadhvaitham... it is adhvaitham in the sense that narayanan (the supreme lord) encompasses all, it is vishisht in the sense that he contains different entities within himself... "
but the entities are HIM only what?
- Status
Share this page
Similar threads
- Locked
