Guest guest Posted January 21, 2000 Report Share Posted January 21, 2000 f. maiello wrote: > .... it is in fact the > essence of advaita. to embrace the whole of > What Is, and not allow the perpetuation of any > ideas that there is any real duality in place > anywhere, anytime. for if we define that which > establishes itself as immanent before us, as > unreal and to be rejected, we are engaging in > a battle that has no end, since maya is regarded > as beginningless and endless (Sankara has also > emphasized this in Vivekachudamani). this implies > that consciousness in its highest form will yet > have maya as its intimate constituent. > Sankara's formula only specifically exposes the > fact that maya, taken *unto itself and apart* from > its source in brahman, is unreal. otherwise it > is brahman itself [in manifestation as saguna]. > i've made this point numerous times because i feel > it's an important one. why? because if we view > maya as something alien and to be rejected, while > regarding the fact that maya is eternal, we'll then > also be in an eternal battle, attempting to eliminate > this 'illusion.' conversely, to embrace maya as a > component within one's totality, is to eliminate > this ancient battle. .... My understanding is that God and the world are one and the same or, to put it even more bluntly, that the world is all there is. Would this be a fair statement of your position here? I think that it is quite easy to find statements in (say) the Gita that support (or appear to support) any of the positions of pantheism, monotheism, panentheism or even atheism so I'm not asking what higher authority has to say on the subject but rather I'm curious to know what your own understanding is. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2000 Report Share Posted January 21, 2000 Greetings Patrick: Swami Vivekananda once said, "The world is the mirror through which we see the Brahman." We can also look at in another angle - Brahman is the cause and world is the effect. In other words, the world and Brahman is inseparable and our separation of them as two is due to MayA and this is Shankara's postion. It is more appropriate to say that all that exists is only Brahman. There is subtle difference between the two statements: (1) All that exists is only Brahman and (2) All that exists is only world! World is an intellectual perception of Brahman and Brahman is beyond the intellect! regards, Ram Chandran >Patrick Kenny <pkenny >My understanding is that God and the >world are >one and the same or, to put it even more >bluntly, >that the world is all there is. Would >this be a fair >statement of your position here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2000 Report Share Posted January 21, 2000 Patrick Kenny wrote: > > My understanding is that God and the > world are > one and the same or, to put it even more > bluntly, > that the world is all there is. Would > this be a fair > statement of your position here? > depending on the semantics involved, i would agree with the statement "the world is all there is." in fact, as written, it coincides with not only with prevailing metaphysics [as per the 'perennial philosophy'], but also with one of the essential axioms found in quantum theory propounded by Niels Bohr (known as the Copenhagen Interpretation) which states: 'There is no deep reality,' suggesting that although the phenomenal world is real, the source or foundation its based on is an empty void. this is also the assertion of the metaphysics in buddhism, taoism, cabala sufi, gnostic freemasonry as well as vedanta (which is where semantics enters the picture). the vedantic viewpoint--as Ramji pointed out--reveals a subtle difference in the statements 'brahman is all there is' vs 'the world is all there is.' vedanta, instead of postulating a nescient void as causal to phenomena, rather asserts it as sat-chit-ananda. however, it goes on to stipulate that the attributeless brahman (i.e. nirguna) is, instead of being positively existent, conscious, etc as such, it is not without existence, not without consciousness, not without bliss. this, in turn, is only for satisfying the mind's compulsion to know/apprehend the nature of existence. otherwise it possesses no abiding verity. that is, it merely functions as a means to an end: resolving in the liberation of the ego-mind's attachment to [what may be referred to as] relative limitation. once its purpose is served it can be readily abandoned. i have myself discovered this quite independent of the metaphysical teachings, which are yet, however, universal/archetypal, becoming eventually discovered by everyone embarking on the introspective journey. all the potential dynamics in the entire range of the human experience are archetypal; of course this is no exception. in fact, it's the very hub and rotary mechanism for all the rest, albeit being subconsciously engaged until overtly discovered. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2000 Report Share Posted January 22, 2000 ----Original Message Follows---- "f. maiello" <egodust advaitin advaitin Re: maya and Brahman Sat, 22 Jan 2000 01:00:55 -0500 depending on the semantics involved, i would agree with the statement "the world is all there is." in fact, as written, it coincides with not only with prevailing metaphysics [as per the 'perennial philosophy'], but also with one of the essential axioms found in quantum theory propounded by Niels Bohr (known as the Copenhagen Interpretation) which states: 'There is no deep reality,' suggesting that although the phenomenal world is real, the source or foundation its based on is an empty void. this is also the assertion of the metaphysics in buddhism, taoism, cabala sufi, gnostic freemasonry as well as vedanta (which is where semantics enters the picture). the vedantic viewpoint--as Ramji pointed out--reveals a subtle difference in the statements 'brahman is all there is' vs 'the world is all there is.' vedanta, instead of postulating a nescient void as causal to phenomena, rather asserts it as sat-chit-ananda. however, it goes on to stipulate that the attributeless brahman (i.e. nirguna) is, instead of being positively existent, conscious, etc as such, it is not without existence, not without consciousness, not without bliss. this, in turn, is only for satisfying the mind's compulsion to know/apprehend the nature of existence. otherwise it possesses no abiding verity. that is, it merely functions as a means to an end: resolving in the liberation of the ego-mind's attachment to [what may be referred to as] relative limitation. once its purpose is served it can be readily abandoned. *** namaste, I think there is more (or less) to the statement "the world is all there is". Which world are we referring to? There are worlds seen and unseen, dreams, daydreams, meditative states, etc. etc. The word brahman denotes an infinity of potentials, ever newly creative, which the word void or shunya does not (or does it?) In fact that is the only abiding verity. As the Gita puts it: 10:42 athavaa bahunaitena ki.n j~naatena tavaarjuna . vishhTabhyaahamida.n kR^itsnamekaa.nshena sthito jagat.h .. Or what avails thee to know all this diversity, oh Arjuna? I exist supporting this whole world with just a minute portion of Myself. Regards, S. ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2000 Report Share Posted January 22, 2000 Sunder Hattangadi wrote: > I think there is more (or less) to the statement "the world is all there > is". Which world are we referring to? There are worlds seen and unseen, > dreams, daydreams, meditative states, etc. etc. > The word brahman denotes an infinity of potentials, ever newly creative, > which the word void or shunya does not (or does it?) In fact that is the > only abiding verity. i quite agree. brahman represents the pinnacle of all conceptions, describing (or attempting to describe) the nature of What Is [manifest and unmanifest]. *however*, it is only an indicator "pointing to the moon, and not the moon itself." the admonition, coming to the sadhaka in his final stretch of the dharmic quest, is to release even this loftiest of all concepts....as Sri Ramakrishna says, "as one thorn is used to pluck out another, when it's freed both are discarded." the message is to transcend the prison of mentation and simply BE. this is the sahajajnanasthithi. and the strange wonderful thing is, we're ALREADY right there (here now!). all the sages testify to the fact that the 'awakening' reveals that one has *never not* been awake. that the mind-magic dazzles us into *thinking* and thus *believing* we're not! this drama is only a tentative dream. on the other hand, being 'awake' doesn't imply omniscience. quite the contrary. from what i've found, it's knowing that one's true nature is in fact unknowable. that the Self is eternal mystery. this is brahman's ocean of beauty and wonder beyond the limitation-tentacles of the profane Mind. OM shaanthi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2000 Report Share Posted January 22, 2000 When the world is seen as separate from oneself, it is maya, when the seer and seen become one it is termed Brahman. In ignorance we see ourselves in the world. In enlightenment, the world is seen within us.The world is as real as we consider ourselves to be real. The world seen in a dream is a reflection of the sub conscious. The world seen in waking state is the reflection of the conscious. There is no world(As separate) in the super conscious. Regards, Anand A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology Network. Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2000 Report Share Posted January 23, 2000 f maiello wrote: > ..... although the > phenomenal > world is real, the source or > foundation its based > on is an empty void. this is also the viewpoint--as Ramji pointed > out--reveals a subtle > difference in the statements 'brahman > is all there > is' vs 'the world is all there is.' > vedanta, > instead of postulating a nescient void > as causal > to phenomena, rather asserts it as > sat-chit-ananda. > however, it goes on to stipulate that > the > attributeless brahman (i.e. nirguna) > is, instead > of being positively existent, > conscious, etc as > such, it is not without existence, not > without > consciousness, not without bliss. > this, in turn, > is only for satisfying the mind's > compulsion to > know/apprehend the nature of > existence. otherwise > it possesses no abiding verity. that > is, it merely > functions as a means to an end: > resolving in the > liberation of the ego-mind's > attachment to [what > may be referred to as] relative > limitation. once > its purpose is served it can be > readily abandoned. If I understand you correctly then it would be possible to formulate the Advaita philosophy without reference to Brahman? I'm asking because, speaking as an outsider, I can't get very excited about something which seems to be indistinguishable from the vacuum state of modern physical theories. If all selves are Brahman then there is only one self, the atman celebrated by the Gita, so it seems to me that for those who are so inclined a simple logical device could eliminate Brahman without doing violence to the spirit of the scriptures.... Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2000 Report Share Posted January 23, 2000 Greetings Patrick: Does it really matter whether we call "Atman" or "Brahaman" after understanding, Atman = Brahman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2000 Report Share Posted January 23, 2000 Greetings Ram, After understanding, obviously not. What about before understanding? > > Ram Chandran > <chandran > > Greetings Patrick: > > Does it really matter whether we call > "Atman" or "Brahaman" after > understanding, Atman = Brahman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2000 Report Share Posted January 23, 2000 mAyA! Patrick Kenny wrote: > After understanding, obviously not. What > about before understanding? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2000 Report Share Posted January 23, 2000 Patrick Kenny wrote: > > If I understand you correctly then it > would be possible to formulate the > Advaita philosophy without reference to > Brahman? > not before moksha. the concept of brahman is integral to advaita philosophy. only after can it be given up...the idea of it, that is. its inherent reality of course survives, as it is the essence of Being. advaita itself can be abandoned. as i had mentioned Ramakrishna's thorn analogy, so did Buddha equate metaphysical philosophy as "a raft used to get to the other shore, once reached, isn't laboriously carried on the back, but abandoned." thus the philosophy is seen to be a means to an end. and the end, in moksha, is the resolution of the delusion that one is intrinsically ignorant, bound and suffering in terms of being apart from the Self (brahman). however, a *relative* counterpart to the philosophy does survive. and this pertains to the perpetuation of one's responsibility in the relative world. in this regard however there's no clear-cut paradigm, in terms of a moral/ethical system to follow. it becomes then a unique blend of dharma and svadharma (universal and individual conduct, respectively). where, since the essential nature of the true Self (nirguna brahman) is in fact Unknowable, it's also realized to be the case, ultimately, with the nature of Its manifestation in maya: an unknowable mystery. thus the jivanmuktha (realized soul) recognizes that (s)he is an instrument unfolding the scripted function devised by the relative Ordainer (isvara). moreover, it's seen in fact to have been unfolding this way all along. this further exposes the fact that all judgments waged on ourselves, others, and/or the ways of the world, are not only inept, but irrelevant. simply because the nature of whatever is is divinely ordered. Relativity (as Life) cannot exist in the polarity of light alone--without the contrast of darkness the world couldn't be seen. additionally, the relative Ordainer is Itself merely a fragment within the Self. as such, the ONE true Being, residing in the Heart of All, contains the whole of ALL THAT IS. the spiritual dna of the entire ocean is in the drop. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2000 Report Share Posted January 24, 2000 Greetings frank, We're talking at cross purposes here since in response to my question > > If I understand you correctly then it > would be possible to formulate the > Advaita philosophy without reference to > Brahman? > you define Brahman to be the Self ('the Self (brahman)', 'nature of the true Self (nirguna brahman)') whereas you will find that it's clear from the context of my question that I find the idea of the Self as articulated by the Gita to be enormously useful and I certainly have no quarrel with it. My problem rather is with Brahman as defined by the Upanishad as 'Verily, all this is Brahman' which is so all-encompassing as to be meaningless. I encountered this problem originally in reading Spinoza's _Ethics_: Spinoza, a God-intoxicated man in the manner of Ramakrishna, refers *everything* to the idea of God so that Hegel expostulated 'In Spinoza, there is too much God!'. In fact this understates the case: In Spinoza there is nothing *but* God and if there is nothing but God then the word God is meaningless. So I have found the Atman of the Gita to be more useful than Spinoza's God or the Brahman of the Upanishads and my question is whether others have had a similar experience. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2000 Report Share Posted January 24, 2000 --- In the Chandogya Upanishad( One amongst the major ten) there is a dialogue between Shwethaketu and his father in which the example of salt in water is given. Just as you cannot taste a single drop of saline water which is not salty , so also you cannot separate Brahman from this world. In the words of Swami Vivekananda , the Bhagavad Gita is the greatest commenatary written on the Vedas and it was given by Him who was the inspirer of the Vedas. So the Gita does not differ from the Upanishads. Sri Ramana Maharshi says that Krishna talks in the gita based on the standpoint of Arjuna. Krishna initially says , "Never was I not before and Never will I not be in the future, the Self is unborn undying constant .....". However still Arjuna asks in the fourth chapter that "You say you taught Ikshvaku etc who lived eons before you . How can this be ?". Then Krishna "climbs down as it were" and says I incarnate myself from age to age. However, the second chapter of the Gita fully talks from the highest view point of the Upanishads. Regards, Anand In another instance the Upanishads say On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:39:09 Patrick Kenny wrote: >you define Brahman to be the Self ('the >Self (brahman)', 'nature of the true >Self (nirguna brahman)') whereas you >will find that it's clear from the >context of my >question that I find the idea of the >Self as articulated by the Gita to be >enormously useful and I certainly have >no quarrel with it. My problem rather is >with >Brahman as defined by the Upanishad as '>Verily, all this is Brahman' which is so all-encompassing as to be meaningless. A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology Network. Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2000 Report Share Posted January 24, 2000 On 1/24/00 at 11:39 AM Patrick Kenny wrote: [...] My problem rather is ¤with ¤Brahman as defined by the Upanishad as ¤'Verily, all this is Brahman' which is ¤so ¤all-encompassing as to be meaningless. [...] I haven't yet met a statement regarding Brahman that cannot be "experienced", whether a rare or frequent "experience. When properly instructed, the statement is useful; in this case it indicates that not a trace of individuality remains to discriminate between Brahman and Maya; that distinction has been lost entirely. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2000 Report Share Posted January 24, 2000 >On 1/24/00 at 11:39 AM Patrick Kenny wrote: > >[...] My problem rather is ¤with ¤Brahman as defined by the Upanishad as >¤'Verily, all this is Brahman' which is ¤so ¤all-encompassing as to be >meaningless. Hi Patrick, "All of this is Brahman" seems to be only the ego's attempt to put a face on the faceless Consciousness of Self. However, if there's a "this," it seems to also imply that there may be a "that" somewhere out there, too. In Truth, though, Consciousness has absolutely no problems with definitions, paradoxes or with the struggles of the non-existent ego to try to "figure-it-all-out." The content is the context Itself. With Blessings, Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2000 Report Share Posted January 25, 2000 Patrick Kenny wrote: > ... > Brahman as defined by the Upanishad as > 'Verily, all this is Brahman' which is > so > all-encompassing as to be meaningless. > So I have found > the > Atman of the Gita to be more useful than > Spinoza's God or the Brahman of the > Upanishads > and my question is whether others have > had a similar experience. > hariH OM! patrick- i see what you're saying. yes, it's quite true that if all is brahman, the concept becomes in fact meaningless, because there's nothing left for contrast; nothing to comprehend, which of necessity requires comparative relationings. yet this is precisely what leads to moksha [or liberation] from the mind-habit of worshipping the river-run of exclusive ego-based Particulars. it's a matter of preference, insofar as embracing one concept over another. it's also semantical. for example: atman also equals brahman, finally. yet from another perspective, atman has an individualistic connotation....here it can be useful insofar as consulting the immanent and graspable nature of the Self over [or causal to] the egoistic Persona (jiva). so it depends on what one has come to understand; what one has accumulated in conceptual inventory, as to what makes sense and becomes part of one's strategic philosophy in one's own quest. an object in space can be viewed from myriads of possible angles, and look slightly different at each position. we could say that the brahman perspective is the sum total of all angles of perception, including the one from the center of the object itself. this is the event in nirvikalpa samadhi. the world collapses. (however, the state of moksha [in *sahaja* nirvikalpa samadhi] happens when [although] one is established in the linear perception process in/of the relative world, the holistic brahman perception state is 'experienced' simultaneously as foundational to it.) namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.