Guest guest Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 >"mahadevadvaita" <mahadevadvaita ..> What has nitya-anitya vastu vivek anything to do with reality >or mithya nature of jagat ? Then why dwell on its reality or mithya or relative >reality or absolute reality. Since moderators wish to end these intellectual discussions on the tipic , let us honor their wish. However, I feel obliged to respond to your question since I made that statement. Viveka is one of the qualifications for a seeker needed to inquire into the nature of Brahman. Brahman is eternal self-existing self-conscious and unlimited 'entity' - by definition. Hence, Brahman is nitya vastu. We cannot say' this is Brahman' since infinite cannot be pointed out as 'this'. We need to recognize Brahman by discarding anything finite. However, infinite includes finite too otherwise infinite ceases to be infinite. Hence, the inquiry into Brahman is very subtle since it involves exclusion while including everything since Brahman is all-inclusive. Anything real I cannot exclude. Besides existence anything other than real will lead to duality and not non-duality. Anything that is non-existing, there is nothing to exclude since it does not exist even to exclude. World is neither real not unreal since it appears to exist but still it is changing. Anything that changes should have something that remains changeless during all the changings. Since the world is continuously changing, changes can only happen only when there is something that remains changeless as substantive. That has to be Brahman since Brahman is changeless. Therefore, subtle discriminative intellect is required in order exclude the changing superficial superimposed things while including the substantive that is changeless. That is what is implied in the nityha and anitya vastu viveka - to know what is temporal and what is permanent in each and everything, and exclude that which is temporal while retaining that which is permanent - like excluding the ring and bangle and bracelet but retaining the gold that is changeless in the changing ornaments. It is not physical process but mental vision of looking at the oneness that is substratum of the whole jagat while excluding the changing names and forms. That is what Viveka that is defined as nitya and anitya vastu viveka. Hope it is clear. Hari OM! Sadananda _______________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Sir Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda wrote: .>We need to recognize Brahman by discarding anything finite. However, infinite includes finite too otherwise infinite ceases to be infinite. PraNams to you, The above statment is a bit ambiguous to me.How can something Infinite 'contain' something finite...Because then that which is recognized as 'finite' will have an existance which is apart from infinite....thus somthing existing separately will defy our definition of Infinity .ie something which is everything. So i feel that there cannot be anything 'finite' in infinity ...but infinity must exist as uniform and absolute without 'parts'...which then implies that if brahman is infinite ...then whatever 'exists' as we see is illusion. I apologize if my logic is erroneous...I just thought i would would clarify my doubt. Regards, Aniruddha. Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Shree Aniruddhaji PraNaams - Your logic is perfect. If I recognize the infinite, then finites have not real separate existence. The apparent existence is real. That is why the world that you see is still Brahman but world constituting the assemblage of objects is only apparent. If that is recognized that it is apparent then the problem is solved. If that is taken as real, then we have a real problem and that is samsaara. How can there be finites appearing in the infinite - that is what we call maaya. I pervade this universe in an unmanifested form, all beings are in me but I am not in them. The puzzle can be resolved when one recognizes the two reference states from which the statement is made. From the Brahman reference, there are no parts what so ever. Only from jiiva's notional reference the world of inert objects exists as though separate from the conscious I. The apparent contradiction in the logic arises due to power of maaya, just as in the dream. The waker's mind is all-pervading yet I have both cara and acara (movables and immovables) consisting of conscious jiivas and inert world of objects arising in me, sustained by me and go back into me. I remain unaffected as pure existence-conscious I. Pasyam me yogam aiswaryam – Look at my glory Arjuna – says Krishna. Hope I am clear. Hari OM! Sadananda --- Aniruddha <anides_84 wrote: > Sir > > Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda wrote: > > .>We need to recognize Brahman by discarding anything finite. > However, > infinite includes finite too otherwise infinite ceases to be infinite. > > PraNams to you, > > The above statment is a bit ambiguous to me.How can something > Infinite 'contain' something finite...Because then that which is > recognized as 'finite' will have an existance which is apart from > infinite....thus somthing existing separately will defy our definition > of Infinity .ie something which is everything. > So i feel that there cannot be anything 'finite' in infinity ...but > infinity must exist as uniform and absolute without 'parts'...which > then implies that if brahman is infinite ...then whatever 'exists' as > we see is illusion. > > I apologize if my logic is erroneous...I just thought i would would > clarify my doubt. > > Regards, > Aniruddha. > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://in.messenger. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Namaste Sri Aniruddhaji and Sri Sadanandaji, Sri Aniruddhaji: How can something Infinite 'contain' something finite... Because then that which is recognized as 'finite' will have an existance which is apart from infinite....thus somthing existing separately will defy our definition of Infinity .ie something which is everything. So i feel that there cannot be anything 'finite' in infinity ...but infinity must exist as uniform and absolute without 'parts'...which then implies that if brahman is infinite ....then whatever 'exists' as we see is illusion. Sri Sadanandaji: Your logic is perfect. If I recognize the infinite, then finites have not real separate existence. The apparent existence is real. That is why the world that you see is still Brahman but world constituting the assemblage of objects is only apparent. CN: The problem posed here is one that is at the heart of Advaita. The finite is not a part of the Infinite, but its existence is nothing but the existence of the Infinite. It is therefore not unreal. It is unreal only when the Infinite is hidden and the finite is taken to be, by itself, the reality. Once the finite is taken to be the reality, it obtains a character 'of its own' due to the superimpositions of the mind. This is what the elephant analogy is all about (the one about blind people touching the elephant). When the ear is taken to be the thing itself, it becomes a fan. When the leg is taken to be the thing itself, it becomes a column. The fan and the column are unreal (they are one thing seen as another). But when the elephant is seen, then the limited things that are seen of it (such as the ear and leg) are not unreal, but they are aspects of the same real Infinite. Brahman however does not have a form like an elephant, It is Formless and Purnam. The Infinite is necessarily not limited to form. This truth can be derived logically through avacchedavada. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Namaste, There is an error in my previous post (30013). Please read: "But when the elephant is seen, then the limited things that are seen of it (such as the ear and leg) are not unreal, but they are aspects of the same real Infinite." as "But when the elephant is seen, then the limited things that are seen of it (such as the ear and leg) are not unreal, but they are aspects of the same real elephant". Everyone knows that an elephant is not Infinite, but the error in the post needs to be corrected. Thank you. Regards, Chittaranjan 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.