Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Namaste Sri Michael "For instance, a red flower near a colourless crystal makes it appear as red. The red flower is called an 'upadhi' for the crystal. Similarly the body-mind complex is an upadhi for the Atman (the individual soul) making it appear as the jiva (the limited transmigrating self) and the world is an upadhi for Brahman, the Absolute, who has nothing to do with creation." This is the part I don't understand in Advaita. Brahman is the Universe. All is Brahman. The invidual Jivatman is the same as the Paramatman which is also Brahman. The universe is Brahman. But Brahman is not the reason for creation ? Om Tat Sat Guru Venkat Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote: > > Namaste Sri Michael > > "For instance, a red flower near a colourless crystal makes it appear as red. The red flower is called an 'upadhi' for the crystal. Similarly the body-mind complex is an upadhi for the Atman (the individual soul) making it appear as the jiva (the limited transmigrating self) and the world is an upadhi for Brahman, the Absolute, who has nothing to do with creation." > > This is the part I don't understand in Advaita. Brahman is the Universe. All is Brahman. The invidual Jivatman is the same as the Paramatman which is also Brahman. The universe is Brahman. But Brahman is not the reason for creation ? > > Om Tat Sat > > Guru Venkat Namaste, You are not distinguishing between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman that's all. Immanent and Transcendant.......ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Namaskar, " This is the part I don't understand in Advaita. Brahman is the Universe. All is Brahman. The invidual Jivatman is the same as the Paramatman which is also Brahman. The universe is Brahman. But Brahman is not the reason for creation ? > > Om Tat Sat > > Guru Venkat Namaste, You are not distinguishing between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman that's all. Immanent and Transcendant.......ONS...Tony." When asked about the world, it is said 'Brahma Satyam Jagan Mityam' . But to explain the world we bring in Saguna Brahman. Isn't this contradictory ? Om Tat Sat Guru Venkat Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote: > > Namaskar, > > " This is the part I don't understand in Advaita. Brahman is the > Universe. All is Brahman. The invidual Jivatman is the same as the > Paramatman which is also Brahman. The universe is Brahman. But > Brahman is not the reason for creation ? > > > > Om Tat Sat > > > > Guru Venkat > > Namaste, > > You are not distinguishing between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman that's > all. Immanent and Transcendant.......ONS...Tony." > > When asked about the world, it is said 'Brahma Satyam Jagan Mityam' . But to explain the world we bring in Saguna Brahman. Isn't this contradictory ? > > Om Tat Sat > > Guru Venkat Namaste, There is only Nirguna Brahman. Saguna is the description of Brahman associated with 'Creation', which in itself never happened!!!!! and is a dream. There is nothing contradictory........ONS....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Namaste Sri Tony, **************************************************** " When asked about the world, it is said 'Brahma Satyam Jagan Mityam' . But to explain the world we bring in Saguna Brahman. Isn't this contradictory ? > > Om Tat Sat > > Guru Venkat Namaste, There is only Nirguna Brahman. Saguna is the description of Brahman associated with 'Creation', which in itself never happened!!!!! and is a dream. There is nothing contradictory........ONS....Tony." **************************************** Thanks for the reply. I think total rejection of Saguna is wrong. It is wrong because while you are in it you see it, experience it until total realisation dawns in. Even the realised souls continue their existence after seeing the truth . Why din't they just lie down and rest their Jiva and merge with the Parabrahman ? Why should they continue to exist in what is not true ? It's only that they know the unreality of it. So to deny it totally will be denying the Self itself. And there need not be any Dharma to be followed since nobody is really suffering!! I agree with the part where you say creation never happened. It could'nt have happened because , for something to happen it must at some point be in an 'un-happened' state, and that never was. It's just an infinite circle with no starting point. But this is just my understanding with what little I've read. I know I may be quite wrong and will keep looking for the truth. Om Tat Sat Guru Venkat Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! 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.