Answers to Ravindran Kesavan

[Dark Warrior]

Before I begin, let me clarify that this thread is NOT to demean advaitins, or to hold that 'X' philosophy is superior to 'Y' philosophy. I am responding to some basic questions posed by Ravindran Kesavan in the other thread.

 

I will now address Ravindran's questions.

 

 

 

While you quoted many evidences for supporting your your thesis that Narayana is a suprime god - which I have no problem to accept at the first place,( only I have problem with the positions other gods inferior, I will come to the reason soon) - you have conspicuoukly silent about the very important vadic concept of Bhraman. What is your posion on it?

Brahman, to me, is Sriman Narayana, the abode of auspicious attributes. He is Nirguna, meaning, devoid of bad attributes, and above the modes of sattva, rajas and tamas. Brahman is endowed with the attributes of Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam. Brahman is One without a Second, meaning, that Chit and Achit are inseparably linked to Brahman as attributes and hence, there is nothing other than Brahman with attributes.

 

Brahman is not formless, but has a beautiful form. He is Pundarikaksha, the lotus eyed one. He is the Purusha extolled in the Vedas. He is Gitacharya, the One who delivered the Bhagavad Gita.

 

Other Devas are Jivas.

 

 

 

. Braman is the source of everything . Braman is everything. All dualism and plurality is an illusion created by our lack of spiritual intution of bhraman. This applies to the myrrads of objects in the the physical world as well, as the thousands of gods that mankind ever worshiped and going to worship.

The Mandukya Upanishad, openly dismisses the idea that the world is unreal, or an illusion. In the Brahma Sutras, the world is clearly described to be real and even Sri Sankara struggles to get around this one. The World is real, but temporary in the sense that it is a constantly changing thing.

 

 

 

In otherwords, God is one and that one theistic entity, one god, is called Bhraman. Different people of different languages of different geographical reagions of different cultures of different time period called the same thing with different names and conceived of different forms.

There is only one truth, but it has many names. hence it means, Sriman Narayana, Lord of infinite attributes, is Brahman, and all names, ie, Indra, Rudra, Chandra, etc. belong to Him only.

 

Upanishads do not say that all paths are same. Right knowledge of Brahman liberates.

 

 

Sarvam Kalvidam Bhraman is the upanisadic truth. (I am including Upanisad as part of Vedas). Does veda contradict this vision anywhere?

Upanishads are part of Vedas.

 

There are many statements proclaiming difference between jivatma and paramatma. One famous example is that of two birds sitting in the same tree, one eating the fruit and another watching on.

 

While the Dvaitins have reinterpreted all statements as Bheda, Bhagavad Ramanuja has classified Shrutis into three types - Abheda, Bheda and Ghataka Shrutis (Shrutis for meditation).

 

I will explain the meanings of both abheda and bheda srutis.

 

 

Even Bhavad geeta declares the one who sees a dog and a priest (bramana) as equal, (as bhramin - or narayana, if you like - reaides in them , or manifestations of Bhraman) is a true jnani.

 

If that is the case where is the question of different gods being inferior or superior?

Sarva dharma Sama bhava is truely spiritual and a natural application of the one bhraman concept. Does veda reject this idea?

That verse does not mean all gods are equal. It only means, we must look beyond the bodily designations of cat, dog and brahmana, and see that all jivatmas are essentially similar, and equal to one another. We should also understand that every cat, dog, brahmana, deva, gandharva, etc. has Narayana as his/its antaryami.

 

In short, see Narayana as indweller of all entities.

 

 

What is your position on this oneness concept?

I will explain later.

 

 

I have heard some Vishnavite scholars arguing for the case that Advida - the oneness concept- is Sankara's, misinterpretation of Veda. I dont know whether you hold that position. But in case you hold that, I dont see any misinterpretation as Upnisads are quite explicit on it.

Only 5% of the Upanishads proclaim identity. 95% of statements are Bheda. It is quite unwarranted that the advaitins claim that the statements proclaiming Abheda are more 'important' than the statements proclaiming Bheda.

 

Bheda is attributed to the Vyavaharika level. Unfortunately, there is no such pramana for distinct saguna and nirguna Brahman. Nor is there a pramana to prove that the world is illusory or a dream. Mandukya states that Brahman creates out of desire and will quite forcefully.

 

 

I like your hemaneutics of interpreting veda with out contradiction. You pointedd out the contradiction in asuming Indra as suprime and hence one must reject it. I expect the same rigour in your further analysis too. You need to interpret veda with out contradicting with the central notion of Bhraman. If any thing contradicts this central idea then that which contradicyts should be rejected - Unless of course you decide to reject the concept of Bhramin itself.

I reject the concept of Nirguna Brahman. The term 'attributeless brahman' is an oxymoron, as the quality of being 'attributeless' is itself an attribute.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Hence going by this prinvciple, if the Vedic text declares there is only one princple -Bhraman, and then introduces a second -Jeevatman And then yet another, Maya, We need to interprete them in such a way there is no contradiction to the parts. That is, the first statement - that there is only one principle, is not to be rejacted when we come accros that there is a second. We need to integrate them. This is not difficult or imposible given the fact that Vadas- Upanisads rather -explicitly state that integration formula too. Consider the four Mahavakyas of the upanasids:

(1) Pragjnanam Bhrama ( consciousness is bhraman)

(2) Aham Bhramasmi ( I am Bhraman - I refering to jeevatman)

(3) Tat Vam Asi ( you are that)

(4) Ayamatma bhrama (this soul is bhraman)

 

These prety explicit statements of upaniads clearly and explicitly establishes the unity of Jeevatma ans paramatma (or Bhraman)

Therby establishing there is only one thing. Jeevatma and paramatma are actually one. No contradiction.

Now coming to the third Maya, What is maya? It is the very illusion that jeevatma is different from Bhraman -this very dualistic conception - is maya.

Where is the difficulty. Everything coherently fits in the oneness schema isint it?

 

The key to unravelling the Vedas is simply one brilliant stroke of genius, ie, utilising the one verse in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which says that the jivatma is the body of Brahman.

 

I have said this many times, but for the sake of convinience, here it is one more time:

 

Bhagavad Gita clarifies that the jivas are completely dependent on Brahman. Complete dependency is due to the material causality of the Universe as given in the Mundaka Upanishad, ie, Brahman creates the Universe just as a spider weaves its web. No extraneous material is used.

 

The reason why jivatma is completely dependent on paramatma is because our soul is simply the body of Brahman. In short, Brahman is our soul's soul. Brahman is also present within every insentient thing, and is the soul of the Universe itself.

 

Just like nails are dependent on the body, jivas and prakrti are dependent on Brahman. Dependencty implies that the jivas and prakrti are ATTRIBUTES of Brahman.

 

Brahman is not affected by the flaws of the jivas because His svarupa is different from the attributes. If we take a red brick, there are two types of characteristics - the redness, which can change to blue color without affecting the nature of the brick. This redness is the Jivatma. Then, there are other characteristics like hardness of Brick, which should remain unchanging. The hardness is similar to other characteristics of Brahman, ie, Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, which never change.

 

So, before we come to the abheda shrutis, take an example. You say, 'Jack is smart'. When you say Jack, two distinct entities are being addressed - Jack's body and Jack's soul. You don't have separate names for the soul and body, yet, both are addressed when you say 'Jack'.

 

This is qualified monism. Two entities become one in a special way. There is no identity, but inseparability.

 

So,

 

Aham Brahmasmi - I am Brahman. Signifies two entities like the Jack example. Your soul, and Brahman, who is the indweller. Hence, Brahman is being addressed here, and there is NO identity.

 

Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma - It has been stated that prakrti and jivas are attributes of Brahman. Since the attributes are inseparable from Brahman, it follows that they are not referred to differntly from Brahman. When we say 'Sun is shining', it implies that both Sun and Sun's rays are referred to in the sentence. Hence, Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma simply refers to the fact that the Universe is the attribute of Brahman, and hence inseparable to Brahman. It has the essence of Brahman in the sense that Brahman is indweller.

 

Prajnanam Brahma - Now, take the following analogy. When we say 'flame', it implies that there is light. Radiance is an inseparable part of the flame, but at the same time, the light pervades everywhere and becomes an attribute of the flame.

 

Hence, the verse means that Brahman has the 'attribute' of consciousness. His svarupa has consciousness as its form and as its attribute. When you say 'Jack is honest', it doesn't mean Jack is made of some material called 'honesty'. Rather, Honesty is an attribute of Jack. Similarly, Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam are characteristics of Brahman.

 

Ayam Atma Brahma - Similar to Aham Brahmasmi, it simply shows that Jivatma is body of paramatma, ie, your soul's soul is Brahman, just as Jack refers to both body and soul.

 

Tat Tvam Asi - The advaitin interpretation that it implies identity is wrong. In all 9 examples, Yajnavalkya asks Svetaketu to look beyond modifications and understand the single underlying principle, ie, Brahman.

 

Furthermore, Svetaketu was already arrogant, so it is out of context to say Yajnavalkya was calling him Brahman. It would give him more ego.

 

Tat Tvam Asi means 'Your Soul's Soul is Brahman'. 'YOU' here signifies the jivatma as body of Brahman. 'THAT' refers to the Causal Brahman. Sri Ramanuja's explanation gives us the following meanings:

 

1) Tat Tvam Asi conveys that Jivatma is body of Brahman.

 

2) This implies that Paramatma is the indweller of all Jivas.

 

3) This distinguishes the Paramatma and Jivatma as distinct entities.

 

4) As Jivatma has an indweller, it signifies that Jivatma is completely dependent on Brahman.

 

5) The antaryami Brahman is identified to be the same as the Causal Brahman.

 

6) Complete dependency signifies that the jiva is an attribute of Brahman.

 

There you go. The Bheda Srutis proclaim difference. Abheda Srutis proclaim relative identity and soul/body concept. Ghataka Srutis are for meditation on Brahman.

[Amlesh]

The one who is well equipped is you Dark...

[Dark Warrior]

Not really. Any idiot can learn this basic stuff if he makes the effort. You can only argue with your peers, as far as polemics are concerned.

[Amlesh]

 

Not really. Any idiot can learn this basic stuff if he makes the effort. You can only argue with your peers, as far as polemics are concerned.

 

Knowing Ram to be the Supreme is Basic:confused:.

 

Ok, if you say so.

 

By the way, did I leave any scope for Argument with this statement?

[ranjeetmore]

amazing...

Just amazing post...

Anyway...wat levels of bhakti do narayana bhaktas attain...like rasiks go frm nishtha,anartha nivritti..,prema bhakti...

Vaikunthas also hav prema bhakti...i dnt knw....kindly tel me.

Radhe radhe

[guliaditya]

Dark Warrior,

 

You are really very learned person.The way you have explained is amazing.

Worth reading many times.

[Amlesh]

 

Dark Warrior,

 

You are really very learned person.The way you have explained is amazing.

Worth reading many times.

 

I totally agree, sometimes Dark do display some reasonings with substance.

This a clear example. He knows the scriptures well.

[guliaditya]

 

I totally agree, sometimes Dark do display some reasonings with substance.

This a clear example. He knows the scriptures well.

[guliaditya]

 

I totally agree, sometimes Dark do display some reasonings with substance.

This a clear example. He knows the scriptures well.

 

It is not sometimes rather it is every time.

I have not seen any one in this forum who is more learned than Dark Warrior.Conceptually he is very strong.This is my opinion.

 

Pranaam

[Amlesh]

 

It is not sometimes rather it is every time.

I have not seen any one in this forum who is more learned than Dark Warrior.Conceptually he is very strong.This is my opinion.

 

Pranaam

 

He is a Vaishnava, thus I've nothing more to say.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Dark Warrior,

 

 

 

Brahman is not formless, but has a beautiful form. He is Pundarikaksha, the lotus eyed one. He is the Purusha extolled in the Vedas. He is Gitacharya, the One who delivered the Bhagavad Gita.- quote Dark warrier

 

I too maintain Bhraman is not formless. Where i differ from your view is that he exists only with a form or one form.Bhama is formless as well as all forms. If you hold bhraman has a form and only exist as that form, then what lies outside the borders of that form? The outside space of Narayana is what? non Narayana? - no narayana is every where insidwe and outside of his skin boundry. Narayana is with form and without form In fact he has infinite forms. All forms are of Narayana only. There is nothing else otherthan Narayana / Bhraman

 

 

 

The Mandukya Upanishad, openly dismisses the idea that the world is unreal, or an illusion. In the Brahma Sutras, the world is clearly described to be real and even Sri Sankara struggles to get around this one. The World is real, but temporary in the sense that it is a constantly changing thing. - quote Dark Warier

 

I didnot maintain that world is unreal . I dint maintain it to be maya. In fact technically there is anothrer word that is applicable to world - Mitya - not maya. Mitya is appearance. Behind that appearance there is a real thing. the real thing is Narayana - Bhraman. We, due to our ignorance - maya - perceive the world to be variety of appearences and fail to grasp that it is Narayana. Maya belongs to us our property-our ignorance.Mithya is of the world.

 

 

 

 

There is only one truth, but it has many names. hence it means, Sriman Narayana, Lord of infinite attributes, is Brahman, and all names, ie, Indra, Rudra, Chandra, etc. belong to Him only. - Dark warrior

 

I am in total aggreement with you on this one . In fact this is what I have been maintaining right from the begining and this is the cause of my dispute with others when they maintain there a variety of gods different from Narayana /Bhraman. All gods are one.All are Narayana only where is the question of one form of Narayana , say Narayana-1 is inferior or superior to another form of Him, say Narayana-2?

 

Even if you are assuming that one Narayana is a whole and other Narayanas (other gods) are parts, - I dont know you are saying that, but assuming that - even then there is no status difference amoung them. Let me demonstrate with a Sruti declaration and with a subsequent regorous formulation of it. Remember "Purnamatam Poornamitam........"

That is purna, this too is poorna.

From purna poorna has come.

Remove poorna from purna what remains is yet poora.

Now I am aware that translation of vadic sanscrit to other languges has its own problem However let me do a nearest possible translation of poornam

I will translate it to be infinity ( some of its other near equivalence are 'Perfect', 'Complete')

 

the above vedic formula if translated to english using the meaning of Infinity for poorna we get this perfectly valied mathematical formula. I mean we can understand the above sruti declaration with the corresponding marthematcal version of it :

 

Remove infinity from infinity the remainder is still infinity.

Infinity minus infinity is infinity.

In fact add substract multiply and divide an infinity with anything else the result is still infinity.

 

That is Any part of infinity is infinity - part of whole is not in any way less than the whole it is whole.

 

There is a regorous proof of this strange result in mathematics by Cantor.

But that is out of scope here . i shall demonstrat this result by a simple eligant proof. ( I am not deviating from Veda, by geting to mathematics. I am demonstrating a vadic truth, hence I request you to be patient.)

 

Think of all natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,.etc......

Now think of only even numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ..etc.....

 

Our immediate intution tells that there is only half of the numbers in the second row. Even numbers being part of the natural numbers is less than the odd numbers. We vleft out many numbers - in fgact half of them from the whole set in creating the set of even numbers, hence the number of even numbers is less than the total numbers of the natural numbers which includes odd and even numbers together.

 

But this is an illusion. Let me prove.

 

Take each natural number and multiply by 2.

1 x2 = 2

2 x2 = 4

3 x2 = 6

4 x2 = 8

5 x2 = 10

6 x2 = 12

..............

etc up to infinity

 

Now look at the first row and the last row. the first row is the set of natural numbers and the last row is the set of only even numbers Yet each natural number in the first row is neatly pared up with only one even number number in the last row. No natural number is left out with out a pair. That is there is ecactly asmany even numbers as there are odd numbers. The number of evens are not less than the naturals they are exactly equal.

 

This strange reaslt happens because we are dealing with an infinite set. If we do such thing finate set the results would have been normal.

But with Infinite set Part is the whole.

 

This is what is meant by the vedic dictim Poorna madam. Poornamidam.

 

Now back to Narayana who is infinity. Part of narayana is the whole of Narayana. Visnu Narsayana is Bhrama Nrayana is Siva Narayana is Indra Nrayana is Adoni Nrayana - you see With infinite entities our ordinary notion of part whole inferior superior breakes down. Every thig is infinity and all are equal.

 

 

That verse does not mean all gods are equal. It only means, we must look beyond the bodily designations of cat, dog and brahmana, and see that all jivatmas are essentially similar, and equal to one another. We should also understand that every cat, dog, brahmana, deva, gandharva, etc. has Narayana as his/its antaryami.

 

In short, see Narayana as indweller of all entities. - Dark warrior.

 

there is a problem in this sort of dualistic interpretation. the body soul dualism - for thaqt any matter versus god dualism is untenable. I shall demonstrate this with the Aid of Cristiniaty, where this dualism is sharp.

According to critinaty, nature - the material world is not god but gods creation. As a result of this sharp distinction between ceation and the creator, that religion holda any worshiping things of nature is a sin One should worship not the creation but the creator. this is the treason that cristanity considers idol woship - for that matter any form worship - a sin.

 

the problem with this position is if we hold that the created world is not god and is distinct from god, then from where god created it? If we are consistant with the dualist position we need to assume that God created the world from a pre exting matter of some sort. ( you will soon see why this assumption is needed) then we must assume that this prematter existed always eternally along with god. this is a violation of God's Sovernity. Thenif we assume that god created not from any preexisting matter but out of his will , we are to assume that what is created is part of him. It came from him. In that case it is equally god and holy. We cannot then dispise it as an evil and worship of nature is evil.

 

I believe the hindu position is that nature being came from god itself is godly. and that is why hindus have no problem in worshipping a tulsi plant, a tree a snake a cow or an idol made of stone or mettel. Everything is manifestation of god.

 

Anything that came from god, being a part of god is itself godly. Soul included.

 

The interpretation that narayana dwelves in the body or in the world. has this problem. Narayana just not Dwels in the world, . Narayana is the world. For Ajnani the devine appears as world for Jani it appaers as Narayana or Bhraman.

Since everything came out of Bhraman, or of Narayana, they are Bhman -or Narayana only.

 

 

I get the impression that sancret is a vert presise and perfect language and very perticular of its gramital formulation. If the vadic seers wanted to say what you are saying, then they would have formulated the Mahavakysa accordingly as Bhraman is in the soul . But that is not how they have worded the mahavakyas . The wording is Soul is Bhraman. Ayamatma bhrama . Similarly other mahavakyas. Do you think that vedic Rishis made grammetical mistake?

 

Monism seems to be the only viable option when we look at the issues regorously. Of course not the kingd of Stale monism of Sankara, with out life and dinamism. Not a stale stagnant inattribute Bhraman. I dont buy that kind of monism. But nonethe less monism istrue in the sense of one single dynamic force, constantly changing and creating new new manifestation.

 

Siva (Bhraman) is not a dead body Siva is A dancing Siva.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dear Dark Warrior,

I too maintain Bhraman is not formless. Where i differ from your view is that he exists only with a form or one form.Bhama is formless as well as all forms. If you hold bhraman has a form and only exist as that form, then what lies outside the borders of that form? The outside space of Narayana is what? non Narayana? - no narayana is every where insidwe and outside of his skin boundry. Narayana is with form and without form In fact he has infinite forms. All forms are of Narayana only. There is nothing else otherthan Narayana / Bhraman

 

Narayana has a Svarupa, which has the entire jivas and jagat as its body. In addition, Narayana, by His own sankalpa, exists in a shuddha sattva form outside of it, in a place called 'Vaikuntha'.

 

In Gita, Krishna says, all Beings are in Me, and I am not in them. This means, despite everything being the sarira of Brahman, He can certainly exist aloof.

 

Vedas also clarify that 1/3rd is Leela Vibhuti and 2/3rds is Nitya Vibhuti.

 

There is nothing other than Narayana, meaning, there is nothing other than Narayana and His attributes. You do not say the Sun and its Temperature are two separate things. Yet, the Sun as an entity is distinguished from its quality of temperature.

 

The whole of existence and reality is simply Narayana and His body. For a person named Jack, the name 'Jack' stretches to Jack's body and Jack's soul. Thus, Jack is One without a Second. There is no independent thing named Jack, and at the sametime, more than one entity is referred to as Jack.

 

Similarly, Brahman, ie, Narayana, with all His attributes, is one without as second.

 

 

 

I didnot maintain that world is unreal . I dint maintain it to be maya. In fact technically there is anothrer word that is applicable to world - Mitya - not maya. Mitya is appearance. Behind that appearance there is a real thing. the real thing is Narayana - Bhraman. We, due to our ignorance - maya - perceive the world to be variety of appearences and fail to grasp that it is Narayana. Maya belongs to us our property-our ignorance.Mithya is of the world.

 

If you are a Vedantin, stick to classical advaita. Personal opinions do not count.

 

Shruti posits Bheda between Paramatma and Jivatma. The Creation shows Bheda, and it is real. Behind it, is the Jivatma. Now, Vishishtadvaita upholds multiplicity of Atman, but we do not deny that all Atman(s) are essentially similar.

 

Each Atman is identical to one another in the sense that all of them have full jnana, and more importantly, have Paramatma as their antaryami. Thus, there is multiplicity even beyond the perceptible world. This is the purport of the Bheda and Abheda Shrutis.

 

We are not Brahman. We are the body of Brahman, inseparable from Brahman.

 

 

I am in total aggreement with you on this one

. In fact this is what I have been maintaining right from the begining and this is the cause of my dispute with others when they maintain there a variety of gods different from Narayana /Bhraman. All gods are one.All are Narayana only where is the question of one form of Narayana , say Narayana-1 is inferior or superior to another form of Him, say Narayana-2?

 

All names are Narayana's but all entities are not Narayana. Indra is a name of Narayana. A jivatma, which has Narayana as its antaryami, names Himself as Indra. That is all.

 

You are still operating on the premise that Atman is Brahman. That is false, Atman is not Brahman.

 

 

Even if you are assuming that one Narayana is a whole and other Narayanas (other gods) are parts, - I dont know you are saying that, but assuming that - even then there is no status difference amoung them. Let me demonstrate with a Sruti declaration and with a subsequent regorous formulation of it. Remember "Purnamatam Poornamitam........"

That is purna, this too is poorna.

From purna poorna has come.

Remove poorna from purna what remains is yet poora.

Now I am aware that translation of vadic sanscrit to other languges has its own problem However let me do a nearest possible translation of poornam

I will translate it to be infinity ( some of its other near equivalence are 'Perfect', 'Complete')

 

 

That verse is not talking about Jivatma. It simply is talking about the avatars of Narayana. Rig Veda confirms that Vishnu, the unborn, takes multiple births. The mantra clarifies that Narayana has an original form, from that form, whatever shape He comes in, is complete.

 

Which simply means, whatever comes as avataras from Narayana is complete in all sense.

 

 

the above vedic formula if translated to english using the meaning of Infinity for poorna we get this perfectly valied mathematical formula. I mean we can understand the above sruti declaration with the corresponding marthematcal version of it :

 

Remove infinity from infinity the remainder is still infinity.

Infinity minus infinity is infinity.

In fact add substract multiply and divide an infinity with anything else the result is still infinity.

 

That is Any part of infinity is infinity - part of whole is not in any way less than the whole it is whole.

 

As mentioned before, the mantra does not pertain to Jivatma, but to the manifestations of Narayana. The 4 Vyuha forms, Aniruddha, Pradyumna, Sankarshana and Vasudeva are simply hailed as complete arising from a complete form, ie, Narayana.

 

 

There is a regorous proof of this strange result in mathematics by Cantor.

But that is out of scope here . i shall demonstrat this result by a simple eligant proof. ( I am not deviating from Veda, by geting to mathematics. I am demonstrating a vadic truth, hence I request you to be patient.)

 

Think of all natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,.etc......

Now think of only even numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ..etc.....

 

Our immediate intution tells that there is only half of the numbers in the second row. Even numbers being part of the natural numbers is less than the odd numbers. We vleft out many numbers - in fgact half of them from the whole set in creating the set of even numbers, hence the number of even numbers is less than the total numbers of the natural numbers which includes odd and even numbers together.

 

But this is an illusion. Let me prove.

 

Take each natural number and multiply by 2.

1 x2 = 2

2 x2 = 4

3 x2 = 6

4 x2 = 8

5 x2 = 10

6 x2 = 12

..............

etc up to infinity

 

Now look at the first row and the last row. the first row is the set of natural numbers and the last row is the set of only even numbers Yet each natural number in the first row is neatly pared up with only one even number number in the last row. No natural number is left out with out a pair. That is there is ecactly asmany even numbers as there are odd numbers. The number of evens are not less than the naturals they are exactly equal.

 

This strange reaslt happens because we are dealing with an infinite set. If we do such thing finate set the results would have been normal.

But with Infinite set Part is the whole.

 

This is what is meant by the vedic dictim Poorna madam. Poornamidam.

 

This is irrelevant and not attached to Vedanta in anyway.

 

 

Now back to Narayana who is infinity. Part of narayana is the whole of Narayana. Visnu Narsayana is Bhrama Nrayana is Siva Narayana is Indra Nrayana is Adoni Nrayana - you see With infinite entities our ordinary notion of part whole inferior superior breakes down. Every thig is infinity and all are equal.

 

Again, Jivatma is not a 'part' of Paramatma. Jivatma is a distinct entity. The Purna mantra refers to avatars of the Lord.

 

Narayana is Brahma, Siva, Indra simply has the following meanings:

 

1) Each Deva has attribute of Brahman. Siva has auspicousness, but not wealth. Indra has wealth but not auspiciousness.

 

Hence, Narayana, has all of the attributes, so He is Siva, Brahma, Indra.

 

2) Secondly, by Sarira/Sariri Bhava, only the indweller Brahman is addressed when we refer to Atma.

 

 

 

there is a problem in this sort of dualistic interpretation. the body soul dualism - for thaqt any matter versus god dualism is untenable. I shall demonstrate this with the Aid of Cristiniaty, where this dualism is sharp.

According to critinaty, nature - the material world is not god but gods creation. As a result of this sharp distinction between ceation and the creator, that religion holda any worshiping things of nature is a sin One should worship not the creation but the creator. this is the treason that cristanity considers idol woship - for that matter any form worship - a sin.

 

the problem with this position is if we hold that the created world is not god and is distinct from god, then from where god created it? If we are consistant with the dualist position we need to assume that God created the world from a pre exting matter of some sort. ( you will soon see why this assumption is needed) then we must assume that this prematter existed always eternally along with god. this is a violation of God's Sovernity. Thenif we assume that god created not from any preexisting matter but out of his will , we are to assume that what is created is part of him. It came from him. In that case it is equally god and holy. We cannot then dispise it as an evil and worship of nature is evil.

 

 

Again, all this has no meaning to Vedanta. I request you to stop quoting Christian and Western philosophy all the time. Learn the Upanishads first.

 

Vedanta clearly states that Jivas, Atman, Brahman, Prakrti, etc. are all eternal. Narayana never created them. But He has absolute control over it and everything is dependent on Him. No violation of sovernity.

 

I am quoting from Sastra. Stop quoting Kant, Keating and other irrelevant stuff here.

 

 

I believe the hindu position is that nature being came from god itself is godly. and that is why hindus have no problem in worshipping a tulsi plant, a tree a snake a cow or an idol made of stone or mettel. Everything is manifestation of god.

 

No 'Hindu' calls a snake or anything as God. It is a complete misconception.

 

Archa Avatara is not 'Idol Worship'. I suggest you read up on classical Vedantic systems before arguing mindlessly. For one thing, a very clear distinction between Atman and Brahman is maintained. Atman is not a 'manifestation' of Brahman.

 

 

Anything that came from god, being a part of god is itself godly. Soul included.

 

We did not come from God.

 

 

The interpretation that narayana dwelves in the body or in the world. has this problem. Narayana just not Dwels in the world, . Narayana is the world. For Ajnani the devine appears as world for Jani it appaers as Narayana or Bhraman.

 

Sorry, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly mentions that Narayana is the indweller of Prakrti and Jivas. Narayana's body is the world. Narayana is not the world.

 

 

Since everything came out of Bhraman, or of Narayana, they are Bhman -or Narayana only.

 

 

I get the impression that sancret is a vert presise and perfect language and very perticular of its gramital formulation. If the vadic seers wanted to say what you are saying, then they would have formulated the Mahavakysa accordingly as Bhraman is in the soul . But that is not how they have worded the mahavakyas . The wording is Soul is Bhraman. Ayamatma bhrama . Similarly other mahavakyas. Do you think that vedic Rishis made grammetical mistake?

 

Excuse me? Have you even understood metaphysics?

 

Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, etc. are systems that are formulated on strict grammar and logic. Its idiocy to suggest what you have done.

 

By addressing Atman as brahman, the Upanishads simply want to show the inseparability of the two entities. That is wh statements as 'Ayam Atma Brahma' need to be taken as 'Brahman being the indweller of the Jiva'. Pratyaksha itself shows that 'Jack' refers to both Jack's body and soul.

 

There are many pramanas establishing difference and cannot be contradicted. You cannot say Bheda is insignificant and 5 vakyas of Abheda are significant because there is no pramana in Vedas to establish that.

 

Since Bheda is clearly established in Shruti, one needs to interpret Abheda in such a way that it does NOT contradict Bheda.

 

 

Monism seems to be the only viable option when we look at the issues regorously. Of course not the kingd of Stale monism of Sankara, with out life and dinamism. Not a stale stagnant inattribute Bhraman. I dont buy that kind of monism. But nonethe less monism istrue in the sense of one single dynamic force, constantly changing and creating new new manifestation.

 

Siva (Bhraman) is not a dead body Siva is A dancing Siva.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

If you are not a follower of Sankara, I suggest you stop replying to Vedantic threads. Western Philosophy, while having its own merit, cannot be brought into Vedanta.

 

Monism is not 'obvious'.

[ranjeetmore]

you say that a when a part is taken out of an infinite whole(brahm),then that has to be brahm.That is absolutely corect.BUT THAT PERTAINS TO VISNU TATTVA ONLY.

When lord Sri krsna expanded in 16,108 forms,every single 16,108 of them was Bhagwan Svayam.That,the lord achieves with His inconcievable potency.Infinite minus infinite is infinite.Similarly,the lord expands into infinite Vishnu forms.All the forms are eternal and are God Himself.

But you applied the philosophy for jivatmas also.That is wrong.

1 jivatma,saubhari muni,in vedic history,expanded his body in 50 forms.BUT,that was COMPLETELY different.There was only 1 saubhari and 49 others wer illusions created by his yogic powers.Besides,when he did that,he expanded his body,NOT HIS SOUL...imagine,the soul is chit.So is Sri krsna.BUT HIS BODY IS CHIT ! The entity,Sri Krsna,His body and His names are the SAME.no difference.Thats what the veda says,Brahm is absolute.His self,names,abodes,leelas,forms...everything evrything is Him.He is sat(eternal).chit(supremely conscious) and ananda(infinite happines.)This same sat.chit.ananda vigraha is the compulsory characteristic of each and every incarnation of Godhead.Frm the vedas,we hav information that Lord krsna has as many incarnations AS THE NUMBER OF JEEVATMAS.There is clearly a difference.He has as many incarnations as the no. Of jeevas.He DOES NOT EXPAND INTO JEEVAS.

Besides,the vedas hav never aceptd the devas as incarnations of Bhagwan,so your theory that the devas are as powerful as Bhagwan can be refuted.

[Dark Warrior]

The main problem is, people have a preconceived view, and do not abide by what constitutes the rules of debate.

 

If you are a Vedantin, you have to accept whatever the Vedic texts say, and argue based on pramanas. All Ravindran has done is quote mathematical formulas, Kant, Christianity and confuse it with Vedantic thought. In addition, He seeks to 'improve' on Sankara's philosophy and does not eve adhere to classical advaita.

 

He also has no working knowledge of debating, and simply argues on some 5 vakyas he probably picked up from somebody.

 

Furthermore, he thinks Hindus worship snakes, cats and everything else as a manifestation of God. This sort of nonsense is really irritating.

[ranjeetmore]

besides, the vedas hav declared there are 11 levels of material happiness.

Mrtyuloka(earth)

Manusya-gandharva loka

Deva-gandharva loka

Pitrloka

Ajanaj deva loka

Karm deva loka

Dev loka

Indra loka

Brhaspati loka

Prajapati loka

Brahm loka(abode of brahma).

So all these devas upto to BRAHMDEV,are under MAYA...

If v accept what you say then evry single devata is Vishnu(infinite Brahm yoni) Himself.But then how has the all powerful Brahm come under maya ? How has he got material body(even lord brahma has material body.)

By this logic v can defeat the posibility that each deva is Brahm Himself.

Since the devas are under maya,they too are tatastha shakti of Brahm.Having come to this point,it can be freely declared that evry single deva,gandharva,indra,brahma,siva is an energy of Sri krsna.

[Dark Warrior]

Dude, I suggest you too, should post coherently. What you have been posting is also completely irrelevant and does not help Vaishnavism. If you want to state your views, do it in another thread.

 

I love to be blunt.

[ranjeetmore]

as 4 the bheda,abheda points,..plz discuss with dark,..he has better knwledge of sruti..etc.

[ranjeetmore]

what...are u advancing in bhakti or hav just colectd theoretical knwledge ????

U love to be blunt..Bhagwan doesnt like pple who are blunt...

[sanatan]

 

I totally agree, sometimes Dark do display some reasonings with substance.

This a clear example. He knows the scriptures well.

 

I agree, he is very knowledgeable.

 

Dark, I realize this is diverting from the topic a bit, but a nonetheless a good chance to ask you:

 

What comments might you have regarding Srila Madhvacarya's theories concerning the Tripartite division of souls?

 

This subject was tossed around some here a year or so ago; I'd like to hear your opinion.

 

Hare Krsna

[ranjeetmore]

guys... The tattva viveka of Srila bhaktisiddhanta sarasvati maharaja,krisna...,krishna talk,main forum...is just mind blowing.

Read it when the mind is not agitated.It is,by far,the topmost knowledge i hav come across here.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I agree, he is very knowledgeable.

 

Dark, I realize this is diverting from the topic a bit, but a nonetheless a good chance to ask you:

 

What comments might you have regarding Srila Madhvacarya's theories concerning the Tripartite division of souls?

 

This subject was tossed around some here a year or so ago; I'd like to hear your opinion.

 

Hare Krsna

 

Vishishtadvaitins do not agree with it.

 

The very fact is that, Dvaitins treat the 'eternal hell' quote in Gita literally and take it as pramana. But VAs treat it as something like a mother threatening a child.

 

If there were some souls that were tamasic in their svarupa itself, it implies that none of us will have an idea as to whether we will get moksha, because some of us may be tamasic. If this is countered to say that tamasic souls will never have bhakti, then again, one can question as to why the Lord keeps these souls perpetually tamasic.

 

If this is once again countered by saying that Atma has been tamasic eternally without the Lord's intervention, then one can raise the question - Lord Vishnu is omnipotent, then why can't he attempt to change the svarupa of the jivatma, to make it sattvik?

 

If the Dvaitin counters even this by saying, Lord has no right to change something that is eternal, one can ask, what about His grace, the overriding factor? Krishna violated the rules of war to procure victory for the Pandavas. So, the Lord would want to break a few rules and change a tamasic jivatma's svarupa to give him moksha.

 

Such things, like eternal hell and tamasic atmans, compromise the grace and omnipotence of the Lord. The pramanas quoted to establish such doctrines, when examined, pertain to samsara and have been mistakenly understood. Shruti says 'Paramam Samyam', ie, the Jivatma enjoys bliss equally with the Lord in moksha. This doesn't make the Jivatma equal to the Lord. Just like a sishya learns from an acharya, becomes equal to the acharya in knowledge and yet still remains indebted to the acharya, the jivatma gets bliss from the Lord and yet remains dependent on the Lord.

 

Other than Ananda Taratamya and this, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita are essentially the same. Personally, I don't think this little mistake of classifying souls as tamasic will hamper Dvaitins from getting moksha, anyway.

 

Narayana is Brahman. Jivatmas and Prakrti are his sarira. So, stop harboring delusions that everyone is a manifestation of Brahman, and view all beings with equal respect, as servants of the Lord.

[PureIndian]

Dark Warrior, was Narayana manifested as Swaminarayan Bhagwan?

[sanatan]

 

Vishishtadvaitins do not agree with it.

 

The very fact is that, Dvaitins treat ...

 

Narayana is Brahman. Jivatmas and Prakrti are his sarira. So, stop harboring delusions that everyone is a manifestation of Brahman, and view all beings with equal respect, as servants of the Lord.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

I've been discussing predestination with some Christians on another board, and Madhavacarya's philosophy came to mind...it's a definite anomaly, but interesting to think about how he came to those conclusions.

 

Were you referring to BG 16.20.20 as the "Eternal Hell" verse?

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Dark Warrior.

 

First of all I am not a vedantin in the Sankarian sence, and I have no oblication to remain in that scheme of interpretation - as advised by some of you. Nor I am seeking to Advocate that line of thought. This should be very clear. If it is not clear so far, let me explicitly state that here, I have no commitment to Sankaras version of Vedanta.

 

My points are actually very few. If you want to assign a name to that you might- if like - call it Ravindraian Vedanta- not that I am immodest but classifying my conception with anyother's version has a problem. Then you are not fighting with me but with Sankara and others.

 

Logic is the basis of debate . That is My understanding of a debate. Whatever point I am making I am using logic to show the conclution. So In maters of God which belongs to the infinite category, if I am showing that Infinite set logic applies and I am explicating my point with that logic it is not some irrevelant stuff - my friend, It the very rigour of debate. Unless You are anti- logic . In that case I dont have anything to argue with you - because by very definition Argument is logical.

 

My Points are extreemly simple and very few in fact. All that I said sofar springs from two basic premise. And I dont think you reject these premise at all. If fact you accept them as evidenced by your own statements. It is only that you dont follow the conclutions that follow from these premisis regorousely.

 

Let state my premises.

 

(1) There is only one god. (monotheism)

 

You agreed with it Dark W warrior, dint you? . ( unless now you deside to go back on it or reinterprit it in new ways)

 

Let me quote your exact words:

There is only one truth but it has many names. Hence it meens Sriman Narayana , Lord of Infinite attributes, is Bhraman and all names ie Indra, Rudra, Chandra etc. belongs to him only.

 

This is your words.

 

If this is the case where the question of one being demi or super or one being good and other evil? Once you hold this primidse then to say Rrudra is evil is to say Narayana is evil because rudra is narayanas name only. You will be contradicting your self by that. is int it. (And you will be doing Actually aparata to Narayana himself by dispising some of his attributes).

 

Now let me add one more primise on god.

 

(2) God is every where there is no place where god is not present (Omnipresence)

 

I hope you have no problem with this premise. ( or do you have?).

 

Asuming you accept this premise i shall show what is the regorous logical implication for your form argument that god has a specic form.

 

If Narayana has a specic form , say He is a Blue skinned Lotus eyed Man, lying in a Sea , then what lies outside Him ? What about the sky above him, the space surrounding him and the water benieth him.? Is he there or not there, in the space outside his skin encaplulated form?

 

If you are consistant with the omnipresent assumption, you will have to admit Narayana is there too. You need to extend Narayana beyong the skin boundry. But how far you need to extend His presence. Actually to infinity to include all space. Because he is every where. In that case the form looses ots significance isint it? .

 

Let me show this with a simple argumantation devise ( dont rejeect it as irrelevant stuff simply I am not using vadic quotation. I am engaged in a logical dialogue with you now. Dont get irritated )

 

Think of a form - a simple one - say a circle of a definite size. Now enlarge it to include more and more space. It is still a circle - a bigger one . Enlarge it to infinity. Make the radious infinity. Is it still a circle? One tend to hastly think that it is a circle still - a big big one. But upon caseful analysis you can see that it is no more a circle . To call it a circle we need to have a boundry line. But A infinitely expanded thing will have no boundry. It is not a big circle - as big circle is still finate. Being infinate it has no boundry and hence it has no form.

 

An infinitely extended Narayana , an omnipresent Narayana cannot have a form. To say God has a form is to bottle up god in a container - like solomon's ghost - (according to some religion it is another sin). This this is the sense in which the formlessness brahman is to be understood - not a fomlessness of Nothing but a formlessness of everything

 

Now the rest of my conclutions - that god is the only thing existing in the universe , that there is nothing else but god , that the world is god only, and that there is only one atma - paramatma - plurality of jeevatma's are illusion - all these could be shown as rigorous logical conclution with the accepted properties of god ; omipotence omnipresence and monotheism.

amd it can be shown that violation of any one of the conclutionds would lead to either a contradiction or rejection of god's, accepted attributes of suprimacy, omnipotence omnipresence, and omnience.

 

But I will not proceed and I will stop here. Because I can sense that slowly the irritation and animosity is growing in you . I can understand that perfectly. As a friend I can only suggest to you to engage in spiritual introspection of the root of your irritation and anger. As you have wrongly diagnosed that it does not arrise out of my being posting irrelevant stuff of mathematics and logic - It is the opposite. It because that I am rigourus in argument using regour of logic you find it quite relevant - you see the point. You see your position - however much you tend to defend drawing the support by Vadic text, is logoically contradictory. It is because of this that you get jittery. Your old belief which you have been holding on all this while is getting shaken. And you dont like it. This is the cause of your irritation and finding the logically coherand argument irrelevant.

 

And I know you - and many others who are insecure- would feel the strong urge to attack. And you will not be able to demolish any of my conclusions with logical rigour. And that will frustrate you more and trigger more aggression.

 

Aggression and irritation and abuses are non spiritual - actually anti spiritual. And I dont want to particiopate in that as I am striving to be a spiritual man. I am in fact a more strong Narayana bhakta (perhaps) then any one of you perhaps who claiming to be narayana baktas and engage in Blephemy of Narayana freely and ignorantly . I would not dare to spit at other faces of Narayana - for me every god is Narayana and there is only Narayana. If you are incited to take up that sinful path and decided to lead very anti spiritual life by nutruring aggression and hatred calling yourselves visnavites, that is your own Karma. I have nothing to say further and dont want to be a cause of Aggression hate and abusies. I stop here , leaving the rest to your own karma.

 

Sarvam Krisnarpanam. Sarvam Krishnarpanam

 

Ravindran