Ajativada and Vivartavada - what is *braHman*?

[Guest guest]

thank you sri Ram-ji and Dr. Yadu-ji for a stimulating discussion on

what really is braHman ?

 

SRI Ram-ji writes

 

(In conclusion, I would state the following correction to your

statement. Truth includes all illusions but any illusion alone is

not the TRUTH! Brhaman includes the world but the World is not the

Brahman!! )

 

and Dr. Yadu-ji writes

 

(So the real truth is, that the brahman is constantly expanding. Thus

the ever-changing-ness of the brahman is the truth. )

 

Now, let me ask both OF YOU this question??

 

how do you reconcile your statements with tHis verse from Keno

UPANISHAD ?

 

"One who says that I know Brahman does not know; one who knows the

Truth says that I do not know. Brahman is the unknown to a person of

true knowledge, it is known only to the ignorant "---Ken Upanishad

2.01-03 - SUNDER-JI, PLEASE PROVIDE A BETTER TRANSLATION- THIS ONE IS

NOT THAT GREAT!

 

AND how about this verse from Viveka-chudamani ?

511.I remain unchanged, untouched by the innumerable changes in

nature, like the sky, never changed by the clouds.

 

Yadu-ji, HOW CAN ONE IMPUTE *CHANGE* TO CHANGELESS BRAHMAN?

 

RAMJI- braHman DOES NOT INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE ANYTHING- we cannot

qualify braHman.

 

 

LOVE AND REGARDS

[Guest guest]

Adiji, if you permit me to interpose, the following might help

explain your questions:

 

Something becoming something cannot be Brahman because that implies a

change. Brahman is changeless.

 

The world, which includes me, doesn't have to change to be Brahman.

It is Brahman always despite our wrong notions about it. There is

no `being Brahman' from non-Brahmanness therefore.

 

There are really no changes taking place to the eyes of one who sees

the Truth thus. This statement carries within its fold ajatavada.

 

I don't have to go to samAdhi with or without a return ticket. I am

samAdhi always. It never began and never will it end. I don't just

realize that. That is why the hurry towards the reservation

counter. The notion that one should attain samAdhi and then remain

in it forever is absurd because that implies a process in time at

least till the attainment of samAdhi and again if the unfortunate

enterer comes out of it. Anything preceded or flanked by time

cannot be Brahman!

 

Brahman is always, here, now. That is how far language can go. The

last three words are to be understood without their temporal/spatial

connotations for Brahman cannot brook mundane nuances. That is where

our descriptions hopelessly crumble. Hence, the upanishadic

statement you quoted.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>............

> how do you reconcile your statements with tHis verse from Keno

> UPANISHAD ?

>

> "One who says that I know Brahman does not know; one who knows the

> Truth says that I do not know. Brahman is the unknown to a person

of

> true knowledge, it is known only to the ignorant "---Ken Upanishad

> 2.01-03 - SUNDER-JI, PLEASE PROVIDE A BETTER TRANSLATION- THIS ONE

IS

> NOT THAT GREAT!

>

> AND how about this verse from Viveka-chudamani ?

> 511.I remain unchanged, untouched by the innumerable changes in

> nature, like the sky, never changed by the clouds.

>

> Yadu-ji, HOW CAN ONE IMPUTE *CHANGE* TO CHANGELESS BRAHMAN?

>

> RAMJI- braHman DOES NOT INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE ANYTHING- we cannot

> qualify braHman.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adi_ji:

 

Honestly, there is nothing for me to reconcile what I have said

because there are no contradictions when we have clearer

understanding of the sayings in the Upanishads and/or Bhagavad Gita

and/or Vivekachudamani and/or the sayings of other realized persons

such as Ramana Maharishi. Our major weakness is to jump into

conclusions using quotes from here and there from the scriptures. For

example, we get a clearer understanding of a specific verse in Gita

if we study the entire chapter and more clearly if we read the entire

Gita. The question of reconcilation arises when we try to narrow our

focus on one particular verse (here and there)without understanding

the context of that verse and the subtle meanings behind the literal

meaning of the verse. All of us have this problem sometime or other

during our discussions and I am not surprised to see that coming from

you.

 

Anytime that we try to explain the 'Brahman' we get into this

difficulty. "The Brahman is a paradox and only Brahman can solve this

paradox." Whenever we pretend to solve this paradox as a "NonBrahman"

we commit an error because "Brahman always agree" and "Nonbrahmans

always disagree like you and me!"

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>

>

> Now, let me ask both OF YOU this question??

>

> how do you reconcile your statements with tHis verse from Keno

> UPANISHAD ?

>

> "One who says that I know Brahman does not know; one who knows the

> Truth says that I do not know. Brahman is the unknown to a person

of

> true knowledge, it is known only to the ignorant "---Ken Upanishad

> 2.01-03 - SUNDER-JI, PLEASE PROVIDE A BETTER TRANSLATION- THIS ONE

IS

> NOT THAT GREAT!

> ......

> RAMJI- braHman DOES NOT INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE ANYTHING- we cannot

> qualify braHman.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote:

>

> Anytime that we try to explain the 'Brahman' we get into this

> difficulty. "The Brahman is a paradox and only Brahman can solve this

> paradox." Whenever we pretend to solve this paradox as a "NonBrahman"

> we commit an error because "Brahman always agree" and "Nonbrahmans

> always disagree like you and me!"

>

> advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

> wrote:

 

A BETTER TRANSLATION- THIS ONE

> IS

> > NOT THAT GREAT!

> > ......

> > RAMJI- braHman DOES NOT INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE ANYTHING- we cannot

> > qualify braHman.

> >

 

Namaste,

 

Sri Ramakrishna enjoyed listening to the great arguments

between his disciples and visitors! Then he would remark: ' If you

want to know how much land the owner has, make an appointment with the

owner, who will tell you even the details. If you just count the

leaves in the

garden you will never get the right answer!!!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adi-Ji:

 

The answer to your question is already included in your question.

 

As I had mentioned the root verb word for brahman is "bR^ih - to

grow".

 

Acharya while defining the word "tattva" says -

taditi sarvanaama, sarvaM ca brahma tasya naama | tad bhaavastattvaM

brahmaNo yathaatmyam |

 

Meaning - "tat" is a sarvanaama. which is applicable to everything in

the universe and brahma is indicates it's vyapakataa (encompassing

nature) therefore it is termed as "sat".

 

It is always important to understand the context in which our sages

expressed their thoughts rather than just trying to interpret words,

phrases in an isolated manner. That is why it is said -

 

na tu pR^ithaktvena maNtraH sabdaH va nirvaktavyaaH prakaraNasha

evatu nirvaktavyaaH ||

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>

>

> thank you sri Ram-ji and Dr. Yadu-ji for a stimulating discussion

on

> what really is braHman ?

>

 

> (So the real truth is, that the brahman is constantly expanding.

Thus

> the ever-changing-ness of the brahman is the truth. )

>

> Now, let me ask both OF YOU this question??

>

> how do you reconcile your statements with tHis verse from Keno

> UPANISHAD ?

>

 

> "One who says that I know Brahman does not know; one who knows the

> Truth says that I do not know. Brahman is the unknown to a person

of

> true knowledge, it is known only to the ignorant "---Ken Upanishad

> 2.01-03 - SUNDER-JI, PLEASE PROVIDE A BETTER TRANSLATION- THIS ONE

IS