Notes on BSB I-i-2-1E: definition of brahman

February 1, 2001

namaste.

I like to continue the argument here that brahman cannot be

*defined*. As by definition, definition is one that limits the

object and presents overall some boundaries. Brahman cannot be

bound as such.

I see shri Sadananda garu's logic, however, using the word

*definition* either for taTasthalakshaNa or swarUpalakshaNa

perspective is still not appropriate, I think. Further, the

TaittirIya u. statements "yato vA imAni bhUtAni..." indicating

the taTasthalakshaNa or "satyam jnAnam anantam brahma..." indicating

the swarUpalakshaNa are not definitions, but indicators only.

We can *define* an object, if we take ourselves away from the

object and look at it passively. However, that is not the case

with brahman. We cannot separate ourselves away from brahman.

Further, we cannot treat brahman as an object to be defined

and limited. Any attempt at defining brahman always falls short

for this reason.

In conclusion, while enjoying very much shri sadananda garu's

presentations, I feel usage of the word 'definition' associated

with brahman, is, in my view, not a very correct usage. What is

the actual sanskrit word used by shri shankara in this context?

If it is the word "lakshaNam.h", can there be a better translation

of the word than "definition"?

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

February 1, 2001

Namaste Murthygaru:

Your arguement regarding the definition of the Brahman is quite

compelling, but other alternatives are less useful. If you can suggest

an alternative with more insights, please share it with all of us

and we are looking forward to your thoughts.

In mathematics, the non-definable infinity is defined implicitly

with the application of finite algebra and limit theorems. Even though

our destination is undefinable, we do need a starting point. The

definition or notion of Brahman with a limited boundary become a

necessary tool to realize the undefinable. Knowledge is progressive,

it is very limited at the starting point, but limited boundary of

knowledge slowly expands to realize the wisdom of unlimited Brahman.

The real line in mathematics is a good example, we start with 0, 1, 2,

3, ...... to reach the infinity!

Finally, I like the spirit of your argument with unlimited

enthusiasm and it will certainly serve as a useful reminder to

vedantins such definitions are the means and not the end!

regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> namaste.

>

> I like to continue the argument here that brahman cannot be

> *defined*. As by definition, definition is one that limits the

> object and presents overall some boundaries. Brahman cannot be

> bound as such.

>

> I see shri Sadananda garu's logic, however, using the word

> *definition* either for taTasthalakshaNa or swarUpalakshaNa

> perspective is still not appropriate, I think. Further, the

> TaittirIya u. statements "yato vA imAni bhUtAni..." indicating

> the taTasthalakshaNa or "satyam jnAnam anantam brahma..." indicating

> the swarUpalakshaNa are not definitions, but indicators only.

>

> We can *define* an object, if we take ourselves away from the

> object and look at it passively. However, that is not the case

> with brahman. We cannot separate ourselves away from brahman.

> Further, we cannot treat brahman as an object to be defined

> and limited. Any attempt at defining brahman always falls short

> for this reason.

>

> In conclusion, while enjoying very much shri sadananda garu's

> presentations, I feel usage of the word 'definition' associated

> with brahman, is, in my view, not a very correct usage. What is

> the actual sanskrit word used by shri shankara in this context?

> If it is the word "lakshaNam.h", can there be a better translation

> of the word than "definition"?

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

>

----

--

February 1, 2001

namaste shri Ram Chandran,

Yes, infinity in mathematics is a very good analogy for brahman.

I was discussing with my mathematics colleagues some time ago and

we were trying to find similarities in mathematics and advaita.

One of my friends, who is also an aquiantance of profvk of our List

(who is a mathematician), suggested there were some earlier thoughts

on this similarity.

As one who might have had mathematics training, can you *define*

infinity? As I understand, you can say such and such leads to

infinity. But you cannot describe or define infinity. Being a

non-mathematician, I cannot say anything more than that at the

moment. But I look forward to your comments on defining infinity.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--

February 1, 2001

Murthy gaaru - I saw Shree Ram Chandran's response to your mail. I

concur with him. There is not much I can add to what he has been

discussed.

Remember Brahman itself means infiniteness - any indicators of

infinity fall short. But do you agree the difference between the

taTasta lakshaNa - as jagat kaaraNam versus swaruupa lakshaNa in

terms of satyam, j~naanam and anandam or anantam Brahma. The

difference is John's house - the one with red paint with a large

fence is john's house versus the one where a crow is sitting right

now is john's house. one is swaruupa and the other is taTasta.

Jagat kaaraNam is like crow sitting on the house while satyam,

j`naanam anantam is like red paint etc of the house. In the case of

Brahman, he does not need any pointers - Jiiva who feels he is

differnt from brahman needs pointers and the pointers can be

effective only if jiiva understand those pointers. Hence LakshaNa is

from the point of jiiva and difference between taTasta and swaruupa

lakshaNa still exists even if Brahman cannot be definable.

- one suggestion - when you respond could you remove the copy field

since most of them opted only for the notes and not subsequent

discussions. Thanks.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>namaste.

>

>I like to continue the argument here that brahman cannot be

>*defined*. As by definition, definition is one that limits the

>object and presents overall some boundaries. Brahman cannot be

>bound as such.

>

>I see shri Sadananda garu's logic, however, using the word

>*definition* either for taTasthalakshaNa or swarUpalakshaNa

>perspective is still not appropriate, I think. Further, the

>TaittirIya u. statements "yato vA imAni bhUtAni..." indicating

>the taTasthalakshaNa or "satyam jnAnam anantam brahma..." indicating

>the swarUpalakshaNa are not definitions, but indicators only.

>

>We can *define* an object, if we take ourselves away from the

>object and look at it passively. However, that is not the case

>with brahman. We cannot separate ourselves away from brahman.

>Further, we cannot treat brahman as an object to be defined

>and limited. Any attempt at defining brahman always falls short

>for this reason.

>

>In conclusion, while enjoying very much shri sadananda garu's

>presentations, I feel usage of the word 'definition' associated

>with brahman, is, in my view, not a very correct usage. What is

>the actual sanskrit word used by shri shankara in this context?

>If it is the word "lakshaNam.h", can there be a better translation

>of the word than "definition"?

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

>

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity

>of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

>For details, visit: /local/news.html

>Post message: advaitin

>Subscribe: advaitin-

>Un: advaitin

>URL to Advaitin: advaitin

>File folder: advaitin

>Link Folder: advaitin/links

>Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

February 1, 2001

Namaste Shri Gummuluru Murthy:

I agree with your point regarding the similarity between mathematics

and advaita philosophy. Honestly, I do not want to indulge in a

discussion on the mathematical definition of infinity. Also I know

so little of mathematics and I may need some new training to

understand all the recent developments in mathematics.

Several Advanced Mathematical texts do contain lengthy description and

definition of infinity. But good definitions of infinity will be very

complicated and none of us may be able to understand it! I believe

those definitions pertain to how to deal with 'infinity' in

different algebraic operations. Mathematicians cleverly developed

algebraic theory to deal with both 'infinity' and 'zero.' Mathematics

is an ocean and what I know is just a little drop of water.

Any attempt to define Brahman in the Advaita Philosophy is just to

help us to get motivated and also to develop a logical understanding

of vyavahara (relative) level of reality. Such defintions are

conditional and are always with caveats. They are not applicable to

the paramathmika (absolute) level of reality and they become

meaningless.

At paramarthika level, there can be neither logic nor discussions.

I agree with your original statement regarding the definition of

Brahman at the Paramarthika level. Currently we are at the discussion

mode, i.e. vyavahara leve. Sadanandaji does need to start with some

notion (notion may be a better substitute to definition) of Brahman in

order to develop the logical framework. Sadanandaji will be quite

happy to drop all the logic along with the definition at the

paramarthika level!

regards,

Ram Chandran

Note: Mathematical definition of 'infinity' is quit conditional and

limited but it is quite essential for solving mathematical problems.

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> As one who might have had mathematics training, can you *define*

> infinity? As I understand, you can say such and such leads to

> infinity. But you cannot describe or define infinity. Being a

> non-mathematician, I cannot say anything more than that at the

> moment. But I look forward to your comments on defining infinity.

February 1, 2001

To define Brahman is to deny Brahman! Ant attempt even

to comprehend Brahman will be futile if not ego based

ignorance.

Gummuluru Murthy

<gmurthy> wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff solid 2px;

MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT:

5px"><HTML><BODY><TT> namaste shri Ram

Chandran, Yes, infinity in mathematics is a

very good analogy for brahman. I was discussing

with my mathematics colleagues some time ago and we

were trying to find similarities in mathematics and

advaita. One of my friends, who is also an

aquiantance of profvk of our List (who is a

mathematician), suggested there were some earlier

thoughts on this similarity. As one who

might have had mathematics training, can you *define*

infinity? As I understand, you can say such

and such leads to infinity. But you cannot describe

or define infinity. Being a non-mathematician, I

cannot say anything more than that at the moment.

But I look forward to your comments on defining

infinity. Regards Gummuluru

Murthy --<B\

R> </TT> <!--

|**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<TBODY>

Groups Sponsor</TD></TR>

<FORM

action=http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=17000\

75991:N/A=567137/R=0/*http://whois.domains./domains_wresults.html

method=get>

<TABLE bgColor=#0099ff border=0 cellPadding=0

cellSpacing=0 height=60 width=468>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD align=left vAlign=top><A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=567137/R=1/*http://domains."><IMG

alt="" border=0 height=60

src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/d_kelly_left.gif"

width=200></A></TD>

<TD align=left vAlign=top><A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=567137/R=2/*http://domains."><IMG

alt="" border=0 height=30

src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/d_kelly_top.gif"

width=268></A>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD>www.

<INPUT name=name

size=12value="kellysassler"> <INPUT

name=Submit type=submit value="get your

own!"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FORM></TD></T\

R>

<TR>

<TD><IMG alt="" height=1

src="http://us.adserver./l?M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmai\

l/S=1700075991:N/A=567137/rand=268488159"

width=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- |**|end egp

html banner|**| --> <TT>Discussion of Sankara's

Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at:

<A

href="http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/">http://www.eScribe.com/culture/a\

dvaitin/</A> Please

Note the New Changes at the Mail Server For

details, visit: <A

href="/local/news.html">/local/new\

s.html</A> Post

message: advaitin Subscribe:

advaitin- Un:

advaitin URL to

Advaitin: <A

href="advaitin">adva\

itin</A> File

folder: <A

href="advaitin">/gro\

up/advaitin</A> Link

Folder: <A

href="advaitin/links">/grou\

p/advaitin/links</A> Messages

Folder: <A

href="advaitin/messages">/g\

roup/advaitin/messages</A> </TT> </BLOCKQUOTE>

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

February 1, 2001

Harih Om Sagarji:

Statements such as 'To define Brahman is to deny Brahman'

inadvertantly defines the Brahman,! 'Brahman is undefinable,' and

'Brahman is noncomprehensible' implicitly define the Brahman.!

regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, BTA SAGAR <btasagar> wrote:

> To define Brahman is to deny Brahman! Ant attempt even

> to comprehend Brahman will be futile if not ego based

> ignorance.

February 1, 2001

Namaste,

A truly fascinating foray into this subject is in the book:

Infinity and the Mind, The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite; by

Rudy Rucker; 1982, Bantam Books.

It begins with a quotation from Blaise Pascal:

"When I consider the small span of my life absorbed in the eternity

of all time, or the small part of space which I can touch or see

engulfed by the infinite immensity of spaces that I know not and that

know me not, I am frightened and astonished to see myself here

instead of there....now instead of then."

Regards,

s.

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> namaste shri Ram Chandran,

>

> Yes, infinity in mathematics is a very good analogy for brahman.

> I was discussing with my mathematics colleagues some time ago and

> we were trying to find similarities in mathematics and advaita.

> One of my friends, who is also an aquiantance of profvk of our List

> (who is a mathematician), suggested there were some earlier thoughts

> on this similarity.

>

> As one who might have had mathematics training, can you *define*

> infinity? As I understand, you can say such and such leads to

> infinity. But you cannot describe or define infinity. Being a

> non-mathematician, I cannot say anything more than that at the

> moment. But I look forward to your comments on defining infinity.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> --

February 1, 2001

Dear Ramji,

Namaste! Your observations are profound.This humble

self is derives great joy inl addressing Brahman,the

Supreme God or Paramatman on one to one basis,either

as a friend or father or mother instead of in third

person..Being a Sri Krishna Bhakta, I see Lord Sri

Krishna (Sri Guruvayyor Appan or Lord Venkateswara) as

Brahman.As Brahman is beyond human comprehension or

definition,He (she) is merciful enough to reveal to

mankind His sweetest Self as Lord Sri Krishna,so that

the limited Human mind can feel God's Divine

Presence,. Brahman' s Love and Compassion..

Lord Sri Krishna's revelations in Bhagawad Geeta

And Uddhava Geetha such as:

Brahmanyeva Pratishtaham Amritatasyacha avyacha

Saswatasya dharmasya sukasyaikantikasyacha

I am always established in Brahman (or Brahman is

Me),who is Immortal,Omnipotent,Eternal,Dharma and the

Supreme Bliss of Oneness !

Bhaktyalabdhwavata saadho kimanyadawasishyate

My Anantagune Brahman Anandaanubhava Atmani

Attaining Me by devotion,what else is needed ?I am

Brahman of infinite (wonderful )gunaas,who bestow on

you the Supreme Bliss or Ananda.

Ananda Sagar

Ram Chandran

<rchandran> wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff solid 2px;

MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT:

5px"><HTML><BODY><TT>Harih Om

Sagarji: Statements such as 'To define Brahman

is to deny Brahman' inadvertantly defines the

Brahman,! 'Brahman is undefinable,' and 'Brahman

is noncomprehensible' implicitly define the Brahman.!

regards, Ram Chandran --- In

advaitin, BTA SAGAR <btasagar>

wrote: > To define Brahman is to deny Brahman!

Ant attempt even > to comprehend Brahman will be

futile if not ego based >

ignorance. </TT> <!-- |**|begin

egp html banner|**| -->

<TBODY>

Groups Sponsor</TD></TR>

<FORM

action=http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=17000\

75991:N/A=572096/R=0/*http://whois.domains./domains_wresults.html

method=get>

<TABLE bgColor=#ffccff border=0 cellPadding=0

cellSpacing=0 width=468>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD rowSpan=2><A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=572096/R=1/*http://www.domains.com"><IMG

alt="" border=0 height=60

src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/cry3.gif"

width=145></A></TD>

<TD vAlign=top><A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=572096/R=2/*http://www.domains.com"><IMG

alt="" border=0 height=30

src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/crytext3.gif"

width=323></A></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TABLE border=0 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0

width=242>

<TBODY>

<TD align=middle noWrap vAlign=center><FONT

color=#000000 face="verdana, arial" size=2>www.

<INPUT name=name size=22> .com <INPUT

name=Submit type=submit

value=Go!></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FORM></TD></TR><\

BR>

<TR>

<TD><IMG alt="" height=1

src="http://us.adserver./l?M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmai\

l/S=1700075991:N/A=572096/rand=420202448"

width=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- |**|end egp

html banner|**| --> <TT>Discussion of Sankara's

Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at:

<A

href="http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/">http://www.eScribe.com/culture/a\

dvaitin/</A> Please

Note the New Changes at the Mail Server For

details, visit: <A

href="/local/news.html">/local/new\

s.html</A> Post

message: advaitin Subscribe:

advaitin- Un:

advaitin URL to

Advaitin: <A

href="advaitin">adva\

itin</A> File

folder: <A

href="advaitin">/gro\

up/advaitin</A> Link

Folder: <A

href="advaitin/links">/grou\

p/advaitin/links</A> Messages

Folder: <A

href="advaitin/messages">/g\

roup/advaitin/messages</A> </TT> </BLOCKQUOTE>

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

February 2, 2001

hariH OM! murthyji, ramji, sadaji, sagarji-

as usual, some very interesting points raised and useful

insights that follow...

i would also like to point out that the prevailing tendency

to attempt to define or refer to [nirguna] brahman as 'an

emptiness,' or 'Void,' is extremely misleading! far more

accurately--in my view--it could be *inferentially indicated*

as being:

Void + Plenum* + (both & neither) + beyond (both & neither).

* 'Plenum': defined here as brahman's latent seed of Desire

or mulaprakrit (the seed of creative potential for prakrit)

as well as what winds up being its projected cyclical

Manifestation [into the Relativity of Life].

therefore, nirguna brahman [permanently possessing the latent

seed of saguna brahman] is, as we all agree, anirvachaniya =

which leads to the inescapable conclusion that It is finally

and essentially a *permanent* unsolvable Mystery!

incidentally and conversely:

the majority opinion regarding the vyavaharika (what i like

to think of as the saguna projection of nirguna brahman, and

not merely the embodiment in isvara - hi murthyji :-) is that

it is mithya (unreal)...forgetting that Its origin as well as

Its operational field is the prakrit of maya! therefore It

is as much anirvachaniya as nirguna brahman Itself [which

spawned It as Its own leela]. if we bear in mind that maya

is alluded to being 'real yet unreal' [which is esoterically

stating the fact that It is equivalent to being a Mystery],

we would recognize that so is attempting to understand the

dynamics of Its works [via the *relative* drishthi in

vyavahara], an utterly impossible task, for the simple fact

that it is indeed--as is Its Source--an unfathomable Mystery!

peace in love,

frank

February 2, 2001

Namaste,

Mystery is never as well expressed in prose as in poetry!

"To see a world in a grain of sand

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour."...

William Blake, Auguries of Innocence

"For Mercy has a human heart,

Pity a human face.

And Love, the human form divine,

And Peace, the human dress."....

W. Blake, The Divine Image

Regards,

s.

advaitin, f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote:

> hariH OM! murthyji, ramji, sadaji, sagarji-

>

> as usual, some very interesting points raised and useful

> insights that follow...

>

> i would also like to point out that the prevailing tendency

> to attempt to define or refer to [nirguna] brahman as 'an

> emptiness,' or 'Void,' is extremely misleading! far more

> accurately--in my view--it could be *inferentially indicated*

> as being:

>

> Void + Plenum* + (both & neither) + beyond (both & neither).

>

> * 'Plenum': defined here as brahman's latent seed of Desire

> or mulaprakrit (the seed of creative potential for prakrit)

> as well as what winds up being its projected cyclical

> Manifestation [into the Relativity of Life].

>

> therefore, nirguna brahman [permanently possessing the latent

> seed of saguna brahman] is, as we all agree, anirvachaniya =

> which leads to the inescapable conclusion that It is finally

> and essentially a *permanent* unsolvable Mystery!

>

> incidentally and conversely:

> the majority opinion regarding the vyavaharika (what i like

> to think of as the saguna projection of nirguna brahman, and

> not merely the embodiment in isvara - hi murthyji :-) is that

> it is mithya (unreal)...forgetting that Its origin as well as

> Its operational field is the prakrit of maya! therefore It

> is as much anirvachaniya as nirguna brahman Itself [which

> spawned It as Its own leela]. if we bear in mind that maya

> is alluded to being 'real yet unreal' [which is esoterically

> stating the fact that It is equivalent to being a Mystery],

> we would recognize that so is attempting to understand the

> dynamics of Its works [via the *relative* drishthi in

> vyavahara], an utterly impossible task, for the simple fact

> that it is indeed--as is Its Source--an unfathomable Mystery!

>

> peace in love,

> frank

February 2, 2001

More quotations on infinity!

" Mystery has its own mysteries, and there are gods above gods. We

have ours, they have theirs. That is what's known as infinity."

Jean Cocteau (1889–1963), French author and filmmaker. Anubis, in The

Infernal Machine, act 2 (1932; repr. in Collected Works, vol. 5,

1948).

"Whenever we encounter the Infinite in man, however imperfectly

understood, we treat it with respect. Whether in the synagogue, the

mosque, the pagoda, or the wigwam, there is a hideous aspect which we

execrate and a sublime aspect which we venerate. So great a subject

for spiritual contemplation, such measureless dreaming— the echo of

God on the human wall!"

Victor Hugo (1802–85), French poet, dramatist, novelist. Les

Misérables, pt. 2, bk. 7, ch. 1 (1862).

"This moment exhibits infinite space, but there is a space also

wherein all moments are infinitely exhibited, and the everlasting

duration of infinite space is another region and room of joys."

Thomas Traherne (1636–74), English clergyman, poet, mystic. Centuries,

"Fifth Century," no. 6 (written c. 1672; published 1908).

February 2, 2001

Namaste!

My apologies to you all.I am sending my e-mail

messages in a hurry ,neglecting to correct typos and

grammar.I am sure you will not misunderstand.I am 72

and not a very good typist and much less a computer

person.Please pardon me.

BTA SAGAR

<btasagar> wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid;

MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT:

5px"><TT> Dear

Ramji, Namaste! Your

observations are profound.This humble self is

derives great joy inl addressing

Brahman,the Supreme God or Paramatman on one to one

basis,either as a friend or father or mother

instead of in third person..Being a Sri Krishna

Bhakta, I see Lord Sri Krishna (Sri Guruvayyor

Appan or Lord Venkateswara) as Brahman.As Brahman

is beyond human comprehension or definition,He

(she) is merciful enough to reveal to mankind His

sweetest Self as Lord Sri Krishna,so that the

limited Human mind can feel God's Divine Presence,.

Brahman' s Love and

Compassion.. Lord Sri Krishna's

revelations in Bhagawad Geeta And Uddhava Geetha

such as: Brahmanyeva

Pratishtaham Amritatasyacha

avyacha Saswatasya dharmasya

sukasyaikantikasyacha I am

always established in Brahman (or Brahman

is Me),who is Immortal,Omnipotent,Eternal,Dharma

and the Supreme Bliss of Oneness

! Bhaktyalabdhwavata saadho

kimanyadawasishyate My

Anantagune Brahman Anandaanubhava

Atmani Attaining Me by

devotion,what else is needed ?I am Brahman of

infinite (wonderful )gunaas,who bestow on you the

Supreme Bliss or Ananda. Ananda

Sagar

Ram

Chandran <rchandran>

wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE

style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT:

5px;

PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><HTML><BODY><TT>Harih

Om Sagarji: Statements such as

'To define Brahman is to deny Brahman'

inadvertantly defines the Brahman,!

'Brahman is undefinable,' and 'Brahman is

noncomprehensible' implicitly define the

Brahman.! regards, Ram

Chandran --- In advaitin,

BTA SAGAR

<btasagar> wrote: >

To define Brahman is to deny Brahman! Ant attempt

even > to comprehend Brahman will

be futile if not ego

based > ignorance. </\

TT> <!--

|**|begin egp html banner|**|

--> <TABLE border=0 cellPadding=2

cellSpacing=0> <TBODY> <TR

bgColor=#ffffcc> <TD

align=middle><FONT color=#003399

size=-1> Groups

Sponsor</TD></TR> <TR

bgColor=#ffffff> <TD

width=470> <FORM action=<A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=572096/R=0/*http://whois.domains./domains_wresults.html">http:\

//rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:N/A=57\

2096/R=0/*http://whois.domains./domains_wresults.html</A> method=get\

> <INPUT

name=action type=hidden value=1>

<INPUT name=property type=hidden

value=domains> <TABLE

bgColor=#ffccff border=0

cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0

width=468> <TBODY> <TR> &l\

t;TD

rowSpan=2><A href="<A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=572096/R=1/*http://www.domains.com">http://rd./M=176325.130793\

5.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:N/A=572096/R=1/*http://www.domains.c\

om</A>"><IMG alt=""

border=0 height=60 src="<A

href="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/cry3.gif">http://us.a1\

..yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/cry3.gif</A>" width=145></A>\

</TD> <TD

vAlign=top><A href="<A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=572096/R=2/*http://www.domains.com">http://rd./M=176325.130793\

5.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:N/A=572096/R=2/*http://www.domains.c\

om</A>"><IMG alt=""

border=0 height=30 src="<A

href="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/crytext3.gif">http://u\

s.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/crytext3.gif</A>" width=323>&l\

t;/A></TD></TR> <TR> <TD

align=middle> <TABLE border=0

cellPadding=0

cellSpacing=0 width=242> <TBODY> <TR

vAlign=top> <TD align=middle noWrap

vAlign=center><FONT color=#000000

face="verdana, arial" size=2>www.

<INPUT name=name

size=22> .com <INPUT name=Submit

type=submit value=Go!></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>&l\

t;/TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FORM></TD></TR&\

gt; <TR> <TD><IMG

alt="" height=1 src="<A

href="http://us.adserver./l?M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupma\

il/S=1700075991:N/A=572096/rand=420202448">http://us.adserver./l?M=1763\

25.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:N/A=572096/rand=420202448</\

A>" width=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--

|**|end egp html banner|**|

--> <TT>Discussion of

Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available

at: <A href="<A

href="http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/">http://www.escribe.com/culture/a\

dvaitin/</A>"><A

href="http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/">http://www.eScribe.com/culture/a\

dvaitin/</A></A> Please Note

the New Changes at the Mail

Server For details, visit:

<A href="<A

href="/local/news.html">/local/new\

s.html</A>"><A

href="/local/news.html">/local/new\

s.html</A></A> Post message:

advaitin Subscribe: advaitin-\

om Un: advaitin URL

to Advaitin: <A href="<A

href="advaitin">adva\

itin</A>"><A

href="advaitin">adva\

itin</A></A> File folder:

<A href="<A

href="advaitin">/gro\

up/advaitin</A>"><A

href="advaitin">/gro\

up/advaitin</A></A> Link Folder:

<A href="<A

href="advaitin/links">/grou\

p/advaitin/links</A>"><A

href="advaitin/links">/grou\

p/advaitin/links</A></A> Messages Folder:

<A href="<A

href="advaitin/messages">/g\

roup/advaitin/messages</A>"><A

href="advaitin/messages">/g\

roup/advaitin/messages</A></A> </TT> &lt\

;/BLOCKQUOTE> Ge\

t

personalized email addresses from Mail - only

$35 a year! <A

href="http://personal.mail./">http://personal.mail./</A> </\

TT> <!--

|**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<TBODY>

Groups Sponsor</TD></TR>

<FORM

action=http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=17000\

75991:N/A=567156/R=0/*http://whois.domains./domains_wresults.html

method=get><INPUT name=action type=hidden value=1>

<TABLE bgColor=#ffff00 border=0 cellPadding=0

cellSpacing=0 width=468>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD rowSpan=2><A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=567156/R=1/*http://domains."><IMG

alt="" border=0 height=60

src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/domains_2athle_01.gif"

width=146></A></TD>

<TD vAlign=top><A

href="http://rd./M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmail/S=170007\

5991:N/A=567156/R=2/*http://domains."><IMG

alt="" border=0 height=30

src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/domains_2athle_02.gif"

width=322></A></TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD>

<TABLE border=0 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0

width=300>

<TBODY>

<TD align=right height=30 vAlign=center width=50><FONT

color=#000000 face="Arial,Helvetica, sans-serif"

size=3>www.</TD>

<TD align=middle height=30 vAlign=center

width=150><INPUT maxLength=22 name=name

size=17></TD>

<TD height=30 vAlign=center width=50><FONT

color=#000000 face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"

size=3>.com</TD>

<TD align=middle height=30 vAlign=center

width=50><INPUT name=Submit type=submit

value=Go!></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FORM></\

TD></TR>

<TR>

<TD><IMG alt="" height=1

src="http://us.adserver./l?M=176325.1307935.2900315.1248727/D=egroupmai\

l/S=1700075991:N/A=567156/rand=336081311"

width=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- |**|end egp

html banner|**| --> <TT>Discussion of Sankara's

Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at:

<A

href="http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/">http://www.eScribe.com/culture/a\

dvaitin/</A> Please

Note the New Changes at the Mail Server For

details, visit: <A

href="/local/news.html">/local/new\

s.html</A> Post

message: advaitin Subscribe:

advaitin- Un:

advaitin URL to

Advaitin: <A

href="advaitin">adva\

itin</A> File

folder: <A

href="advaitin">/gro\

up/advaitin</A> Link

Folder: <A

href="advaitin/links">/grou\

p/advaitin/links</A> Messages

Folder: <A

href="advaitin/messages">/g\

roup/advaitin/messages</A> </TT> </BLOCKQUOTE>

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

February 3, 2001

Sub:Ongoing discussions Re. Notes on BSB 1-i-2-IE.

Ram Chandran wrote:

> More quotations on infinity!

>

iishvara is referred to as "aNoraNiiyan mahato mahiiyaan"

which means smaller than the smallest and larger than the

largest helps one to grasp the idea of what is meant by

infinity very well. It is a lakshhaNam of infinity.

> The word definition itself comes from the word finite. We can not therefore

define what is

> infinite. The following incident ( Bhaagavatam X.9.12 ) brings out the

futility of trying

> to define infinity. Yashoda , exasperated by the pranks of child KR^ishhNa,

wanted to tie

> him up to the uluukhala

( the wooden mortar used for pounding grain) with a piece of

rope. She found the rope was too short by a couple of inches.

She added another length of rope and found again that the total

length was still short by a couple of inches ! She went on

adding more and more pieces of rope till she exhausted all the

rope available in the house and still it fell short by a couple

of inches ! Finally KR^ishhNa took pity on his mother and

allowed himself to be tied. The infinite can be grasped only

when He showers His grace on your efforts.

Infinity is not a specific point on the number line. It can

only be described as being farther along the line than any

other number on the line you may choose to think of.

The difference of opinion between Murtygaru and Sadaaji

is not on any substantive issue. Both agree that the

puurvapakshhi's argument that brahman does not have a

lakshhaNam is invalid. Both agree that brahma-lakshhaNam

asti. In fact two kinds of lakshhaNam have been given for

brahman -- The svaruupa lakshhaNam ( sat-cit-aanandam)

may be found to be too abstract and difficult to comprehend.

The taTastha lakshhanam (jagat-kaaraNam) is easier to

comprehend. Thus there is no difference of opinion on

substantive matters.

The only point is : can the sanskR^it word LakshhaNam

be translated into english by the word Definition ? This is

a problem of the english language. According to the Oxford

Dictionary, the word definition also means an explanation of

a concept. The english words *Identification* , *indication*,

or *pointer* could also be used. Sadaaji's assertion that

' brahman does not need any pointers, only jiiva does' is

unexceptionable. We should remember that we are talking of

pointers TO brahman ( for helping the jiiva) and not

pointers OF or FOR brahman.

Submitted for consideration by scholars of advaita.

Regards.

V.M.Sundarm

>

> " Mystery has its own mysteries, and there are gods above gods. We

> have ours, they have theirs. That is what's known as infinity."

> Jean Cocteau (1889–1963), French author and filmmaker. Anubis, in The

> Infernal Machine, act 2 (1932; repr. in Collected Works, vol. 5,

> 1948).

>

> "Whenever we encounter the Infinite in man, however imperfectly

> understood, we treat it with respect. Whether in the synagogue, the

> mosque, the pagoda, or the wigwam, there is a hideous aspect which we

> execrate and a sublime aspect which we venerate. So great a subject

> for spiritual contemplation, such measureless dreaming— the echo of

> God on the human wall!"

> Victor Hugo (1802–85), French poet, dramatist, novelist. Les

> Misérables, pt. 2, bk. 7, ch. 1 (1862).

>

> "This moment exhibits infinite space, but there is a space also

> wherein all moments are infinitely exhibited, and the everlasting

> duration of infinite space is another region and room of joys."

> Thomas Traherne (1636–74), English clergyman, poet, mystic. Centuries,

> "Fifth Century," no. 6 (written c. 1672; published 1908).

>

> Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: /local/news.html

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: advaitin

> File folder: advaitin

> Link Folder: advaitin/links

> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

February 3, 2001

Namaste,

Well-said!

Rishis 'defined' all concepts, definitions like aja, nitya,

amara, ananta, puurNa, etc. as " neti, neti"!

Regards,

s.

advaitin, "V.M.Sundaram" <venkataraman@p...> wrote:

> Sub:Ongoing discussions Re. Notes on BSB 1-i-2-IE.

We should remember that we are talking of

> pointers TO brahman ( for helping the jiiva) and not

> pointers OF or FOR brahman.

>

> >

>

> >

February 4, 2001

Namaste,

In the eighth chapter Arjuna asks Bhagavan Krishna as

to "Kim tat Brahma Kimadhyatma Kim Karma

Purushothama?"

" What is Brahman? What is Adhyatma, What is Karma, O

Supreme?"

Sri Bhagavan Uvacha.

"Aksharam Brahma Paramam"

"The indestructible supreme is Brahman".

This is a definition and it is a sort of negation.

Everything that is a perishable is left out, that

which remains is indestructible and hence supreme.

In this context I would like to ask in what way is

Brahman said to be of the nature of Intelligence

(Chit)? Is it just like the formless mind creating the

multitude of forms or is it otherise ?

Anand

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

February 5, 2001

>

>In this context I would like to ask in what way is

>Brahman said to be of the nature of Intelligence

>(Chit)? Is it just like the formless mind creating the

>multitude of forms or is it otherise ?

>

>Anand

Brahman as consciousness as its intrinsic nature - nirvisheshha

chaitanya - or objectless awareness since there is nothing other than

Brahman. Once there is object-subject distinction as in the mind

projection we are already come down one step at the level of Iswara

where the total mind put together is the Iswara. In contrast to the

individual mind the total mind is free from impurities and hence

Iswara is maayaavi or wielder of the maaya and maaya becomes his

shakti whereas at the individual mind it is avidya or ignorance.

When we say it is sum total of the mind, we cannot add the minds just

like that - to become sum total, the negatives have to drop out and

only the positive can add-up. It is like when we say we as a family

think with one mind - in order to do that the family members have to

surrender their individual differences and join collectively to form

one unit by combining their positive qualities. Only Love can bring

the family together as one. Hence Iswara becomes samasta kalyaaNa

guNa aashraya or the locus of infinite auspicious qualities.

Brahman is beyond all qualities since qualities are concept of the

mind. He is nirguNa in the sense He is guNa atiita - transcends all

guNa-s.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

February 5, 2001

Namaste! A few more thoughts:

Here are some assertions of Lord Sri Krishna:

Mayyeva Braman poorno----------The Poorna (FULL)

Brahman is Me!

Nirgune Brahmani Mayi-------------I am the Nirguna

Brahman

Understanding the metaphysics of the mind composed

of manas,chitta,buddhi along with play of gunaas and

ego is no doubt very important.To transcend the maaya

thus created is also very important to attain the

Bliss of Samadhi or Nirwana.In that Samadhi,one

experiences Brahman,God and immediately enjoys the

Supreme Bliss of Devotion.A bee is primarily

created to enjoy the honey and a human birth to enjoy

the Amritha or ambrosia of Devotion to Brahman(God or

Sri Krishna---------)

A bee does not want to merge into honey,and a true

devotee wants human birth again and again to

enjoy the devotion to the Lord! Lord Sri Krishna tells

to Uddhava," Uddhava,Even when I offer My abode

or My Powers ,My devotee does not seek them for the

devotee's sole purpose in life is to remember Me

and enjoy the nectar of devotion to ME

constantly."

Sometimes, defining Brahman as Consciousness,or

Satchitananda swaroopa tends to forget Brahman's

DIVINE PERSONALITY and His Freedom to be Vyakta

-Avyakta SWAROOPA according to His Free Will (or male

or female Saakara --or Niraakara Brahman) as He deems

necessary.His Divine Personility with Mercy (Karunyam)

and Love (Vaatsalyam) should be always remembered.

BTA SAGAR

<btasagar> wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff solid 2px;

MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT:

5px"><HTML><BODY><TT> Dear

Ramji, Namaste! Your

observations are profound.This humble self is

derives great joy inl addressing

Brahman,the Supreme God or Paramatman on one to one

basis,either as a friend or father or mother

instead of in third person..Being a Sri Krishna

Bhakta, I see Lord Sri Krishna (Sri Guruvayyor

Appan or Lord Venkateswara) as Brahman.As Brahman

is beyond human comprehension or definition,He

(she) is merciful enough to reveal to mankind His

sweetest Self as Lord Sri Krishna,so that the

limited Human mind can feel God's Divine Presence,.

Brahman' s Love and

Compassion.. Lord Sri Krishna's

revelations in Bhagawad Geeta And Uddhava Geetha

such as: Brahmanyeva

Pratishtaham Amritatasyacha

avyacha Saswatasya dharmasya

sukasyaikantikasyacha I am

always established in Brahman (or Brahman

is Me),who is Immortal,Omnipotent,Eternal,Dharma

and the Supreme Bliss of Oneness

! Bhaktyalabdhwavata saadho

kimanyadawasishyate My

Anantagune Brahman Anandaanubhava

Atmani Attaining Me by

devotion,what else is needed ?I am Brahman of

infinite (wonderful )gunaas,who bestow on you the

Supreme Bliss or Ananda. Ananda

Sagar </TT></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

February 7, 2001

On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, V.M.Sundaram wrote:

> Sub:Ongoing discussions Re. Notes on BSB 1-i-2-IE.

>

> Infinity is not a specific point on the number line. It can

> only be described as being farther along the line than any

> other number on the line you may choose to think of.

>

> The difference of opinion between Murtygaru and Sadaaji

> is not on any substantive issue. Both agree that the

> puurvapakshhi's argument that brahman does not have a

> lakshhaNam is invalid. Both agree that brahma-lakshhaNam

> asti. In fact two kinds of lakshhaNam have been given for

> brahman -- The svaruupa lakshhaNam ( sat-cit-aanandam)

> may be found to be too abstract and difficult to comprehend.

> The taTastha lakshhanam (jagat-kaaraNam) is easier to

> comprehend. Thus there is no difference of opinion on

> substantive matters.

> The only point is : can the sanskR^it word LakshhaNam

> be translated into english by the word Definition ? This is

> a problem of the english language. According to the Oxford

> Dictionary, the word definition also means an explanation of

> a concept. The english words *Identification* , *indication*,

> or *pointer* could also be used. Sadaaji's assertion that

> ' brahman does not need any pointers, only jiiva does' is

> unexceptionable. We should remember that we are talking of

> pointers TO brahman ( for helping the jiiva) and not

> pointers OF or FOR brahman.

>

> Submitted for consideration by scholars of advaita.

>

> Regards.

> V.M.Sundarm

>

namaste.

Very well expressed. There is absolutely no difference between my

understanding and shri Sadananda's. I am putting in a suggestion

for a better word than 'definition' as a meaning of lakshaNam.

This discussion had a very fruitful bye-product, viz. the thinking

of infinity of mathematics. I hope to put a small note soon on my

understanding of infinity (which I gleaned in the past few days)

and of its similarity with the great advaitic shAnthipAThaH

'pUrNamadaH pUrNamidaM ...'

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----

February 11, 2001

> advaitin, Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo> wrote:

> > So what is this Roopa for that which is Aroopa?

> > Perception requires a Roopa even if it be non visual.

> > Before the ego is lost, the ego must perceive the

> > higher Self. Though the higher Self is formless, it is

> > my feeling, that since it is percievable, it is

> > refered to as Roopa.

If I remember right, this discussion started with a reference to Shankara's

nirvaaNa shhatkam, where each stanza ends with

cidaananda ruupaH shivoham shivoham.

In each stanza he systematically denies his identity with anything that is

anaatamaa-

saying I am not the body, I am not the pancabhuuta-s, etc. and asserts his

identity

with aatmaa.

He refers to aatmaa as cit-aananda-ruupah shivaH.

The word ruupaH here does not mean a form or a shape. It means the very nature.

We say sugar is sweet. That is an attribute of sugar. SweetNESS by itself is

some

thing else. You can experience sweetness, but can you define sweetness to

someone

who has never tasted sugar ? This sweetness you perceive using your indriya

(sense of taste in this case) and your mind behind it. This is so because sugar

is an object

(something external to you).

The aatmaa which is yourself, can not be "perceived" in the same way (thru any

indriya

and manas) because your own Self is not an object external to yourself .

Indriya-s are

paraanci khani - externally oriented. So aatmaa cannot be identified by any

ruupa,rasa.

gandha etc .

In the sixth stanza of the nirvaNa shatkam itself Shankara says aham nir-aakara-

ruupah

and goes on to end the stanza with cit-aananda- ruupaH shivoham shivoham !

Cit - aananda ( you can add sat also in front) is NOT the FORM of aatmaa that

can be

perceived by the senses. Nor is it an attribute or quality of aatmaa. It is

the very NATURE

of aatmaa. Aatmaa IS cit-aananda. Aatmaa is not being described as

intelligent or happy.

Aatmaa is Intelligence and Happiness.

This my understanding. I am open to correction. I shall also be happy if other

sholars

confirm my understanding as correct.

Regards.

V.M.Sundaram.

>

February 11, 2001

advaitin, Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo> wrote:

> In this context I would like to ask in what way is

> Brahman said to be of the nature of Intelligence

> (Chit)?

When we refer to Brahman in terms of attributes such as

'Chit', 'Ananda', we refer to the Manifested form. Repeated 'Neti' is

the Unmanifested one-without-second.

Regards,

Raghava

February 11, 2001

Raghavaji,

Every stanza of Nirvana Shatkam of Sri Adi

Shankaracharya ends with "Chidaananda Roopam Shivoham

Shivoham". However every stanza also begins with

negation of attributes. In that case to what does Sri

Adi Shankaracharya refer to as Chidaananda roopam ?

Anand

--- raghavakaluri wrote:

> advaitin, Anand Natarajan

> <harihara.geo> wrote:

>

> > In this context I would like to ask in what way is

> > Brahman said to be of the nature of Intelligence

> > (Chit)?

>

> When we refer to Brahman in terms of attributes such

> as

> 'Chit', 'Ananda', we refer to the Manifested form.

> Repeated 'Neti' is

> the Unmanifested one-without-second.

>

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

February 11, 2001

advaitin, Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo> wrote:

>

> Raghavaji,

>

> Every stanza of Nirvana Shatkam of Sri Adi

> Shankaracharya ends with "Chidaananda Roopam Shivoham

> Shivoham". However every stanza also begins with

> negation of attributes. In that case to what does Sri

> Adi Shankaracharya refer to as Chidaananda roopam ?

>

Dear AnandJi,

In my limited knowledge, I think, Shree Shankara, did us a favor

and tried to atleast tell us something concrete in addition to a

series of repeated Neti's. Otherwise, we average readers will get lost

if he were to only say Neti and keep quiet. However, when trying to

give a form to the formless, we already have diluted it, made it

finite, and hence the question arose now correctly. If I remember

correctly, Upanishads did not give a concrete statement such as this.

With Love,

Raghava

February 11, 2001

Raghavaji,

Yes, we cannot express by words of mouth or

write about, that which is not "Uchhishta" (I hope I

wrote it properly). However there are many quotations

which refer to Roopam of that which is Aroopa. Even

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi in his famous Shloka from the

Ramana Gita says, "Hridaya Kuhara Madhye..... Hyham

Aham ithi Aatma Roopena Baathi" Shines in the form of

Atman as "I I".

So what is this Roopa for that which is Aroopa?

Perception requires a Roopa even if it be non visual.

Before the ego is lost, the ego must perceive the

higher Self. Though the higher Self is formless, it is

my feeling, that since it is percievable, it is

refered to as Roopa.

Anand

> >

> > Raghavaji,

> >

> > Every stanza of Nirvana Shatkam of Sri Adi

> > Shankaracharya ends with "Chidaananda Roopam

> Shivoham

> > Shivoham". However every stanza also begins with

> > negation of attributes. In that case to what does

> Sri

> > Adi Shankaracharya refer to as Chidaananda roopam

> ?

> >

>

> Dear AnandJi,

> In my limited knowledge, I think, Shree Shankara,

> did us a favor

> and tried to atleast tell us something concrete in

> addition to a

> series of repeated Neti's. Otherwise, we average

> readers will get lost

> if he were to only say Neti and keep quiet. However,

> when trying to

> give a form to the formless, we already have diluted

> it, made it

> finite, and hence the question arose now correctly.

> If I remember

> correctly, Upanishads did not give a concrete

> statement such as this.

>

> With Love,

> Raghava

>

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

February 12, 2001

advaitin, Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo> wrote:

> So what is this Roopa for that which is Aroopa?

> Perception requires a Roopa even if it be non visual.

> Before the ego is lost, the ego must perceive the

> higher Self. Though the higher Self is formless, it is

> my feeling, that since it is percievable, it is

> refered to as Roopa.

Dear AnandJi,

Yes, the Upanishads say that there are two Brahmans to be realized !

If we look at the creation process:

Aroopa-Brahman ........ > Swaroopa Brahman (Creator-God) ---> Creation

When a life-form in the Creation tries to perceive the Aroopa-

Brahman, it/he/she must go thru the reverse process sequentially. The

penultimate step being perception of the Saguna-Brahman. This Saguna-

Brahman, as Shree Ramakrishna said, is real. It is real because we

are real, and when we can be real, why not Creator-God.

The final step is realization of the Nirguna-Brahman.

With Love,

Raghava

Notes on BSB I-i-2-1E: *definition* of brahman

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Notes on BSB I-i-2-1E: definition of brahman