Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Guru Venkat wrote: This is the part I don't understand in Advaita. Brahman is the Universe. All is Brahman. The individual Jivatman is the same as the Paramatman which is also Brahman. The universe is Brahman. But Brahman is not the reason for creation? Namaste Guru Venkat, For 'same' in that paragraph if you were to substitute 'non-dual' or 'non-dual with' you would be aligned with the thinking of Sankara. To say that Brahman is the universe is a type of monism or pantheism in which Brahman and the Universe are identical. The universe and Brahman are not one and not two. When the realised sage says that ultimately there is total oneness he is speaking of a state that is beyond numbering. There is no separation, no boundries and so no division and the possibility of numbers. Maya not Brahman is reckoned to be the cause of the universe, but Brahman is the substratum on to which it is projected. The precise relationship of one to the other is beyond thought. "In its real aspect Brahman remains unchanged and beyond all phenomenal action". (B.S.B.II.i.27) How does the subject come up and how do we give any assent to it? By atma vichara we can gain the conviction at first rationally of our own identity as unchanging. How many unchanging things can there be? Meditation on this might be viewed as becoming what we are. Best Wishes, Michael. _______________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 My dear noble devotee of Sri Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada, There is a nyayam caled Vruksha - Pakshi Nyayam. It is like this: The tree is by itself has no relationship with the birds that perch on it.They land on it, make nests,stay in them,lay eggs in them and thus create a relationship with the tree.However , the tree has no relationship with them. It is the bird by virtue of its being associated with the tree creates the relationship with it.Also, it is dependendent on the tree for nesting,etc whereas the tree is not. In a similar way ,there is another nyayam called graha maithri nyayam in astrology.May be Astrologer Madathil Nayar will be in a better position to talk about it. The relationship of Brahman with the world is also like this.It is through language we understand better Brahman.Prgjnanam Brahma!!! May the peace of Sri Sankara Bhagavatpujyapada be with you!!! Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 michael Reidy wrote : >Guru Venkat wrote: This is the part I don't understand in >Advaita. Brahman >is the Universe. All is Brahman. The individual Jivatman is the >same as >the Paramatman which is also Brahman. The universe is Brahman. >But Brahman >is not the reason for creation? > > >Namaste Guru Venkat, > >For 'same' in that paragraph if you were to substitute 'non-dual' >or >'non-dual with' you would be aligned with the thinking of >Sankara. To say >that Brahman is the universe is a type of monism or pantheism in >which >Brahman and the Universe are identical. The universe and >Brahman are not >one and not two. When the realised sage says that ultimately >there is >total oneness he is speaking of a state that is beyond >numbering. There is >no separation, no boundries and so no division and the >possibility of >numbers. Maya not Brahman is reckoned to be the cause of the >universe, but >Brahman is the substratum on to which it is projected. The >precise >relationship of one to the other is beyond thought. "In its >real aspect >Brahman remains unchanged and beyond all phenomenal action". >(B.S.B.II.i.27) > >How does the subject come up and how do we give any assent to it? >By atma >vichara we can gain the conviction at first rationally of our >own identity >as unchanging. How many unchanging things can there be? >Meditation on >this might be viewed as becoming what we are. > >Best Wishes, Michael. > > > > >_______________ >MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > >------------------------ Sponsor > >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 > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > _____________________ Odomos - the only mosquito protection outside 4 walls - Click here to know more! http://r.rediff.com/r?http://clients.rediff.com/odomos/Odomos.htm&&odomos&&wn 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 Michael "For 'same' in that paragraph if you were to substitute 'non-dual' or 'non-dual with' you would be aligned with the thinking of Sankara. To say that Brahman is the universe is a type of monism or pantheism in which Brahman and the Universe are identical. The universe and Brahman are not one and not two. When the realised sage says that ultimately there is total oneness he is speaking of a state that is beyond numbering. There is no separation, no boundries and so no division and the possibility of numbers. Maya not Brahman is reckoned to be the cause of the universe, but Brahman is the substratum on to which it is projected. The precise relationship of one to the other is beyond thought. "In its real aspect Brahman remains unchanged and beyond all phenomenal action". (B.S.B.II.i.27)" (i) Brahman remains in the pristine state ever always. (ii) It is Maya which causes the Universe to appear to the Jiva. (iii) The Jiva in it's ignorance sees the Universe and not the Brahman. (iv) Maya's relationship with the Brahman cannot be explained in this sensory world. Are these inferences correct ? 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 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 i) Brahman remains in the pristine state ever always. (ii) It is Maya which causes the Universe to appear to the Jiva. (iii) The Jiva in it's ignorance sees the Universe and not the Brahman. (iv) Maya's relationship with the Brahman cannot be explained in this sensory world. Are these inferences correct ? Om Tat Sat Guru Venkat Namaste Guru Venkat, Yes as you summarize it except that maya for the jiva is usually termed avidya. Stated baldly at the cosmic level it seems a bizarre and complex way of accounting for creation - why there is something rather than nothing. Here the notion strikes me that this theory is giving you two for the price of one, namely something and nothing. The Vedic investigation into causality proceeds from both ends, macro and micro cosmic with the individual's self enquiry at the centre of the quest. Best Wishes, Michael. 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.