Guest guest Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 Dear Bharatji, Thank you for your reply. I notice you havent spoken yet on the matter - but I realize the topic is now no longer relevant to this group (i.e. there is no astrological content to " are actions dualistic or not " ).. Sundeep sohamsa , " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " <astrologyhindu wrote: > > Namaste Sri Nitish > > Vedanta does not allow students of this subject to be called " deluded " , > especially when Sri Sundeep and Sri Tijana are raising doubts and questions. > None of the Gurus would stop questioning, but would answer in a manner that > gives them a pramana of the Truth. In most cases, I have seen the questions > dissolve as they are based on certain assumptions that aren't true. I > request you not to resort to names such as " Deluded " for able and > intelligent persons like Sri Sundeep and Sri Tijana. > > Intellectual understanding of Vedanta can give rise to lot of arrogance. It > is my request to everyone to be careful of the same, as it defeats the very > purpose of Vedanta. I would also request you to use simple terms or borrow > terms from Vedanta. > > Thanks and Regards > Bharat > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:02 AM, yeeahoo_99 <nitish.arya wrote: > > > || OM TAT SAT || > > Dear Sundeep, > > > There are no axioms to get correct here, simply an appreciation of > > > the *level* at which the observation was made. If I have a white > > > pixel and a black pixel, that's a duality, no? However, aggregate > > > millions of them together and you can create anything you want - > > > pictures of hundreds of people bathing in a river, for e.g. So, > > > you've achieved a multiplicity using duality as a base. > > > > If you wish to remain conveniently deluded with multiplicity, i > > will close the discussion with the famous quote from Adi Shankara -- > > " Brahman Satya Jagat Mithya " . > > > > regards, > > Nitish > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>, > > " vedicastrostudent " <vedicastrostudent@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Nitish, > > > > > > > Your logic is flawed. First, get your axioms correct. > > > > Duality implies, there cannot be multiplicity, always a > > > duality. > > > > > > There are no axioms to get correct here, simply an appreciation of > > > the *level* at which the observation was made. If I have a white > > > pixel and a black pixel, that's a duality, no? However, aggregate > > > millions of them together and you can create anything you want - > > > pictures of hundreds of people bathing in a river, for e.g. So, > > > you've achieved a multiplicity using duality as a base. The path > > > from non-duality to duality is infinitely long, and the path from > > > duality to multiplicity is a short one. In fact, that's what > > > manifestation is all about - get some duality going first, and > > > everything else follows. The finer your observations, the closer > > you > > > witness the true duality(ies). The coarser your observations, the > > > more you witness multiplicities. They are not very different.. > > > > > > > > > > And the duality cannot be shared. If Su-Mo is a duality, Mo- Ra > > > cannot > > > > be yet another duality as Tijana tried to project. > > > > Everything non-dualistic in Prakriti is Brahman. > > > > Action doesn't have a dualistic association with it in -- > > > > BrahmaKarmaSamadhina (4:24). > > > > > > I look, but I dont see. Where does it define action at all? And > > > nowhere do I see the *unambiguous* mention of action being non- > > dual. > > > Please give, in your own words, what is meant by a non-dual action. > > > Do not simply give pointers to non-karma-accruing actions, but bite > > > the bullet and define a non-dual action. Who is the doer of the > > > action, what does the doer operate upon, and how exactly does the > > > non-dual doer witness something other than itself? If it does, how > > > does the non-duality of the doer remain intact? > > > > > > IMHO, your perception of non-duality is simply something for which > > > an opposite doesnt exist. But that non-dual entity swims in a world > > > of opposites (prakriti), right? To me, that is not non- duality. Non- > > > duality is *transcending* the opposites. No opposites *exist* > > > in " its " world! That is why I said " electric current effectuates > > the > > > video game, not motivates it " . Electric current is a non- > > participant > > > in the video game even though it is it's effectuator. It has no > > > motive in the video game, much like Brahman doesnt in this " world " > > > > > > > > > Sundeep > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2008 Report Share Posted April 27, 2008 Namaste Sri NitishMaya is not wholly unreal nor it is wholly real. Whenever you talk of jagat, you are not talking of the unreal only. Since Jagat has no reality other than that of Brahman. In this sense, only the notion that I is separate, limited and sorrowful is the problem (called samsara). Since the notion is there in any person who is not yet realized, that becomes the starting point for any discussion/q & a on Vedanta. There is no disgrace to any person, if any jigyasu is honestly trying to understand the subject. If one could realize that the entirety is nothing but Brahman, there would not much left to discuss. Moreover, you must remember since everyone perceive the duality and the multiplicity, it becomes much more easier to believe in it. Secondly, despite a systematic study made available by great masters of Brahm Vidya, few are inclined to study it properly. All of the doubts, contentions, beliefs are removed, resolved and shattered by the Shruti(Upanishads), Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras and its Bhashyas. For the beginners, I would suggest this site http://www.avgsatsang.org/ by Poojya Swami Dayananda. This site contains short introductory talks on Vedanta and its role in daily life. The talks on this site may propel some to take up deeper study of Vedanta. I will once again request those who want to study Vedanta, to do so under a proper guidance of a Guru who is well versed in the Sastra. Thanks and RegardsBharatOn Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, yeeahoo_99 <nitish.arya wrote: || OM TAT SAT || Dear Sundeep, Tijana, Bharat ji, My intention was not to refer to Sundeep in any derogatory sense while using the word " deluded " , as i have finished the discussion with the relevant quote from Adi Shankara. The soul is humiliated, so much more, by its karmic delusions, than what a reference to its " pathetic state of affairs in a human body " , in this kind of a discussion, can bring about. Since it got noted, henceforth, i would use this word with caution. Sole reason for my closing on this discussion is because it disgraces the soul, when we talk about multiplicity, which is not truth. As far as Jyotish is concerned, the list has already lost interest in the topic that was started on this thread. Lastly, i would also like to communicate with souls who are learned and masters in Vedanta, and thus gain deeper insight. If such a soul could lead the discussion, we would all be immensely enlightened. best regards, Nitish sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent " <vedicastrostudent wrote: > > Dear Bharatji, > Thank you for your reply. I notice you havent spoken yet on the > matter - but I realize the topic is now no longer relevant to this > group (i.e. there is no astrological content to " are actions > dualistic or not " ).. > > Sundeep > > sohamsa , " Bharat - Hindu Astrology " > <astrologyhindu@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Sri Nitish > > > > Vedanta does not allow students of this subject to be > called " deluded " , > > especially when Sri Sundeep and Sri Tijana are raising doubts and > questions. > > None of the Gurus would stop questioning, but would answer in a > manner that > > gives them a pramana of the Truth. In most cases, I have seen the > questions > > dissolve as they are based on certain assumptions that aren't > true. I > > request you not to resort to names such as " Deluded " for able and > > intelligent persons like Sri Sundeep and Sri Tijana. > > > > Intellectual understanding of Vedanta can give rise to lot of > arrogance. It > > is my request to everyone to be careful of the same, as it defeats > the very > > purpose of Vedanta. I would also request you to use simple terms > or borrow > > terms from Vedanta. > > > > Thanks and Regards > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:02 AM, yeeahoo_99 <nitish.arya@> > wrote: > > > > > || OM TAT SAT || > > > Dear Sundeep, > > > > There are no axioms to get correct here, simply an > appreciation of > > > > the *level* at which the observation was made. If I have a > white > > > > pixel and a black pixel, that's a duality, no? However, > aggregate > > > > millions of them together and you can create anything you > want - > > > > pictures of hundreds of people bathing in a river, for e.g. So, > > > > you've achieved a multiplicity using duality as a base. > > > > > > If you wish to remain conveniently deluded with multiplicity, i > > > will close the discussion with the famous quote from Adi > Shankara -- > > > " Brahman Satya Jagat Mithya " . > > > > > > regards, > > > Nitish > > > > > > sohamsa <sohamsa%40>, > > > " vedicastrostudent " <vedicastrostudent@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Nitish, > > > > > > > > > Your logic is flawed. First, get your axioms correct. > > > > > Duality implies, there cannot be multiplicity, always a > > > > duality. > > > > > > > > There are no axioms to get correct here, simply an > appreciation of > > > > the *level* at which the observation was made. If I have a > white > > > > pixel and a black pixel, that's a duality, no? However, > aggregate > > > > millions of them together and you can create anything you > want - > > > > pictures of hundreds of people bathing in a river, for e.g. So, > > > > you've achieved a multiplicity using duality as a base. The > path > > > > from non-duality to duality is infinitely long, and the path > from > > > > duality to multiplicity is a short one. In fact, that's what > > > > manifestation is all about - get some duality going first, and > > > > everything else follows. The finer your observations, the > closer > > > you > > > > witness the true duality(ies). The coarser your observations, > the > > > > more you witness multiplicities. They are not very different.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the duality cannot be shared. If Su-Mo is a duality, Mo- > Ra > > > > cannot > > > > > be yet another duality as Tijana tried to project. > > > > > Everything non-dualistic in Prakriti is Brahman. > > > > > Action doesn't have a dualistic association with it in -- > > > > > BrahmaKarmaSamadhina (4:24). > > > > > > > > I look, but I dont see. Where does it define action at all? And > > > > nowhere do I see the *unambiguous* mention of action being non- > > > dual. > > > > Please give, in your own words, what is meant by a non-dual > action. > > > > Do not simply give pointers to non-karma-accruing actions, but > bite > > > > the bullet and define a non-dual action. Who is the doer of the > > > > action, what does the doer operate upon, and how exactly does > the > > > > non-dual doer witness something other than itself? If it does, > how > > > > does the non-duality of the doer remain intact? > > > > > > > > IMHO, your perception of non-duality is simply something for > which > > > > an opposite doesnt exist. But that non-dual entity swims in a > world > > > > of opposites (prakriti), right? To me, that is not non- > duality. Non- > > > > duality is *transcending* the opposites. No opposites *exist* > > > > in " its " world! That is why I said " electric current > effectuates > > > the > > > > video game, not motivates it " . Electric current is a non- > > > participant > > > > in the video game even though it is it's effectuator. It has no > > > > motive in the video game, much like Brahman doesnt in > this " world " > > > > > > > > > > > > Sundeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.