Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Krishna - PraNAms

Sorry for the delayed answer. Next time please send me email also so that I can respond as quickly as I can.

Brahman - is pure sat chit ananda and is derived from the root - bRihat meaning big. Brahman means -infinite-ness. Vedanta defines Brahman as pure SAT - CHIT - ANANDA. These are intrinsic nature than qualifications - just as H2O is intrinsic nature (swaruupa lakshana) of water than qualification or attribute of water.

Being infinite there cannot be anything other than Brahman - Hence it is absolute and no internal divisions possible. No words can describe it. na vaak gachchati no na manaH- neither speech nor mind can go there - says Vedanta. Hence any description is only negation of attributes - hence it is called nirgunaH, niraakaaraH etc. does not have attributes or any form etc. From Brahman point there cannot be any creation too, since one is trying to divide that which is indivisible.

Iswara comes with creation for those who sees creation. Brahman with maayaa shakti is Iswara.

Iswara with the total mind is Hiranya garbha or brahmaji the creator aspect. For creation one needs the know-how of how to create - hence he is married to Saraswati - the embodiment of knowledge - these are symbolic expressions. Satya loka is same as Brahma loka - this is the maximum the substle matter can travel.

Iswara with total body or gross matter is Virat purush - described in the 11th chapter of Geeta.

Iswara identified with the local BMI is jiiva.

It is similar to dream creation - The waker's mind creates the dream world based on the vaasanas - the suppressions and oppressions of desires in the wakers mind.  AFter creation the same waker's mind creates the jiivas (living beings in the dream world) and creates a BMI of jiiva as one individual experiencing the dream world and forget that I am the creator of the dream world. The waker's mind pervades the whole dream world supported by consciousness. Please think about it - analogy is similar.

Hari Om!

Discussions on Vedanta / Re: What happens to Jiva after death?
« Last post by Dr. Sadananda on April 16, 2016, 06:08:49 AM »
First my apologies for this delayed response.

The movement you are referring to measurable by gross instruments. These cannot measure the subtle movements or movement of subtle matter. As per meemaamsa, the mind travels and Dharmaraja provides answers to Yaksha's one of questions that relates to which travels fastest. He says - the mind.

When the body dies, the subtle body - mind (with its components - mind, intellect, ego and memory + the jnaanedriyas and karmendrias - faculty of senses and action) all packed together and travels in search of the next field of experience (loka) which requires appropriate body- just as in the dream.

When you move from the waking state to dream state  - what kind of movement it is. It is the same way.

Hari Om!
Discussions on Vedanta / What happens to Jiva after death?
« Last post by Sadashastri on March 20, 2016, 08:10:39 AM »
Hari Om

If there is never any movement but only absolute stillness , then does the Jiva leave the Body at all during death?

Or does the individualized consciousness merely create a new projection of the mind while being still?
Discussions on Vedanta / Atman and delusion
« Last post by kalyan on February 07, 2016, 10:46:16 AM »
Namaste Dr. Sadananda

I bow down to the Atman that is the real nature of everyone. My humble praNAms to Brahman who is ever present as the Atman in all.

I have these questions from a long time-

If I am the Atman that is always free from delusion, why do I feel as if I am deluded? Is avidya so strong as to delude even the Atman? What makes avidya so strong?

When my body malfunctions due to fever or other health conditions, I realize my limitations. When I face unhappiness, uncertainties or troubles in life, I realize my limitations. With such limitations, can I still be the Atman, which is ever free from all troubles?

I am deluded and I heard the statement that I am the Atman, which is non-different from Brahman. Why is this knowledge not liberating me instantly?

Discussions on Vedanta / Re: Punarjanma - Rebirth
« Last post by Dr. Sadananda on January 11, 2016, 09:56:42 AM »
It is like white light consisting of 7 component colors. If an object looks Red and another object looks blue - it is not the white light that is causing the problem. The red object looks red since it has the capacity to absorb all colors (wavelengths) other than Red while the blue object appears to be blue since it absorbs all colors except blue. Depending on the reflecting medium, even though the original light that falls on them is the same, they look different. Same principle applies. The light of consciousness of Brahman as though falls on every object and the reflection depends on the reflecting media. In the inert materials, only sat aspect gets reflected- hence their existence is expressed as the object IS - Dead body IS. etc. Isness is the existence aspect. Non-existent object cannot be known since it does not exist.
In the subtle materials (mind etc) not only sat but chit part is also reflected. Hence they act as conscious entities due to reflected consciousness in them. Death is nothing but subtle body leaving the gross body and moving to new field of experience- just as in dream.
In both ananda part is not reflected.
For ananda part also to get reflected the subtle body has to be calm and serene - that is mind has to be quiet as in dream state or as when a intense desire is fulfilled - there is momentary calmness of the mind.
A jnaani is one who can have calm and quiet mind in spite of ups and downs at transactional level. Hence he is always happy.  Hope this answers. Hari Om!
First there is nothing to reconcile - but to understand clearly the ontological status of the two. Parmaarthikam is from its reference, being Brahman, infinite, there cannot be any movement, since it is infinite. The rest of the understanding of the nature of Brahman comes from Vedanta, which is an independent means of knowledge or Pramaana. Vedanta says - Brahman is of the nature of pure sat-chit-ananda. Creation involves a modification and Brahman being infinite cannot undergo any modification; only finite can undergo modification.

Creation itself is a movement as one is becoming many - a change of state that requires a driving force. Since Brahman cannot undergo any real change, the creation is only apparent but not really real - just as dream creation. While sleeping comfortably in a dark AC room, you can create the whole dream world and go around the world in the dream, without really moving out of your bed room. If you can do that why not Brahman? Waking state is ontologically different from the dream state.

Just as transactions in the dream world does not disturb the waker, same way the Brahman is unaffected by the movement in the vyaavahaarika plane. Please listen to the Vedanta talk series on yu-tube - introduciton to vedanta and Advanced Vedanta - all these are answered systematically. Hari Om!
Discussions on Vedanta / Reconciliation - Paramarthika Sathya and Vyavharika Sathya
« Last post by Sadashastri on December 28, 2015, 07:27:56 AM »
Hari Om,

How to reconcile the below two levels of reality?

Paramarthika Sathya : Nothing ever changes. There is no creation. No Movement.

Vyavharika Sathya : There is creation , change and Movement.

How can nothing ever move at all at paramarthika level , if in Vyavharika sathya there is movement?

How is the movement of Jiva when it leaves the body to be reckoned with?
Tat Tvam Asi / Re: Is Sat Chit Ananda an attribute?
« Last post by Sadashastri on December 23, 2015, 04:35:33 AM »
Hari Om,


Does Sat Chid ananda completely define Brahman or is it only a pointer to it.

Like sweetness is essential for Sugar but Sugar is more than just sweetness (e.g. it is white etc).

Is Sat Chit Ananda  an attribute?

Attribute is called VisheshaNa or an adjective which qualifies a noun,

There are two types of visheshaNa-s - saamaanya visheshaNa and Vishesha visheshaNa ( for lack of better words, I am using this terminology). Saamaanya visheshaNa -s are the adjectives that are incidental or non-essential for the object to be that particular object- taking a flower as an example - if I say a white flower, whiteness of the flower is considered as samaanya visheshaNa since flower can remain as flower without being white. It is a non-essential qualification.

There are qualifications which are essential or to be mathematically precise, necessary qualifications to define that object. This can be seen more clearly with respect to say, sugar. One can have white sugar or brown sugar etc. - these white and brown colors are saamaanya visheshaNa or non-essential qualifications. But there is a necessary or essential qualification for an object to be sugar, and that is, it should be sweet. It may look like granular white powder, but if it does not taste sweet it is not sugar. Hence sweetness becomes an essential qualification or dharma of sugar.

But if we examine further, it is a necessary qualification yet it is not a sufficient qualification. In mathematical rigor, for a qualification to be necessary and sufficient, it must fulfill a converse requirement, i.e. if it is sweet it must be sugar. Since there are other chemicals which are not sugar but yet taste sweet, sweetness is an essential or necessary qualification for a sugar but not a sufficient qualification to exclusively identify sugar.

If there is any qualification, visheshaNa, which fulfills both necessary and sufficient requirements then it is no more called a visheshaNa and should be called as LakshaNa. (Some have used saamaanya LakshaNa and vishesha LakshaNa to differentiate those that are necessary from those that are necessary and sufficient qualifications).

What is a lakshNa for sugar - If I say C6H12O6 is the lakshNa of sugar, then it is both necessary and sufficient to define sugar. - Thus LakshaNa provides a definition for the sugar precisely to differentiate it from the rest of the objects in the universe. It is no more a qualification or attribute - since C6H12O6 is sugar and sugar is C6H12O6 and there are no two ways about it. (In organic chemistry there are compounds which have the same formula and in such cases one has to define the structure to remove any ambiguity).

VisheshaNaas are guNas that can be recognized by senses - form, color, taste, smell or touch etc or to be inferred by logic based on measurements using sensitive instruments - such as chemical structure or atomic structure etc.

Now coming to the central point, sat, chit and ananda are not attributes as visheshaNa-s that define a visheshya - if they are, then they become guNas to be reckoned with senses or intellect. Sat chit and ananda is considered as LakshaNa of Brahman - in the sense that they are necessary and sufficient to define Brahman.

This is the doctrine of Advaita.

Bhagavaan Ramaanuja and Madva differ from this assertion. They treat these as necessary qualifications but not sufficient qualifications for Brahman like sweentness of the sugar. He, Brahman, becomes saguNa along with sat chit ananda. Thus He is the locus of infinite auspicious qualifications as well.

To know that these are LakshaNaas - the scriptures, reinforced by logic, are the only PramaaNaas. Sat, existence is necessary since we
cannot talk about non-existence Brahman. If non-existent Brahman exists then he becomes existent by the very statement that he exists- if an existent Brahman becomes non-existent then how will one know that - there must be a conscious entity to observe existent Brahman becoming non-existent. That conscious entity must be existent entity in order to observe the transformation of existent Brahman into non-existent Brahman. - That existent conscious entity is the chit and sat which is Brahman. Krishna says - naasato vidyate bhaavo naa bhavo vidyate sataH - that which is non-existent can never come into existence and that which exists can never cease to exist -(there were series of discussions on this sloka few months back) Chandogya says: sadeva souma idam agra aseet - existence alone was there in the beginning - ekameva advitiiyam - it is one without a second. .. tad aikshataa - it saw - meaning it is a conscious existence - There cannot be anything other than existence since other than existence is only non-existence and we cannot say that non-existence exists - Uddalaka in fact presents the alternate theory and then refutes it saying that it is illogical - This is where suunya vaada is refuted. It is ekameva advitiiyam -it is one without a second that means it must be infinite since if it is finite then what is there out side the finiteness - if something is there then it exists and hence comes under existence itself. Hence existence is anantam, and anantam is aanandam, since it is limitless as sorrow comes from limitations. Hence what was there before creation is sat, chit and ananda - here sat is chit, and chit is ananda and they are not qualifications but LakshaNaas for Brahman -

Obviously the statement is made not from Brahman point but from Jeeva's or from the point of a seeker. - sattayihi chit, chittayaahyayam - says Bhagavaan Ramana - sat is indeed chit, and that sat and chit is indeed I am. I exist and am conscious and no pramaaNa is required to prove that I am sat and chit as it is a self-evident fact.

That brings the aspect of pramaaNa into picture. VisheshaNa-s or
qualifications are noted through pramaaNa or direct sense input -
pratyaksha - white flower or sweet sugar. - Or inferentially
(indirectly through pratyaksha ) - even the C6H12O6 is deduced
inferentially even if one cannot see it directly. Hence for all objects
existence is first established through PramaaNa or means of knowledge. But that pre-supposes the existence of a conscious entity since to validate any pramaaNa a conscious existent entity must be there. On the other hand, to validate the existence of a conscious entity there is no pramaNa - hence sat and chit are not visheshaNas that can be validated but LakshaNaas that indicate the self-existent and self-conscious entity. Hence the scripture is pramaaNa not to establish that I am sat-chit but I am also anantam or aham brahmaasmi - I am the totality - confirmed by the sages by their anubhava and providing as a working hypothesis for me to discover my complete nature.

I went a little round about to establish that sat, chit and ananda are not attributes but LakshaNaas that indicate the nature of Brahman. This discussion of attribute and attribute-less Brahman has taken lot of toll in the vedantic discussions - the problem is mind can only grasp attributes, since unit of the mind is a thought, and locus of a thought is an object, and there is no object without attributes. From Bhakti point locus is needed to center devotion, and one brings Iswara as a locus for devotion, and mind cannot comprehend an Iswara without attributes. Even Raamaanuja although emphasizes saguNa brahman, if one goes deep into the nature of that saguNa brahman, His guNas are described as ananta kalyaaNa guaNa - infinite auspicious qualities - they are infinite in number wise and each of them is infinite in quantity wise - neither can be comprehended by ones finite mind since if it can be comprehended it is not infinite any more! Hence one cannot really praise the Lord since any thing one says is less than what He is by the very definition. All one can do is surrender and surrenderence can only be done at the alter of Love. Hence the emphasis on saraNaagati in the vishishTaadvaitic tradition.

Bhagavaan Shankara goes one step further and defines the Bhakti and surrenderence in vivekachuuDaamaNI as

swaswaruupaanusandhaanam bhaktirityabhidiiyate|
swaatmaanubhava sandhaanam bhatirityapare jaguH|

The realization of ones own nature - I am sat - chit and ananda or
ananta is called bhakti. Or realization of one own self , others call it as bhakti.

Hari Om!

An Introduction to Vedanta / Re: Does the world exist independent of an observer?
« Last post by Vivek on July 17, 2015, 08:35:14 PM »

How I can understand it sir:

The existence of an object is ascertained by the knowledge of its existence.

Our knowledge of it establishes merely the fact that it exists, but it doesn't establish it's existence itself.

If we consider this case: A boy lives in a jungle, nobody has seen him. 60 years in the future adventurers see him.

Is his existence established by the adventurers? No. But the knowledge of his existence (fact that he exists) is ascertained by them. But his existence per se was established when he was born. Similarly a prehistoric painting in a deep earlier, cave that has not been accessed.
Discussions on Vedanta / Re: Punarjanma - Rebirth
« Last post by Vivek on July 17, 2015, 08:07:45 PM »
Sadananda :

I have read Advaita many times, but it's hard to understand or be convinced that essentially everything is Brahman. It is not discussing these for the sake of it. But what causes us to have ego-centric karmas in the first place when we are born? What is the life thing (if I can call it that)?

Consider this :A dead body and a body that is alive - both have the same organs, blood, nerves, vessels, muscles, bones etc. Why is one alive, while one dead? When the person died, he died of asphyxiation (say). The dead body is Brahman and the alive body is also Brahman.

They are composed of the same things, and the dead body also essentially has healthy organs, but it's dead because it didn't have air for few minutes. So if both are composed of the same things, and they are both Brahman, then why the difference between the two?

What gives the alive body, it's life, thinking, emotions, intellect, consciousness?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10