Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Greetings. If the term Saguna Brahman represents the apparently manifest universe, would it be correct to say this is analogous to the Mahashakti? Thanks in advance for the help. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Judy shakti means power and mahashakti only means supreme power. But power needs a locus - and that locus is Saguana Brahman or Iswara or Lord who is omnipotent. Hari OM! Sadananda --- jodyrrr <jodyrrr wrote: > Greetings. > > If the term Saguna Brahman represents the apparently manifest > universe, would it be correct to say this is analogous to the > Mahashakti? > > Thanks in advance for the help. > > --jody. > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > Judy > shakti means power and mahashakti only means supreme power. But power > needs a locus - and that locus is Saguana Brahman or Iswara or Lord who > is omnipotent. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda Hi Sadananda. So what you are saying is that Iswara "wields" the manifesting principle. Is this correct? --jody. > --- jodyrrr <jodyrrr> wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > If the term Saguna Brahman represents the apparently manifest > > universe, would it be correct to say this is analogous to the > > Mahashakti? > > > > Thanks in advance for the help. > > > > --jody. > > > > > > > ===== > What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. > > > > Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 --- jodyrrr <jodyrrr wrote: a > > Hi Sadananda. > > So what you are saying is that Iswara "wields" the manifesting > principle. Is this correct? > > --jody. precisely. That is exactly what upanishad says. Maya is prakriti and he is the wielder of that prakriti.( maayantu prakRitim vidyaat mayinantu maheswaram). Hari OM! Sadananda- ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > --- jodyrrr <jodyrrr> wrote: > a > > > > Hi Sadananda. > > > > So what you are saying is that Iswara "wields" the manifesting > > principle. Is this correct? > > > > --jody. > > precisely. That is exactly what upanishad says. Maya is prakriti and he > is the wielder of that prakriti.( maayantu prakRitim vidyaat mayinantu > maheswaram). > > Hari OM! > Sadananda- Hi again Sadananda. Thanks for the help. If I can ask another question, does this hold true from the shakta's perspective? Isn't the shakta a devotee of the Mahashakti, and as such, isn't that devotee's Iswara the Mahashakti Herself, a la Ramakrishna's Kali? --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 --- jodyrrr <jodyrrr wrote: > Hi again Sadananda. > > Thanks for the help. If I can ask another question, > does this hold true from the shakta's perspective? > > Isn't the shakta a devotee of the Mahashakti, and as > such, isn't that devotee's Iswara the Mahashakti Herself, > a la Ramakrishna's Kali? > > --jody. Judy - as you go deeper in trying to analyze the whole concept, then one has to examine even the concept of Iswara or God who has these shakti's. When I consider myself as limited being with a limited body, mind and intellect - separate from the rest of the universe - these are my current notions - and with those notions when I look at the universe which is unlimited, I wonder where did it come from. To account for the universe, I bring in Iswara or God, who is the creator of this universe and to create that he need 1. Material to create, 2. power to create and 3. knowledge or know-how of how to create - Since I cannot bring another God to create all these, I have to endow my God with all these powers and knowledge. I can decentralize this concept and say I have three Gods - one to create and one to maintain and one to recycle and each god endowed with their needed powers to accomplish their tasks. To make sure (at least in my mind) that these three different portfolios do not conflict with each other, I can invoke another supreme power overseeing all these subsets. This building of castle can go on - as my imagination expands. All this because, I consider myself as a limited entity, and therefore I had to bring in the concpet of Iswara to account the presence of unlimited universe. But when I recognize I am not this body, mind and intellect, but consciousness that can not have any limitations, then all the above concepts also topple down along with my notions of separateness from the rest of the universe. It is like pot space thinking that it only a space limited by the pot and the outside space is different and imagining that there is a super pot that created the whole universal space different from the tiny pot space, that I am. But when the pot space recognizes that I am 'The Space' and space is single and not plural - space in the pot is the same as the space everywhere, then the concept of superpot also goes away. The bottom line is these are concepts in the mind and one can devise one God, many gods and supergods with mahaashakti's etc, as long as one does not question the validity of even the existence of the universe separate from me. Scripture ultimately declares you are that Brahman and there is nothing other than Brahman, then all others concepts dropout as just notions of the ignorant jiiva. We create God and endow Him with all super powers so that He can create us and the univese. Now who is the Mahashakti - The God or the one who crated even the God with all those powers! One can invoke Mahashakti to create the God, but who created that mahashakti - Another Maha - mahaa shakti. One can go on and the buck has to stop somewhere. Mind always seeks something supreme, but ultimately one has to examine carefully what is that mind itself that is seeking - then the very seeking itself dissolves. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Sri Sadanandaji, I basically agree with what you just said ... that the concept of Ishwara drops away as nondualism is realized (Aham Brahmasmi). I think the real problem is understanding how ignorance can arise if we are ultimately Brahman or Consciousness. Of course, this has been discussed many times before in this list, and you may or may not want to take it up again. But it does seem like quite a paradox to me ... in fact the most likely candidate for an 'Achilles heel' in Advaita! (For Indians who read the Mahabarata instead of Homer, I will tell you that Achilles was the greatest ancient Greek warrior who was nevertheless killed in battle because of a fatal weakness in his heel upon which an enemy managed to inflict injury.) Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Namastey , divine brother sadanandji , You write : We create God and endow Him with all super powers so that He can create us and the univese. Now who is the Mahashakti - The God or the one who crated even the God with all those powers! One can invoke Mahashakti to create the God, but who created that mahashakti - Another Maha - mahaa shakti. One can go on and the buck has to stop somewhere. Mind always seeks something supreme, but ultimately one has to examine carefully what is that mind itself that is seeking - then the very seeking itself dissolves.......... I would like to just say ..I echo this , it is true and I feel you have just written my mind ,,,thanks .... love geet kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: --- jodyrrr <jodyrrr wrote: > Hi again Sadananda. > > Thanks for the help. If I can ask another question, > does this hold true from the shakta's perspective? > > Isn't the shakta a devotee of the Mahashakti, and as > such, isn't that devotee's Iswara the Mahashakti Herself, > a la Ramakrishna's Kali? > > --jody. Judy - as you go deeper in trying to analyze the whole concept, then one has to examine even the concept of Iswara or God who has these shakti's. When I consider myself as limited being with a limited body, mind and intellect - separate from the rest of the universe - these are my current notions - and with those notions when I look at the universe which is unlimited, I wonder where did it come from. To account for the universe, I bring in Iswara or God, who is the creator of this universe and to create that he need 1. Material to create, 2. power to create and 3. knowledge or know-how of how to create - Since I cannot bring another God to create all these, I have to endow my God with all these powers and knowledge. I can decentralize this concept and say I have three Gods - one to create and one to maintain and one to recycle and each god endowed with their needed powers to accomplish their tasks. To make sure (at least in my mind) that these three different portfolios do not conflict with each other, I can invoke another supreme power overseeing all these subsets. This building of castle can go on - as my imagination expands. All this because, I consider myself as a limited entity, and therefore I had to bring in the concpet of Iswara to account the presence of unlimited universe. But when I recognize I am not this body, mind and intellect, but consciousness that can not have any limitations, then all the above concepts also topple down along with my notions of separateness from the rest of the universe. It is like pot space thinking that it only a space limited by the pot and the outside space is different and imagining that there is a super pot that created the whole universal space different from the tiny pot space, that I am. But when the pot space recognizes that I am 'The Space' and space is single and not plural - space in the pot is the same as the space everywhere, then the concept of superpot also goes away. The bottom line is these are concepts in the mind and one can devise one God, many gods and supergods with mahaashakti's etc, as long as one does not question the validity of even the existence of the universe separate from me. Scripture ultimately declares you are that Brahman and there is nothing other than Brahman, then all others concepts dropout as just notions of the ignorant jiiva. We create God and endow Him with all super powers so that He can create us and the univese. Now who is the Mahashakti - The God or the one who crated even the God with all those powers! One can invoke Mahashakti to create the God, but who created that mahashakti - Another Maha - mahaa shakti. One can go on and the buck has to stop somewhere. Mind always seeks something supreme, but ultimately one has to examine carefully what is that mind itself that is seeking - then the very seeking itself dissolves. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages 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 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > I think the real problem is understanding how ignorance > can arise if we are ultimately Brahman or Consciousness. Benjamin - when the concept of jiiva - and thus Iswara drops - even the notion that I am (or was) ignorant also drops. Ignorance is ontologically of the same status as the jiiva notion too. maaya is also maaya (that which is not there). Let me give you a simple example - A strict bachelor dreams that he has many wives and children (assuming he is from Utah!) and worried to death how he is going to support all these wives and children - When he awakes how much he has to worry about those dream children and wives. He does not have to worry - when he got married and when he ended up with so many wives and children, etc. They are as real as his dream itself. But as long as the dream lasts, the experience and suffering are real. During the dream state he was ignorant of the fact he is actually a waker and not a dreamer. But non-apprehension of his true nature as a waker - leads to misapprehension that he is a dreamer with so many wives and children to support. Now as a dreamer if he asks when did this ignorance started or who has this ignorance - waker or a dreamer -When I am perfect bachelor, how did ended up with so many wives and children? How are you going to answer. Obviously dreamer has the ignorance about his waker status - but dreamer himself is the product of the ignorance too. Chicken-egg situation. The problem is an ignorant dreamer is trying to analyze the ignorance of the dream-state while he is drowned by that ignorance. When he awakes - he has no question whatsoever about where abouts of those wives or children that he had to support. >From the dreamer’s point - there is no beginning for the dream - He will never know when the dream started - one finds himself in the dream - unless it is a day-dream! For a dreamer that life is real - you cannot tell him that he is actually a bachelor he does not have to worry about supporting all those wives and children. Since ignorance itself is unreal - it is a concept like Iswara only brought in to explain that which cannot be explained otherwise. Concepts are in the mind - their validity is as real as the mind itself. But the ignorance as well as the explanation all tumble down in the awakening - One is back to perfect bachelor status when one is awakened! - by the by in one of the names Krishna is 'anaadi brahamchari' - eternal bachelor - even though he as krishna supposed to have had 16,000 wives. Hence Shankara rightly says this is all cannot be explained (anirvachaniiyam) since even the explanation is by the mind to the mind and is ontologically of the same status as the mind itself. Therefore there is no real problem. Only problem is in giving importace to it as real and then aks how Brahman can bave ignornace. If ignorance is other than Brahman, then Brahman is no more Brahman (one without a second). Jiiva has the ignorance since he is seraching for happiness thingking that he is unhappy - like our bachelor worried about his wives and children. Hari OM! Sadananda Of course, > this has been discussed many times before in this list, and you may > or may not want to take it up again. But it does seem like quite a > paradox to me ... in fact the most likely candidate for an 'Achilles > heel' in Advaita! (For Indians who read the Mahabarata instead of > Homer, I will tell you that Achilles was the greatest ancient Greek > warrior who was nevertheless killed in battle because of a fatal > weakness in his heel upon which an enemy managed to inflict injury.) > > Om! > Benjamin > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna you wrote in your earlier mail : maaya is also maaya (that which is not there). but prabhuji, swamy Harshananda of RK mission gives an entirely different picture about mAya / avidya / ignorance in his book The Three Systems of Vedanta - An Introduction Page -4 & 5 : //quote// The basic cause of this erroneous perception is termed as agnAna or avidya (ignorance) which is said to be bhAvarUpa (existent) and is endowed with two Saktis or powers viz., AvaraNaSakti (veiling power) and vikSEpaSakti (transforming power). It veils the true nature of nacre and rope (in nacre mistook as silver & rope mistook as snake analogies) and shows up silver & snake in their place by apparently transforming them. Such an apparently transformed object is called a vivarta of the original and the theory that propounds this is knows as vivartavAda. Since this avidya does not make the nacre and the rope completely disappear from view, but only makes them appear as something else, it is described as *bhAvarUpa* or existent. //unquote// Could you pls. shed some more light on this very complex subject prabhuji. coz. I've read Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji's arguments in this list about fallacy in accepting the bhAvarUpa avidya. Thanks in advance. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Sadaji, Just to counter any impression of adverse criticism given by my last comment on the free will topic, I would just like to say what a brilliant post this was - exceptionally clear and straightforward! Thank you. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 --- bhaskar.yr wrote: > > but prabhuji, swamy Harshananda of RK mission gives an entirely > different > picture about mAya / avidya / ignorance in his book The Three Systems > of > Vedanta - An Introduction Page -4 & 5 : > > Could you pls. shed some more light on this very complex subject > prabhuji. > coz. I've read Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji's arguments in this list > about > fallacy in accepting the bhAvarUpa avidya. > > Thanks in advance. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Shree Bhaskar - I am not qualified to comment on Shree Harshanandaji works. You are already familiar with Shree Atmachaitanya's arguments - which are due to H.H. Swami Sachchidaanedra Saraswati. According to shree Swamiji, the 'bhaavaruupa aj~naana' concept came during post Shankara period. Shree Swamiji claims that Bhagawan Shankara did not propose that. Shree Steg Lundgreen can give us a better perspective of that I can give. But from my own understanding I have a problem in appreciating ignorance as positive quantity. When I say I do not know chemistry - is that ignorance a positive quantity or that I have just the absence of knowledge of chemistry. This is an epistemological question. If you ask me if I know chemistry - I can say I do not know chemistry. Now if you ask me further 'how do you know that you don’t know chemistry' - All I can say I know that I do not know - This can apparently be interpreted as I know that I 'have lack of knowledge of chemistry' or I know that I 'have ignorance ' of chemistry. If ignorance is positive I will start interpreting my lack of knowledge of chemistry in a differnt perspective as that -I have knowledge of chemistry but that is covered by my 'ignorance of chemistry' - therefore I say that I have no knowledge of chemistry. But that sounds funny. So I have to bring in another concept that 'ignorance is beginning-less' to circumvent answering that when did I stop not knowing chemistry if I already have the knowledge of chemistry. All these problems came (I think) because according to Indian tarka shaastra or nyaaya's concept of theory of knowledge - learning involves only unveiling - or removing the cover on that which is eternally exists. Since Brahman is all pervading and there is nothing other than Brahman, one cannot create knowledge either. It has to be preexisting and therefore leaning involves unveiling. But in all these analysis, instruments for knowledge 'mind' is involved and it is difficult to separate mind from the leaning process. But mind itself is an instrument of jiiva who is ignorant. There are very delicate demarcation lines in terms of mental process that occur in the 'knowing process' and whatever theories that were developed were based on the understanding at that time. If you are really interested to know more about these I suggest reading "Theory of Knowledge in Advaita Vedanta' by Bina Gupta - it is commentary on Classical work 'Vedanta Paribhaasha' by Dharmaraja Advariindra - which addresses most of epistemological issues you have riased. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 praNAm Shri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna Thank you very much for your kind clarification prabhuji. I'm planning to meet Sri Harshananda prabhuji for further clarification of his views on mulAvidya. He is available in Bangalore ashram for question & answer sessions . In the meanwhile I'd like to share the views of Swamy Dayananda of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam on the same subject matter avidya. When asked what is the origin of avidya, He says, " Avidya cannot have an origin, coz. if ignorance has a beginning then before its beginning, there must have been knowledge. Therefore if avidya has a prior nonexistence, there must be knowledge. Knowledge is opposed to ignorance. Therefore ignorance can have posterior nonexistence but prior nonexistence, it cannot have. Therefore what will we have if avidya has prior nonexistence? Definitely there must be knowledge coz. where avidya is not , knowledge is. If knowledge is, ignorance cannot be. Therefore ignorance cannot have beginning in any way."" (Source : Dialogues with Swami Dayananda) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.