Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Thanks to all who responded. All the responses were on the nature of Brahman, which transcends the time. Prof. VK original statement was: Note 2. Reality is that which exists in the three stages of Time – past, present and future. The references that were given point out to the effect that Brahman, the reality transcends the time - the past, present and future. But the statement of Prof. VK is a converse statement. It essentially defines what is real. I agree with the definition, which by deduction is proved. My question was, is there scriptural statement to that effect? I am sure all are mathematicians here but just to illustrate for those who are interested - Brahman is consciousness is a direct statement. But when we say consciousness is Brahman- as in 'prajnaanam brahma' - we have more rigorous definition since any thing that is consciousness cannot be but Brahman - and anything that is not consciousness cannot be Brahman - and Brahman being infiniteness, that excludes automatically all theories that to multiple consciousness(es) or that consciousness is a quality that self exercises when encountered an object etc, etc. This has important bearing in discussing what is real and what is not real. Shree CN has given us what is not real - like vandhyaa putraH - and to be precise there is no locus for such a putra any time. What is real also has to be precisely defined then we have a meaningful discussion whether the world is real or not etc. Otherwise we have no common ground for discussion. Hari OM! Sadananda > > > > Note 2. Reality is that which exists in the three stages of > > > > Time – past, present and future. > > > > > > Prof. VK - > > > > > > The above definition of reality - does it have a scriptual basis > or > > > evolved out of deductive process? ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > Thanks to all who responded. > > All the responses were on the nature of Brahman, which transcends the > time. > > Prof. VK original statement was: > Note 2. Reality is that which exists in the three stages of Time – past, > present and future. > > The references that were given point out to the effect that Brahman, the > reality transcends the time - the past, present and future. > > But the statement of Prof. VK is a converse statement. It essentially > defines what is real. > > I agree with the definition, which by deduction is proved. My question > was, is there scriptural statement to that effect? Namaste, Sada-ji Wonderful! I see the subtle point you have raised. "tat-satyaM yat-trikAleshhu anupahataM ...." So begins the 56th shloka of Shata-shlokI. I have not yet come to it. It means, as you see, "That is real which is unaffected at all times". Yes, we have to carefully wade through scriptural works to get this statement a Vedic authentication. Thanks for giving us all some homework! PraNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 --- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote: > > "tat-satyaM yat-trikAleshhu anupahataM ...." > > So begins the 56th shloka of Shata-shlokI. I have not yet come to > it. It means, as you see, "That is real which is unaffected at all > times". Beautiful - at least we have Shankara defining what is satyam or real in terms of nonsubalatability in three periods of time. The question that remains is - is it based on anumaana or is there a direct declaration in the scriptures to that effect? Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Namaste Sadanandaji, You Wrote "Shree CN has given us what is not real - like vandhyaa putraH - and to be precise there is no locus for such a putra any time. What is real also has to be precisely defined then we have a meaningful discussion whether the world is real or not etc. Otherwise we have no common ground for discussion." Venkat - M I have heard Dayananda Swami quote manytimes yathA vAchA nivartante aprApya manasA sa.h (I couldn't locate the source of this quote) That being so, do you think it is possible at all to precisely define what is Real? And in case somehow we managed to do that, that will be the end of all discussions. My humble prnAms to you, Venkat - M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Shree Venkat - You have hit the nerve! Yes what is real cannot be definied but one can provide a definition for real in such a way it excludes what is not real under the category of real. The definition provided by Shankara in the Shata SlokI that Prof. VK provided is the case in point. 'trikaala abaadhitam statyam' that which is never sublated in three periods of time is the truth is the definition, it is an exclusive definition that it excludes any thing and everything that is baadhitam or sublated. I am sure H.H. Swami Dayananda Saraswati has used that definition in his talks, since I was once his student when he was in Chinmaya Mission. The quote you provided is from Tai. Up. In Kena Brahman is defined similarly - yan manasaa na manute, yenaahur mano matam| tadeva braham tvam viddhi nedeam yadidam upaasate| The which mind cannot think, but becuase of which mind has the capacity to think that alone is Brahman not this that you worship. Thus manasaa saH nivartante is what is implied in the first part - but yet sruti defines in a way to help the sadhak to contemplate on Brahman. Hari OM! Sadananda --- "S. Venkatraman" <svenkat52 wrote: > Namaste Sadanandaji, > > You Wrote > "Shree CN has given us what is not real - like vandhyaa putraH - and > to be precise there is no locus for such a putra any time. > > What is real also has to be precisely defined then we have a > meaningful discussion whether the world is real or not etc. > Otherwise we have no common ground for discussion." > > Venkat - M > I have heard Dayananda Swami quote manytimes > > yathA vAchA nivartante aprApya manasA sa.h > > (I couldn't locate the source of this quote) > > That being so, do you think it is possible at all to precisely > define what is Real? And in case somehow we managed to do that, that > will be the end of all discussions. > > My humble prnAms to you, > Venkat - M > > > > ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Namaste Sri Venkat: The sages of the Upanaishads provide the implicit answer by asking us to contemplate on the following puzzles: Who asks "What is Real?" Who negates all that are unreal The 'real' is exactlly defined by - "That it is." These puzzles actually provide the common ground for all the discussions in the past, present and in the future! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "S. Venkatraman" <svenkat52> wrote: > What is real also has to be precisely defined then we have a > meaningful discussion whether the world is real or not etc. > Otherwise we have no common ground for discussion." > > Venkat - M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 advaitin, "S. Venkatraman" <svenkat52> wrote: > Namaste Sadanandaji, > ... > ... namaste. While people are discussing what is real, what is unreal (unreal including mithya also), I wonder if members express their views on this statement also. This statement is not from any source but is the result of some of my contemplations. Without the real, unreal cannot be seen. Without the unreal, real cannot be seen. (Here the word 'seen' is used to include all the sensory perceptions.) Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Namaste Murthyji, Without the real, unreal cannot be seen. Without the unreal, real cannot be seen. The first leg of what you say above is quite clear; not so the second one. May I seek further elucidation please. pranAms, Venkat - M ALL-NEW Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 advaitin, S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote: > Namaste Murthyji, > > > > Without the real, unreal cannot be seen. > Without the unreal, real cannot be seen. > > The first leg of what you say above is quite clear; not so the second one. May I seek further elucidation please. > > pranAms, > > Venkat - M > namaste shri venkat-ji, What I meant by the second sentence above is: The Absolute, the Real, the Consciousness is beyond the reach of the senses. But, It can be visualized through the upAdhI-s and through the upAdhI-s only. It is through the jagat that Atman can be perceived. If there is no upAdhi, Atman cannot be perceived. Atman, subtlest of the subtle, pervades through all and is visualized through upAdhi only. I hope the observation is not wrong. Regards Gummuluru Murthy -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Namaste Venkat-M-ji, >Namaste Murthyji >Without the real, unreal cannot be seen. >Without the unreal, real cannot be seen. >The first leg of what you say above is quite >clear; not so the second one. May I seek further >elucidation please. I admire the fact that you are one of the few people on this list who consistently asks questions, instead of pretending that he knows all the answers! Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Namaste Benjamin, Benjamin <orion777ben wrote: I admire the fact that you are one of the few people on this list who consistently asks questions, instead of pretending that he knows all the answers! Thanks for the compliment. It seems ignorance is not only bliss but as an additional bonus brings in admiration as well. pranAms, Venkat - M ALL-NEW Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself 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.