Answers to Ravindran Kesavan

[Dark Warrior]

 

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.

 

The only monistic systems of thought deriving from the Vedas are Advaita Vedanta, to an extent, Bheda-Abheda and Bhaskara's scheme. Hence, if you wish to argue on what constitutes the philosophy of the Vedas, follow this school.

 

 

 

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.

 

But then, that was never the point. If you think monism exists by personal experience, then go ahead. I am talking about what exists in the Vedas.

 

For this, you need to accept certain things - that Jivatmas, Prakrti and Brahman are eternal, nobody created them, that all gods are NOT equal (even as per Sankara's system), etc.

 

When you do not even accept the basic tenets of Vedanta, how do you propose to argue? I am not interested in discussing your personal experiences.

 

 

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.

 

You are a prize idiot.

 

Vedanta says Jivatma is not created by Brahman. Hence, whether Brahman is infinite or not is irrelevant. For that matter, Brahman is infinite and Atman is finite. Svetasvatara Upanishad describes Atman as anu.

 

In any case, I am not here to argue about what you think is logical. I am arguing about what constitutes the subject matter of the Vedas.

 

Hence, if you want to argue, quote Vedic Pramanas at every step to prove your point. Dullard.

 

 

 

 

(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.

 

Again, no pramanas. However, I will humor you.

 

 

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.

 

Moron, Rudra, Indra, Chandra are Jivatmas who have attained a particular position by Narayana's grace. They carry out certain duties for Narayana, that's all.

 

Rudra is not innately evil, but being in Samsara, he has a few flaws due to karma. The jivatma by nature is perfect.

 

Rig Veda clearly states that man can become a Deva by bathing in Ganga.

 

 

(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.

 

I am hoping you will substantiate this with pramanas.

 

 

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?

 

You fool, Narayana is present eternally in that blue skinned form in Vaikuntha. That is His abode. His svarupa by nature has a form.

 

You are confusing 'form' with 'body'. He has a form, which isn't made of material elements. That is also His svarupa. And the Universe is the body of this Svarupa.

 

At the same time, by His mere will, He exists in a localised place, even within the Universe (Vishnu Loka) or in Vaikuntha.

 

However, His divyatma svarupa possesses all the qualities of satyam, jnanam, anantam, etc. and pervades this entire Universe.

 

The whole of the Universe is the body of Narayana. There is NO EXISTENCE OR REALITY APART FROM NARAYANA AND HIS BODY.

 

Jack pertains to Jack's body and Jack's soul. You can't call anything other than this space Jack. Hence, the body of Narayana contains everything, sky, space, ether, etc. He pervades it by His svarupa, as the indweller of all.

 

I

f 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? .

 

Again, dullard, I have explained that when everything is the body of Narayana's svarupa, He is one without a second. There is no existence apart from Him.

 

If you say there is something beyond, then ne can keep asking what is beyond that. Ad Infinitum.

 

 

 

 

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 )

 

If I am arguing with a Buddhist, I use logic. You claim that monism is in Vedas and Upanishads. Therefore, prove it in Vedas and Upanishads.

 

 

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.

 

Once agai, stupidly ignoring the body/soul concept and as usual, no pramanas.

 

His form is not restricted. Purusha Suktam hails Him as Lord of infinite heads, infinite feet, etc. He is the soul of everything, with the world as His body.

 

 

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

 

You are getting really irritating, all right.

 

I have explained, very lucidly, that Narayana exists with a form. The Upanishads state that Jagat is the body of Narayana. Hence, Narayana is everywhere, as the entire Universe is His body.

 

Just like your consciousness pervades the body, Narayana pervades the Universe. At the same time, by His sankalpa, He is present as the dark hued Vishnu.

 

Chandogya Upanishad mentions that the lotus eyed Purusha resides with a form. Case closed.

 

 

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.

 

 

Again, you have completely ignored all valid pramanas.

 

1) Brahman is the sole reality. The Universe and Jivas are attributes of Brahman, as they are dependent on Brahman. Since an attribute is non-different from the person, Brahman with attributes alone is the sole reality. There is no existence other than this.

 

2) That the atman is not Brahman is vigorously established by many Pramanas, and by the simple fact that it is hailed as Sarira of Brahman.

 

3) That Narayana has a form, and that He pervades this Universe just like consciousness pervades this body negates the need to call the Universe as Brahman. Furthermore, Brihadaranyaka provides the pramana that the Universe is His body.

 

4) There is no logical premise to show that the plurality is an illusion. Bheda only is apparent. Perception is given full validity within its sphere.

 

 

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.

 

You dimbulb, you asked me this simple question - What is the Vedic concept of Brahman? I have explained it. So, if you want to argue a Vedic concept, you use pramanas from the Vedas.

 

Instead, you deal with outside sources that are not relevant to Vedanta. It is very funny that you call me 'jittery' when you have demonstrated an abysmal lack of knowledge of Vedic pramanas.

 

 

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.

 

Your idiocy continues. I was never going to 'demonstrate' that your personal belief is wrong. I was asking you - WHAT IS IN THE VEDA.

 

When you argue about Vedic concept of Brahman, I proved that universe is body of Brahman, and not soul. I showed that all gods are not equal, and that the Purna mantra pertains to Brahman, not Jivatman.

 

Try refuting it using Vedic pramanas.

 

 

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.

 

So every god is Narayana? Explain why Narayana is called flawless, but Rudra is called sinful in the Vedas. Explain the heirarchy of Devas. Explain why other Devas are called Jivas in no unclear terms.

 

Blind belief, and a tota lack of comprehension. Without understanding the Sariri/Sarira concept, you keep asking, 'How can Brahman with form pervade?'

[Dark Warrior]

To clarify, let me clear up Ravindran's dilemma, before he accuses me of being 'jittery'. Quite frankly, name calling is not a sign of nervousness in my case, but a routine procedure whenever I debate. Ask anybody.

 

Point 1 - 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?

 

This is the sad manner in which he has understood Vishishtadvaita. Lord Narayana has a Svarupa. This Svarupa has a specific form, which can expand into infinite heads, feet, etc. (as per Purusha Suktam). This Svarupa also has charateristics and attributes of Satyam, Anantam, Jnanam, etc.

 

Now, this Svarupa has a form. This form has the entirety of existence as its body. This is confirmed by Brihadaranyaka (and Purusha Suktam).

 

At the same time, the same Lord, by His infinite power, exists in both the material Universe and in Vaikuntha (which are both part of His body) as Vishnu. By His sankalpa, He can even enter His own creation.

 

Therefore, the idea that Brahman has to be formless to pervade is squashed. When everything is His body, what is the need to be formless? A soul's consciousness automatically pervades and controls the body. Similarly, a Svarupa with form, has everything as its body, and controls it.

 

Since body and soul are often addressed together, Upanishads say, 'Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma'.

 

Point 2 - 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.

 

The idea of illusions is hardly logical. There is no pramana to say that what we observe isn't real.

 

Advaita's ideas of Avidya can be addressed by me, but then, this person doesn't even claim to follow advaita. Apparently, he likes to call it 'Ravindran Vedanta'. Wonder where these characters crop up from?

 

As explained, if everything exists as an attribute of Brahman, saying Brahman is the only reality simply means everything is included along with Brahman. Hence, no need to say Brahman is this Universe.

 

The plurality of Jivatmas is established by scripture and by perception.

 

For someone who claims to be a 'manifestation of Narayana', Ravindran is very slow on the uptake. Really, ungodlike, shall we say?

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Dark Warrier.

 

I have nothing to prove to you or to many body who refuse to accept

logic. Pramana sourses (texts) are many are many and interpreted in many ways. Some one will ask you why should accept your pramana text (Veda), (and why not bible)?. How do I know it is true. There are so many texts in the world what is the pramana for your pramana is the true pramana? you will then no convincing answer to such questions . (Other than perhapes resorting your standard uncivilised and anti spiritual name calling abuses - dull headed, idiot, fool etc.(there you go again you see from dark to the darkest of unspiriyual realms.) - you cant convince any body rationally by pramana the truth of pramana itself can you?)

 

You rejected personal experiance as a sourse. Pramana is a pramana because it is an experience of some one rishes who found veda have found it in their direct experiance. If you dismiss that then you are only let to circular argumanta saying pramana is true because the pramana says so.

Do you have any better reason to pramanas other than you just happened to believe them.

 

If you have no inclination to argue logically then i dont have any inclination to argue by faith claims alone. Just like youn are demanding pramanic proof I demand logical proof. When you accept my condition of logical rigor I will accept your condition of pramanic evidences from veda. I am insisting on that because with out a logical rigor pramanas will be any subjected to any interpretation. Afterall the same vedas have been interpreted by different people differently - sankara, madva, ramanuja, and now you and me. Who knows whatis the true interpretation? ( thoiugh you will insist yours is true. But that can be said by any fool (in your language) isint it.?

How do I know you are not a fool - or even you not - how do I know you are not fooling me? Is your quoting left right and centre is any proff that you are not a fool or not fooling me? No.

 

People need either logic or direct emprical experience man . Do you have any? Or your entire entire enterprice is a bookish fooling arround with out knowing or a coherant grasping what that book declares? Common man A parret can do that man.

 

( Good you are warming up in your abusive language. For some time you were sober. Go fully and reveal your darkest side man. Why are you restraining yourself and being mild? The members miss all the fun of the previous forum , I heare . You are my guru (in abusive debating. I am picking up. common teach me more) .

 

Let all the price and abuses go to Krisna. Sarvam Krisnarpanam.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dear Dark Warrier.

 

I have nothing to prove to you or to many body who refuse to accept

logic. Pramana sourses (texts) are many are many and interpreted in many ways. Some one will ask you why should accept your pramana text (Veda), (and why not bible)?. How do I know it is true. There are so many texts in the world what is the pramana for your pramana is the true pramana? you will then no convincing answer to such questions .

 

If you remember, you asked me what was the VEDIC concept of Brahman. Not the Biblical or Koranic concept of God. Therefore, I am only giving you the Vedic concept. Refute it with Vedic premise.

 

So, I presumed you wanted to argue based on the Vedas. If you reject the Vedas, then go ahead and rely on your experience.

 

 

You rejected personal experiance as a sourse. Pramana is a pramana because it is an experience of some one rishes who found veda have found it in their direct experiance. If you dismiss that then you are only let to circular argumanta saying pramana is true because the pramana says so.

 

Nope. That is the Christian view.

 

The Vedas are held to be unauthored by even God. Hence, they are completely neutral and devoid of personal experience, etc. Even the words of God are not valid until they are affirmed by Vedas.

 

That is why personal experience is rejected in Vedanta.

 

 

Do you have any better reason to pramanas other than you just happened to believe them.

 

There is no pramana to prove you are Brahman. Heck, your ignorant responses prove you have too many flaws to be Brahman.

 

 

If you have no inclination to argue logically then i dont have any inclination to argue by faith claims alone. Just like youn are demanding pramanic proof I demand logical proof. When you accept my condition of logical rigor I will accept your condition of pramanic evidences from veda. I am insisting on that because with out a logical rigor pramanas will be any subjected to any interpretation. Afterall the same vedas have been interpreted by different people differently - sankara, madva, ramanuja, and now you and me. Who knows whatis the true interpretation? ( thoiugh you will insist yours is true. But that can be said by any fool (in your language) isint it.?

 

Yes, Vedas have been interpreted differently. That is why I said, you follow one interpretation and try to defend it. I will follow another and do the same.

 

I have chosen Sri Ramanuja's interpretation. You have to choose from existing systems to argue. I can then prove you wrong. If you are gonna formulate some new system based on 'experience', I am sorry, dude, you are deluded.

 

 

 

How do I know you are not a fool - or even you not - how do I know you are not fooling me? Is your quoting left right and centre is any proff that you are not a fool or not fooling me? No.

 

You quote from the Veda, you verify my quotes, you try to provide a refutation by answering my explanations. Period.

 

 

People need either logic or direct emprical experience man . Do you have any? Or your entire entire enterprice is a bookish fooling arround with out knowing or a coherant grasping what that book declares? Common man A parret can do that man.

 

( Good you are warming up in your abusive language. For some time you were sober. Go fully and reveal your darkest side man. Why are you restraining yourself and being mild? The members miss all the fun of the previous forum , I heare . You are my guru (in abusive debating. I am picking up. common teach me more)

 

Logic is pramana as long as you claim you do not belong to any Vedantic system.

 

HOWEVER, You placed some pramanas like Tat Tvam Asi before me and asked me how I should explain them. Hence, the debate was started with the premise of explaining Vedic pramanas.

 

If you had openly said you do not accept any Vedic system, I wouldn't have argued.

 

 

Let all the price and abuses go to Krisna. Sarvam Krisnarpanam.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

The abuse goes to you. I assure you, you are not Brahman, so Krishna won't be affected.

[Dark Warrior]

In any case, by mere logic, I have shown how Brahman's svarupa can pervade, and at the same time, exist as the Dark Hued Lord in a localised place. All you have been saying is 'Universe is Brahman' without any sort of pramana, and misunderstanding what I have been saying. While Brahman's Svarupa is not limited to a specific form (it has an infinite form as conveyed by Purusha Suktam), He can certainly exist in full beauty as Vishnu in one localised place.

 

Ravindran Kesavan, is after all, Brahman. He thinks one can worship a Snake or a cat because they are also by default, Brahman. I am also Brahman, by that logic. So, at the moment, Brahman is arguing with Brahman, trying to decide what Brahman is, and all this is an illusion, because only Brahman is real!!

 

Cool. A lot of logic in this statement, dude.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Dark Warrior,

 

If you have openly said you dont accept any vedic system ....Dark Warrior (Quote)

 

By the by Let us take this suggestion and follow it up a bit. For argument sake. You insist on somuch on pramana. And you demand pramanic evidence. Let me for an argument sake say that Veda is written by a premitive ignorant race who dint have any regorous or scientific conception of world , after drinking some halucinogenic drink ( extratyed from soma plant ). And hence they conytain nothing of truth or even meaning. In that bcase your quoting of Vedic proposition is hardly a proof for the truth status of it isint it? How will you establish the truths of your pramana itself ? Any method? ( I mean apprpant from abusing the opponent - that method I am learning from you. It will take time to master that. )

 

(Abuses does not come to me. It goes to the sourse. You are making a thorough fool of yourself. And that - I believe - you must be knowing very Well and this is your cause of abuses. It all describes you my friend. - the darkest side you have in deep in you. By the by I am not affected by them .-Dont worry. Go ahead and expose your dark nature . I learn from that.)

 

with regards,

K.Ravindran

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dear Dark Warrior,

 

By the by Let us take this suggestion and follow it up a bit. For argument sake. You insist on somuch on pramana. And you demand pramanic evidence. Let me for an argument sake say that Veda is written by a premitive ignorant race who dint have any regorous or scientific conception of world , after drinking some halucinogenic drink ( extratyed from soma plant ). And hence they conytain nothing of truth or even meaning. In that bcase your quoting of Vedic proposition is hardly a proof for the truth status of it isint it? How will you establish the truths of your pramana itself ? Any method? ( I mean apprpant from abusing the opponent - that method I am learning from you. It will take time to master that. )

 

You bloody idiot, if you do not believe in the Vedas, it is fine by me. Go by your own experience.

 

You, however, asked me, in no uncertain terms, 'What is the VEDIC concept of Brahman?' By asking that question, you were directly challenging me to reply from a Vedic point. This implies that you had accepted the Vedas as the source for debate.

 

Furthermore, you quoted some vakyas from the Vedas and asked me to explain them. Which I did.

 

 

(Abuses does not come to me. It goes to the sourse. You are making a thorough fool of yourself. And that - I believe - you must be knowing very Well and this is your cause of abuses. It all describes you my friend. - the darkest side you have in deep in you. By the by I am not affected by them .-Dont worry. Go ahead and expose your dark nature . I learn from that.)

 

with regards,

K.Ravindran

 

My dear friend, I abuse with style, if I may say so myself. While some people have no brains and are actually incapable of answering, I answer with substance, logic, pramanas AND abuse.

 

Ravindran, it is clear that you might be on drugs, rather than the vedic rishis. Of course, you are Brahman, you are 'realised', so you can enjoy, right?

 

You don't even have logic on your side, for the record.

 

EDIT: Here is Ravindran's original post:

 

 

you have conspicuoukly silent about the very important vadic concept of Bhraman. What is your posion on it.....

 

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

 

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.

 

By quoting Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads (in quite an amateurish manner, I might add), he had already implied that he accepted the validity of these texts.

 

Hence, it is logical that I respond by using those very texts, which I did, and proved that they did not talk of identity.

 

To which he asks, 'how can you say they are valid?' To which I replied, 'Then why did you quote them in the first place?'

 

We are talking about Vedanta here. Not Bible, Koran or any other book. 'Course, you have the freedom to reject Vedas as nonsensical and follow the other texts. But you wanted to prove that Upanishads talk about Universe being Brahman, etc.

 

Hence, it follows that you should either argue with Vedic texts or stop replying to threads on Vedanta.

 

Conclusion- Ravindran lacks logic and rhythm in his approach.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Dark warrior,

 

You are not answering the question.

 

The question has nothing to do with wether I personally believe in Veda or not. But Belief wont do. You needa method to assertain that belief. Because people believe in all sort of thinmgs, Including superstition.

 

How do you convoiince a neutral seeker? Do you have a method other than insisting on the faith- "you believe in what I say other wise you will go to hell" sort of thinmg.

 

Do you have a method to test scriptural validity?

That is the question.

 

Listern. if the fundamentals are not clear there ics no way one can proceed. there is no use in calling name being abbusive and Justifying aggression. Priding obver that you do it in a style just not justfy it. There are murders who do it in style , They carve aesthetic partterns in their victims body. Is that is any justification for murder -You Gunda?

 

Answer logically. if you can. Convince me logically or emprically. Give a proof for your pramanic claims. Dont just bulldoss them.

 

 

 

( Dear dark warrior, dont be desperate if i dont respont quickly. ( I know you are huuked on to me.) I have duties. I head a department and lot of work. I assure you I am not chickening out as you think. Some time tomarrow I will again post . The debate continues Mean while Do post me your reply.)

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dear Dark warrior,

 

You are not answering the question.

 

The question has nothing to do with wether I personally believe in Veda or not. But Belief wont do. You needa method to assertain that belief. Because people believe in all sort of thinmgs, Including superstition.

 

Then, explain why you asked me 'What is the VEDIC concept of Brahman'?

 

Good Lord, you are thick.

 

The whole premise you based your arguments was on Vedic Texts. Hence, I have proven that these same Vedic Texts do not contain your beliefs.

 

Therefore you have two options, 1) Either try to answer back using the same Vedic Texts, 2) Reject the Vedic Texts and say you don't follow them.

 

If you choose option 2), I have two choices myself, 1) I could convince you that the Vedic Texts are authority and better than the rest, 2) I could simply say, 'Go ahead, do what you want'.

 

Since you appear to be mentally incapable, I have decided on option 2). If you do not believe what the Vedas say, do not ever post 'Tat Tvam Asi' and claim that it conveys your views.

 

 

How do you convoiince a neutral seeker? Do you have a method other than insisting on the faith- "you believe in what I say other wise you will go to hell" sort of thinmg.

 

You moron, I had no intention to convince 'neutral seekers'. You argued that Indra was the God of the Vedas, and that Brahman being the Universe was also mentioned in the Vedas.

 

I proved that such things are not in the Vedas. However, if you feel your views constitute the ultimate reality, then go ahead, reject the Vedas.

 

 

Do you have a method to test scriptural validity?

That is the question.

 

Dimbulb, this is not a thread to test scriptural validity. You started a debate asking me the Vedic Concept. Hence, I proved that my views are consistent with the Vedic concept.

 

When you quoted 'Tat Tvam Asi' and 'Aham Brahmasmi', it meant that you were asking me as to how I can interpret these statements to suit my philosophy. I showed you, that 'Tat Tvam Asi' and 'Aham Brahmasmi' do not mean identity.

 

That's all this debate was about. This is not to determine whether these texts are valid or not, but to ascertain the philosophy in these texts.

 

If you are a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist, I wouldn't ask you to follow the Vedas. Believe what you will.

 

 

Listern. if the fundamentals are not clear there ics no way one can proceed. there is no use in calling name being abbusive and Justifying aggression. Priding obver that you do it in a style just not justfy it. There are murders who do it in style , They carve aesthetic partterns in their victims body. Is that is any justification for murder -You Gunda?

 

Ranting and raving also is not going to convince anyone, is it? So far, you haven't even understood anything.

 

Calling you names is definitely not a sin. Trust me, you are quite beneath my intelligence. Its actually fun arguing with someone so dull-headed as you, that's why I am doing it.

 

I am afraid, we have a very flawed Brahman here.

 

 

Answer logically. if you can. Convince me logically or emprically. Give a proof for your pramanic claims. Dont just bulldoss them.

 

Logically, you asked me what do the Vedas say. Logically, I conveyed what the Vedas say.

 

Hence, logically, this debate is about the Vedas and not about any other religion or text. So, either put up, or shut up.

 

You asked me what was in Vedas. I showed you what was in Vedas. That's all this debate is about. It is about the philosophy contained in the Vedas, and not about whether the Vedas are better than other texts.

 

In order to start a debate, we need pramanas. By asking me what do the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads say, you had accepted them as pramanas. Hence, if you say you don't believe them, it means you have other beliefs that are independent of Vedanta.

 

In which case, I could care less about what you believe.

 

 

 

 

( Dear dark warrior, dont be desperate if i dont respont quickly. ( I know you are huuked on to me.) I have duties. I head a department and lot of work. I assure you I am not chickening out as you think. Some time tomarrow I will again post . The debate continues Mean while Do post me your reply.)

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

Moron, I am on leave, so its no problem with me. The problem is, you have no idea of how to conduct a debate. Understand that this debate is not about the validity of the Vedas. This debate is about understanding what the Gita and Upanishads say.

 

I have mentioned that Gita and Upanishads do not support your view. You started the debate by challenging me on what these texts said. If you say you do not believe in these texts, that means we have no debate at all.

 

I assure you, by all means, keep posting. Exposing the hollowness of a completely brainless fellow like you is something that I shall enjoy. Unless the admins ban me for my language, so I suppose I will have to restrain that.

 

The Kundalini has ruined Ravindran's brains.

 

EDIT: To Admins, I shall refrain from abusing him here onwards.

[Avinash]

 

Quite frankly, name calling is not a sign of nervousness in my case, but a routine procedure whenever I debate. Ask anybody.

I agree with you, Coconut-skull.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I agree with you, Coconut-skull.

 

Nice to see you back again. I suppose you didn't get enough of it in the Shiva thread?

 

Honestly, one can simply count on you to agree with the wrong guys, huh?

 

EDIT: To Ravindran, you have two options. Either try to prove that the Vedas convey your philosophy as you originally intended, or simply, say that the Vedas are wrong and get out of here.

 

I never meant to argue with someone who doesn't accept the authority of the Vedas. The whole debate was based on the way you interpreted some Vedic Statements.

[passionate_freak]

this and that....human civilization has been fighting for it for the ages.....i am superior ...and i am the only one !!! this is the hell of our mind.....

 

 

all the philosophies has some significant role in our life but....what about the changing time??? does it apply for all ages...

 

the incarnation of God too had been made according to the need of the specific time so is the philosophy....sure we can adopt good things from all but why should we be applying all even if it is rotten ??? this is disgusting and it's what we have been doing for ages !!!

 

we wear clothes according to the season !!! so is the philosophy too....sure all the great masters came and taught....they performed their duty ....and they were sent for that specific time only....so lets stop panicking for the past....get some good things from it and throw the rest of the stuffs away...

 

 

worshiping a statue or following a sect or philosophy feeds our ego as there's not the person or the god to interfere us.....our is the society of corpse worshiper....it's exactly what has been happening since long time ago.

 

When Krishna was living ....his life was filled with adversaries....Jesus was crucified ....Mahvira too got that kinda treatment....Buddha is not the exception....but see what !!! all these are worshiped now !!!! just because they now can not retort you, can not tell that you are wrong or right !!!

 

the important thing is to find a living Guru who has the attunement with the Para Bramh...who has all the knowledge............can take you to the abode of the Gods , can get U to the God Realization....knows how to activate the Kundalini and can take it to the final point.....but it is far more difficult to get to the Living Guru as Guru might put you in the trials as Vishwamitra did to Raja Satya Harishchandra....

 

if we are still alive inside let's not fight for the philosophies rather lets put our labor to seek out a Final Truth...

 

dare to march forward on the path of adversaries ???

 

peace may prevail the earth

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Dark Warrior,

 

Whatever the initial positions were, in a dibate , the positions and ideas tend to change. If this does not happen then what is the point of debate. When I entered debate with you I came with certain notion about Veda and the concept of Bhraman. But in due course due to the exposure to your argumentation my ideas changed and evolved. I became open to the possibility that my notions could be wrong. That is a good sign and is your contribution. If it were not the case , If I remained stay put in my initial notions and you in yours then that is not a debate at all. In a genune debate ideas evolve and change - doesnot remail stall and fixed. It is a sign of good debate.In this natural process new idas and questions arise that should be thoroughly discussed and resolved. You seems to be thinking that is a crime, and invoke the original position, and refuses to resolve the new issues that arise.

 

I came with a certain idea of Braman -say - it is formless. You pointed out that is not the case and in fact Bhraman is A blue skined lotes eyed male. Now I became aware for the firtst time that my ideas could be wrong. My conception of Veda under went a change. I became open and was no more that certain about my position. (Is int it good my friend? Is there is any thing wrong in it?) But then, A new problem opened up, as a logical conclution. If I could be wrong in my understanding , then you could also be wrong. Any body could be wrong. Then I needed a certainity that what you are holding is true. If you say Bhraman is a blue skinned man lying on a snake, How do you know that? How are you so sure of that? How do you know you are not deciving yourself? Or How am I to be certain that you are not coning me on this, to mislead me in to untruth and sinful life. These are genune questions my friend not to be brushed assided and evaded.

 

Now when I am asking this questions you seems to take a position that you have nothing to do with the validity of this claim and you are only interested in stating that this is the way some X -book - be it Veda or Bagavada purana - describe Bhraman.

 

Let me sharpen this point.

 

One could think of your claim in two ways:

1) X book says bhraman is a blue skined lotus eved man. (This is the meening of Bhraman As per book -X)

 

2) Bhraman is a blue skined Man. (This is the real truth of bhraman)

 

The first state ment is a statement of scholarship. Belonging to language and meaning. To be found in a book. Let me call it Semantic claim for the want of better word.

The second one is a statement of truth. Belong to the realm of reality. Let me name it Veritic Claim ( veritic = pertaining to truth, real).

 

Now which claim are you making. Are you saying you have nothing to do with the actual truth of what you say . You dont know wether Bhraman is really a blue skinned man or not - and you are not concerned either. All that you are holding is that certain book makes this claim. - Are you saying this ? Or are you commiting that Bhraman is acrually A blue shined man? Please clarify this explictly.

 

If you are making the first claim that you actually dont know what the hell actually bhraman is but only saying that a certain book says this is what bhraman is, then you are mearly a scholar. And I dint come to you to check your scholarship. And I dont care a dam of your Scholarship. But if you are maintaining that this claim of yours is an actual fact - A truth , then I am interested in it. For I am searching for truth - and that is a genune spiritual persuit - not semantic scholarship.

 

If you are holding that Bhraman is really a blue skined man lying on a snake , which is what I think you hold - (and if I am wrong on that correct me explictely in your next post with no uncertain terms) - you need to offer a justification for it. You need to show me why this is the case and why not Bhraman is a white skinned man wearing a snake on his neck - say. For prooving this begging the question won't do - you cant quote a book. That would only support the semantic claim not the veritic claim. You need to do something better than that. You have to offer the proff in my terms not in your ternms of pramana from some book - not even Vedas - there are pramanas for any dame thing you want to prove. Only you need to select them judiciously and interpret them in a twisted way. You have been doing all that - selecting some and ignoring some and interpreting according to your whims and fancy. An example of this is your complete neglet of the mahavakyas which I have reffered. You even dint know its existence as vedic pramanas - you were arguing that I have picked them up from "some where". So much for your claim of your Vadic knowledge.

 

Yes that reminds me that you have been asking Pramana for the mahavakyas. Where from do you think I picked them up? If you have no Idea I will explictely provide them for you :

 

(1) Prajnanam Bhrama , meaning Consciousness is Bhraman , called, "Statement of Definition" (Laksna Vakya) is from Aitareya Upanisad - V.3

of Rig Veda.

 

(2) Aham Bhrama Asmi . meaning I am Bhraman, called "Statement of experience" (Svanubhava Vakya), is from Brhadaranyaka Upanasad - 1.4.10, of the Yajur Veda.

 

(3) Tat Tvam Asi , meaning You are That , Called "Instructional Statement" ( Upadesa Vakya) is form Chandogya Upanisad - VI 8.7 - VI 16.3, of the Sama Veda.

 

(4) Ayam Atmaa Bhrama, meaning This self (soul) is Bhraman called "Statement of Practice" ( Abhyasa Vakya) is from Mandukya Upanasid - 2, of Atarvana Veda.

 

I have provided pramanas which you have asked as per your terms.

Now it is your turn to provide proof for your claim - that Bhraman is A blue skined man, as per my terms. ( no quotting books)

 

 

(Tomarrow and sunday are holidays and I will not be assessing my computer. i will see the posting on only monday. you have enough time to think of some decent answers to my question.)

 

Regards,

Ravindran

[Amlesh]

 

( you have enough time to think of some decent answers to my question.)

 

That is the least you can expect from Dark Warrior. His logic is perfect, of that there is no doubt. But decency is something far from him.

 

If he says A and you agree and say A, still he will always find something to argue about.

 

It's his trade mark. But I'll have to agree, rarely I've met someone as lucid as him.

 

The persons whom I might say lucid and decent are Theist, Bishadi and bija.

[Amlesh]

But I do like his style...

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dear Dark Warrior,

 

Whatever the initial positions were, in a dibate , the positions and ideas tend to change. If this does not happen then what is the point of debate. When I entered debate with you I came with certain notion about Veda and the concept of Bhraman. But in due course due to the exposure to your argumentation my ideas changed and evolved. I became open to the possibility that my notions could be wrong. That is a good sign and is your contribution. If it were not the case , If I remained stay put in my initial notions and you in yours then that is not a debate at all. In a genune debate ideas evolve and change - doesnot remail stall and fixed. It is a sign of good debate.In this natural process new idas and questions arise that should be thoroughly discussed and resolved. You seems to be thinking that is a crime, and invoke the original position, and refuses to resolve the new issues that arise.

 

The position of a debate does not change like this - you first accept the Vedas, then you ask, how can I be sure Vedas are authentic.

 

Have some sense.

 

 

I came with a certain idea of Braman -say - it is formless. You pointed out that is not the case and in fact Bhraman is A blue skined lotes eyed male. Now I became aware for the firtst time that my ideas could be wrong. My conception of Veda under went a change. I became open and was no more that certain about my position. (Is int it good my friend? Is there is any thing wrong in it?) But then, A new problem opened up, as a logical conclution. If I could be wrong in my understanding , then you could also be wrong.

 

Correction - You are wrong in the interpretation of the Vedas. I am correct in the interpretation of the Vedas. That's all this debate is about.

 

Once again, you can hardly understand your position. The Vedas do not convey your interpretation. Logically, that means - you either say you were wrong and accept the Vedas, or you could argue back, or you simply say you are right and reject the Vedas.

 

Scriptural validity is not the question of debate here. Its about the philosophy enshrined in Vedas.

 

 

 

Any body could be wrong. Then I needed a certainity that what you are holding is true. If you say Bhraman is a blue skinned man lying on a snake, How do you know that? How are you so sure of that? How do you know you are not deciving yourself? Or How am I to be certain that you are not coning me on this, to mislead me in to untruth and sinful life. These are genune questions my friend not to be brushed assided and evaded.

 

Your quote 'Tat Tvam Asi' is from Chandogya Upanishad. Hence, it means, you accept Chandogya Upanishad as a text that conveys the ultimate truth. I have proven that Tat Tvam Asi conveys Brahman as the indweller of Jivas. Now, since you had quoted this text, it meant, you would accept the information from this text as the ultimate truth.

 

My interpretation of this text is correct and yours is wrong. So, seeing as YOU are the one who quoted this text, YOU should accept this text as the ultimate truth, and hence, by default, Vishnu as Brahman. Otherwise, you can reject this text and never again quote it in support of your views.

 

When you quoted the Mahavakyas from scripture, it meant you accepted these scriptures as the ultimate truth. Therefore, when I prove that these scriptures say Brahman is Vishnu, it automatically means you should accept it as the ultimate truth.

 

If you do not accept the Vedas as the ultimate truth, then WHY did you quote from them to establish your point.

 

Once again, you are very stupidly arguing a wrong case. We are arguing about what the Vedas say. If I prove that the Vedas say Lord Vishnu is supreme, you can either accept or reject the Vedas.

 

I accept the Vedas, and hence, our debate is restricted to the Vedas alone.

 

Try to understand.

 

 

Now when I am asking this questions you seems to take a position that you have nothing to do with the validity of this claim and you are only interested in stating that this is the way some X -book - be it Veda or Bagavada purana - describe Bhraman.

 

Again, stupidity is evident in all of your posts. You quoted from Veda. It means, you accepted it automatically as Valid. Otherwise, why quote from Veda?

 

 

 

Let me sharpen this point.

 

One could think of your claim in two ways:

1) X book says bhraman is a blue skined lotus eved man. (This is the meening of Bhraman As per book -X)

 

2) Bhraman is a blue skined Man. (This is the real truth of bhraman)

 

The first state ment is a statement of scholarship. Belonging to language and meaning. To be found in a book. Let me call it Semantic claim for the want of better word.

The second one is a statement of truth. Belong to the realm of reality. Let me name it Veritic Claim ( veritic = pertaining to truth, real).

 

Such stupidity is incredible. You quote from Bhagavad Gita, it means you accept Bhagavad Gita is the truth. Hence, if Bhagavad Gita says Lord has a beautiful form, it means it is the ultimate truth, reality whatever.

 

But then, this debate is about the scholarship of the book. And if you quote from this book, as you have done with the Mahavakyas, it means you automatically accept these books to be ttalking about the ultimate truth.

 

If you did not consider the Vedas to be genuine expositions of the ultimate truth, then WHY did you quote the Mahavakyas from it?

 

Got that, Ignoramus?

 

 

Now, let me clear things up. Even a person with mush for brains would understand:

 

1) When you started the debate, you quoted from Book 'X'. That means, you had accepted that Book 'X' was conveying some truth.

 

2) I proved that Book 'X' is NOT conveying what you say.

 

3) So, my aim was to simply prove what this particular book says. You can either accept the book or reject it.

 

Kapish?

 

 

Now which claim are you making. Are you saying you have nothing to do with the actual truth of what you say . You dont know wether Bhraman is really a blue skinned man or not - and you are not concerned either. All that you are holding is that certain book makes this claim. - Are you saying this ? Or are you commiting that Bhraman is acrually A blue shined man? Please clarify this explictly.

 

Again, in the beginning of the debate, you quoted from the Vedas. You had accepted that the Vedic Concept is the truth. I have proven that the Vedic concept says Vishnu has a beautiful form.

 

Therefore, if you accept the Vedic concept as the ultimate truth, then YES, you need to accept Vishnu. If you think the Vedas are wrong, then you can reject it.

 

The debate is 'WHAT DO THE VEDAS SAY?'

 

I have clearly told you what the Vedas say.

 

Hence, if you accept the Vedas, yes, the ultimate reality is a Blue skinned Lord. For me, he is.

 

If you reject the Vedas, you can say all this is wrong.

 

Hence, the object is NOT to determine whether the Vedas are better than other sources. The object of the debate is show exactly what the Vedas contain.

 

 

If you are making the first claim that you actually dont know what the hell actually bhraman is but only saying that a certain book says this is what bhraman is, then you are mearly a scholar. And I dint come to you to check your scholarship. And I dont care a dam of your Scholarship. But if you are maintaining that this claim of yours is an actual fact - A truth , then I am interested in it. For I am searching for truth - and that is a genune spiritual persuit - not semantic scholarship.

 

I don't also give a damn what you ebelieve or pursue - I only care about interpreting the Vedas correctly. You wanted to know the Vedic concept of Brahman. This is the Vedic concept of Brahman. You are free to accept or reject the Vedas.

 

 

If you are holding that Bhraman is really a blue skined man lying on a snake , which is what I think you hold - (and if I am wrong on that correct me explictely in your next post with no uncertain terms) - you need to offer a justification for it. You need to show me why this is the case and why not Bhraman is a white skinned man wearing a snake on his neck - say. For prooving this begging the question won't do - you cant quote a book. That would only support the semantic claim not the veritic claim. You need to do something better than that. You have to offer the proff in my terms not in your ternms of pramana from some book - not even Vedas - there are pramanas for any dame thing you want to prove. Only you need to select them judiciously and interpret them in a twisted way. You have been doing all that - selecting some and ignoring some and interpreting according to your whims and fancy. An example of this is your complete neglet of the mahavakyas which I have reffered. You even dint know its existence as vedic pramanas - you were arguing that I have picked them up from "some where". So much for your claim of your Vadic knowledge.

 

Good Lord, When did I say Mahavakyas are not in Veda? I asked you, why are you quoting from Vedas if you do not want me to prove my point from Vedas? I have proven from Vedas, that Brahman is Vishnu. You therefore, either accept the Vedas or reject it.

 

And can you tell me where I have been twisting statements and interpreting them? I clearly showed you how Vedas state that Paramatma and Jivatma are different and how the SAME MAHAVAKYAS DO NOT CONVEY IDENTITY, BUT INSEPARABILITY.

 

Refer to my first post. I have explained the Mahavakyas perfectly. What did I ignore?

 

When I said, 'you picked the Vakya from somewhere', I did not mean you did not take them from Vedas. I meant, you simply quoted them without understanding what they mean.

 

Get it? Its simple english.

 

Bloody fool, this debate is NOT ABOUT WHICH TEXT IS CORRECT. ITS ABOUT WHAT THE VEDAS CONTAIN.

 

Good Lord, what an ignoramus.

 

 

Yes that reminds me that you have been asking Pramana for the mahavakyas. Where from do you think I picked them up? If you have no Idea I will explictely provide them for you :

 

You are so stupid, its incredible. I did not ask you where you got the Vakyas. I said, you had stated Vakyas from the Vedas, hence, by default, you have accepted Vedas as pramana. Hence, to argue with you, I use the same pramana, ie the Vedas.

 

I told you, you have accepted the vakyas, and hence Veda as pramana. Hence, if I prove you wrong, you cannot jump away and question, 'are Vedas authentic?' You can only say that the Vedas do not harbor your conclusions.

 

You complete imbecile, I never asked you to give the source of your pramanas. If you have eyes, notice that I have explained your quotes.

 

The subject of this debate, I repeat, was NOT to determine scriptural validity, but to explain that Tat Tvam Asi, Aham Brahmasmi, etc. DO NOT TALK OF IDENTITY.

 

 

 

(Tomarrow and sunday are holidays and I will not be assessing my computer. i will see the posting on only monday. you have enough time to think of some decent answers to my question.)

 

Regards,

Ravindran

 

You have no brains, no sense of logic and are completely unaware of what the debate is about. I make it clear ONE MORE TIME -

 

Object of this debate - Explaining the meanings of the Vakyas.

 

Irrelevant to this debate - Examining whether the Vedas are better than other books, etc.

 

The debate can be carried out ONLY if you accept that there is no better source than the Vedas. Because you quoted 'mahavakyas' from the Vedas, it means the thread is restricted to the Vedas.

 

His porch light has completely gone out.

[Dark Warrior]

 

1) Prajnanam Bhrama , meaning Consciousness is Bhraman , called, "Statement of Definition" (Laksna Vakya) is from Aitareya Upanisad - V.3

of Rig Veda.

 

(2) Aham Bhrama Asmi . meaning I am Bhraman, called "Statement of experience" (Svanubhava Vakya), is from Brhadaranyaka Upanasad - 1.4.10, of the Yajur Veda.

 

(3) Tat Tvam Asi , meaning You are That , Called "Instructional Statement" ( Upadesa Vakya) is form Chandogya Upanisad - VI 8.7 - VI 16.3, of the Sama Veda.

 

(4) Ayam Atmaa Bhrama, meaning This self (soul) is Bhraman called "Statement of Practice" ( Abhyasa Vakya) is from Mandukya Upanasid - 2, of Atarvana Veda.

 

I have provided pramanas which you have asked as per your terms.

Now it is your turn to provide proof for your claim - that Bhraman is A blue skined man, as per my terms. ( no quotting books)

 

Now, seeing as you have dung for brains, I am explaining it to you slowly:

 

1) I did not ask you where you got these vakyas. I know these vakyas are in Vedas.

 

2) You have quoted these vakyas, in proof of your view. That means, you, by default, accept the book containing these vakyas as something that conveys the ultimate truth.

 

3) Hence, to defeat you, I have to use the SAME book and prove you wrong.

 

4) If you refer to my first posts, I have shown that these Vakyas do NOT convey identity, but simply the soul/body concept.

 

5) By this way, I established that ACCORDING TO THE VEDAS, Brahman has a form, that His svarupa has jagat as its body, and by His sankalpa, he enters His own creation and Vaikuntha to reside as Vishnu.

 

6) To prove that the Lord has a form, I quoted from the SAME BOOK you did, Chandogya Upanishad - That the Lord has lotus eyes.

 

 

----

 

Conclusion - It has been proven that Vedas do not say Atman is Brahman. Ravindran's views are NOT in the Vedas.

 

Hence, the debate is over. This debate is not about which book is superior, but about which philosophy is contained in the Vedas. Since you quoted from the Vedas, it means you automatically accept that the Vedas are giving information about the highest reality.

 

Unless you show some sense, stop posting brainlessly.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Now it is your turn to provide proof for your claim - that Bhraman is A blue skined man, as per my terms. ( no quotting books)

 

As per your terms, you quoted the Vedas to establish your point. Hence, as per your terms, I should quote the same Vedas (and not Bible, Koran, etc.) to prove my point.

 

Brahman as the soul of all Jivatmas, Prakrti, etc.

 

Ya: Pruthviyaam tishtan prutviyaa antharo yam pruthvii na veda yasya pruthvii sareeram

 

Ya: Aatmani tishtan aatmano antharo yam aatmaa na veda yasya aatmaa sareeram",

 

 

This is taken from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, belonging to the same Vedas you quoted yours from. Here, it states that both Prakrti and Atman is the body of Brahman.

 

Hence, Brahman is not Atman, but Atman is the body of Brahman.

 

Bheda Srutis

"Prutak Aatmaanam Preritaaram cha mathva jushtasthathastenaamrutavamethi",

"Bhoktha Bhogyam Prerithaaram cha mathva sarvam proktham trividham brahma ethat",

"Nithyo Nithyaanaam chethanas chethanaanaam Eko bhayuuaam yo vidadhaathi kaamaan",

"Pradhaana Kshetragjnyapathirgunesha:",

"iGnyaagnyow iDvaavajaaveesaaneesow

 

All these verses are taken from different sections of Vedas. All of them talk of Brahman and Jivatma as different entities. For instance, Nityo Nityaanaam... clearly states that there are millions of Jivatmas.

 

Now, we have your Abheda Vakyas,

 

 

1) Prajnanam Bhrama , meaning Consciousness is Bhraman , called, "Statement of Definition" (Laksna Vakya) is from Aitareya Upanisad - V.3

of Rig Veda.

 

(2) Aham Bhrama Asmi . meaning I am Bhraman, called "Statement of experience" (Svanubhava Vakya), is from Brhadaranyaka Upanasad - 1.4.10, of the Yajur Veda.

 

(3) Tat Tvam Asi , meaning You are That , Called "Instructional Statement" ( Upadesa Vakya) is form Chandogya Upanisad - VI 8.7 - VI 16.3, of the Sama Veda.

 

(4) Ayam Atmaa Bhrama, meaning This self (soul) is Bhraman called "Statement of Practice" ( Abhyasa Vakya) is from Mandukya Upanasid - 2, of Atarvana Veda.

 

I have provided pramanas which you have asked as per your terms.

Now it is your turn to provide proof for your claim - that Bhraman is A blue skined man, as per my terms. ( no quotting books)

[Dark Warrior]

Here is the situation:

 

1) You quoted from Vedas, hence it is my duty to quote from the same Vedas to establish my point.

 

2) We have two types of Vakyas in Shruti - One talks of Bheda, and another talks of Abheda. Clearly, this contradiction needs to be resolved.

 

The Shrutis say that Jivatma is body of Brahman. Two entities, are thus, inseparable, and can be addressed as One entity. 'Jack' signifies Jack's body and Soul. Hence, Abheda Vakyas like 'Aham Brahmasmi' simply address the Jivatma as body of Brahman.

 

When I call you 'Ravindran', I address your body and soul. Similarly, your abheda Vakyas address both Brahman and Jivatma.

 

Brahman is Consciousness does not mean He has no form. When we say 'Jack is Honest', honesty is an attribute of Jack. Hence, 'Prajnanam Brahma' means Brahman has the attribute of consciousness.

 

Here is the explanation for the abheda vakyas I gave in my earlier post.

 

 

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.

 

Brahman's form

 

1) Brahman pervades the Universe because this Universe is the body of His svarupa. His svarupa has the attributes of Jnanam, Anantam, etc. At the same time, by His will, this svarupa exists as the Blue Hued Lord Vishnu in Vaikuntha and in this Universe. Brahman not only has the Universe as His body, but also exists within the Universe in a localised position.

 

2) Chandogya Upanishad calls Brahman as 'Pundarikaksha'. Purusha Suktam calls Him as Lakshmi Pathi. Rig Veda says all Devas aggregated in the navel of the unborn. The Veda also states 'Om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pashyanti suriyah', meaning, 'The abode of Vishnu is the highest and liberation is attained there'. This means, Brahman also has a specific abode.

 

3) References to Vishnu's Chakra and Sangha are there in Rig Veda and Atharva Veda.

 

Therefore, Brahman, according to Vedanta, is Lord Vishnu, the abode of auspicious attributes and having a bluish-black form with lotus eyes. Finis.

 

CONCLUSION - I have proven that Ravindran's interpretation of Vedanta is wrong. Now, he can reject Vedas and accept Bible or something else. That is his problem.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Now it is your turn to provide proof for your claim - that Bhraman is A blue skined man, as per my terms. ( no quotting books)

 

Here itself, the utter idiocy of this is revealed.

 

You quote from some book to express your view. That means, I need to prove you are wrong by quoting from the SAME book. When you quote from the Veda, I need to quote from the Veda only. That is the rule of debate.

 

If you do not want me to quote from books, then why did you quote those books in the first place?

 

One can only have one common ground for debate. If you quote from a book, I quote from the same book. If you reject these books and use some other source, I too will use that other source, etc.

 

If you quote an Upanishad, it means by default, you accept the scriptural validity of the Upanishad. Hence, if I use the same Upanishad to prove that you are wrong, then you have to either remain consistent with your position that the Upanishad is valid, or you can change your opinion and say that you no longer believe in the Vedas.

 

I did not ask you where you got the Mahavakyas. I know that the Mahavakyas are in Vedas, and I have explained that they do not say Brahman is Jivatma. All I am saying is, if you are quoting from book 'x', it means I have to quote from the same book to refute you.

 

If there is someone intelligent reading this thread, please explain it to this hopeless person. he seems to be completely clueless.

 

EDIT: I didn't address this properly:

 

 

An example of this is your complete neglet of the mahavakyas which I have reffered. You even dint know its existence as vedic pramanas - you were arguing that I have picked them up from "some where". So much for your claim of your Vadic knowledge.

 

If you have eyes, check the FIRST POST of this thread. I clearly explained every Mahavakya. Where did I neglect them? I explained how these Vakyas do not convey identity. Check my posts.

 

Then, you say, I was unaware of their existence. Everyone knows those Vakyas are on Vedas. I said, 'Ravindran picked up those Vakyas from somewhere' meaning, 'Ravindran has no knowledge of Vedas and simply is quoting Vakyas without understanding their meaning'.

 

Its basic english. When I said you picked it up from somewhere, I meant, you never read the Vedas and is simply quoting these Vakyas from hearsay.

 

Ravindran, I have learnt the Vedas. Whereas, all you know is how to quibble without arguing. I apologise to the Moderators for my language, but seriously, its annoying to see someone with so little common sense.

[hindustani]

 

I have learnt the Vedas.

Is it?Does not look like because the way you were writing in that old thread which closed recently,man it is damn easy to copy paste for anyone quoting Vedas BUT I saw some posts of yours and I can deffinately say that you miss a LOT in real.I wish you all the best.IN simple term learn vedas and read vedas(from webs)are different.I see most of time you are busy showing your gyan and in most case example here you are again busy in discussing the color of skin...haha.Brother color of skin does not matter,its mine or your karmas which will count in the end.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Is it?Does not look like because the way you were writing in that old thread which closed recently,man it is damn easy to copy paste for anyone quoting Vedas BUT I saw some posts of yours and I can deffinately say that you miss a LOT in real.I wish you all the best.IN simple term learn vedas and read vedas(from webs)are different.I see most of time you are busy showing your gyan and in most case example here you are again busy in discussing the color of skin...haha.Brother color of skin does not matter,its mine or your karmas which will count in the end.

 

Of Course, I am copying and pasting the relevant slokas from the Vedas. Do you think I can invent Vedic Slokas by myself? However, the explanation I am giving for it is certainly in my own words, based on my reading of Sri Ramanuja's Vedanta Sangraha and Sri U.Ve. Narasimharangachari's work on Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita Vedanta. Whereas, all you have been doing is arguing about being 'secular' and how 'all gods are equal'.

 

In any case, my argument isn't with you. Ravindran, first of all, needs to grasp the subject matter of the debate - 'Do the Vedas preach Monism or Dualism'?

 

He claimed that the Vedas are monistic. I have proven that the Vedas are dualistic. Now, I accept the Vedas as the ultimate reality and hence, I can say Vishnu is supreme. However, if he does not accept the Vedas, he is free to accept whatever he thinks is the ultimate reality. The idiocy of all this is that, he thinks its my job to convince him that the Vedas are the ultimate authority. However, that's not my problem - I am merely telling him the subject matter of the Vedas.

 

My goal was solely to prove that the Vedas do not preach monism. Instead, he has completely gone wayward.

[hindustani]

 

I can say Vishnu is supreme

God is supreme,if you worship Vishnu he is supreme,if I worship shiva he is supreme for me.If you learnt vedas in real you would never write who is supreme!!For me Vishnu or Shiva is ONE.

Whatever is the case,always respect the GOD lives in other heart,if I fail to do this nothing worst than this.It is good to teach someone(when he demands) but its deadly wrong to tell someone that you know nothing and I am supreme,if he does not know or miss something his inner god one day will tell him who am I or you to preach him?Are we gurus?NO.

[Ashok009]

I am surprised that one thread is closed and ofcourse Dark Warrior opens another one.....if yur determination was as strong in pursuit of God as is in proving that you or what u believe in is right then ot would be a different story......as I had said in the last thread that your screen name defines you aptly....you are a very dark person in your thoughts ...and very closed.....

[Dark Warrior]

 

God is supreme,if you worship Vishnu he is supreme,if I worship shiva he is supreme for me.If you learnt vedas in real you would never write who is supreme!!For me Vishnu or Shiva is ONE.

Whatever is the case,always respect the GOD lives in other heart,if I fail to do this nothing worst than this.It is good to teach someone(when he demands) but its deadly wrong to tell someone that you know nothing and I am supreme,if he does not know or miss something his inner god one day will tell him who am I or you to preach him?Are we gurus?NO.

 

 

 

I am surprised that one thread is closed and ofcourse Dark Warrior opens another one.....if yur determination was as strong in pursuit of God as is in proving that you or what u believe in is right then ot would be a different story......as I had said in the last thread that your screen name defines you aptly....you are a very dark person in your thoughts ...and very closed.....

 

I suggest that both of you take your 'All Gods are One' theology to another thread, or stick to this thread's discussion, which is simply about monism or dualism in the Vedas. Much as I would like to argue, at the moment, I can only address one person's stupidity at a time.