06-08-2005, 02:09 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-pulikeshi+Jun 7 2005, 11:31 AM-->QUOTE(pulikeshi @ Jun 7 2005, 11:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Jun 7 2005, 02:31 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gangajal @ Jun 7 2005, 02:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Of course there can be no world if Brahman is without a second and is unchanging since the world coming out of Brahman will change Brahman. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gangajal,
The real problem, if at all, that I see in Shankara?s monism is the need for Gods, and our chanting ?Bhaja Govindam?, given the nature of Brahman and the individual human being.
I am trying hard to understand what you are saying here. Let me draw a diagram to see if this is what you mean:
<b>Brahman --(Maya Sakthi)--> Phenomenal Universe (Apparent Brahman)</b>
What you are saying is that Brahman cannot be unique as the Phenomenal Universe exists due to Brahman creating it. I find this argument untenable. There is no reason to believe that Universe came out of Brahman. Further, in my understanding Maya is our egotistical perception of what is essentially a single entity - Brahman. This transformation business is news to me. Could you point me to any good literature that talks about this transformation? Where does Shankara talk about this?
I must confess that I have come to ideas based on what I perceived on my own, and adopted those ideas expounded by the acharyas that were congruous with my own. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pulikeshi,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The real problem, if at all, that I see in Shankara?s monism is the need for Gods, and our chanting ?Bhaja Govindam?, given the nature of Brahman and the individual human being. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is the problem with the Gods? If Brahman can appear to be jiva and jagat then surely Brahman can also appear to be Gods.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am trying hard to understand what you are saying here. Let me draw a diagram to see if this is what you mean:
<b>Brahman --(Maya Sakthi)--> Phenomenal Universe (Apparent Brahman)</b>
What you are saying is that Brahman cannot be unique as the Phenomenal Universe exists due to Brahman creating it. I find this argument untenable. There is no reason to believe that Universe came out of Brahman. Further, in my understanding Maya is our egotistical perception of what is essentially a single entity - Brahman. This transformation business is news to me. Could you point me to any good literature that talks about this transformation? Where does Shankara talk about this?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If universe did not come out from Brahman then Brahman is not infinite and would also violate numerous Upanishadic shlokas. Upanishads say Brahman is one without a second and a universe that does not come out of Brahman would violate that statement.
Yes, Maya shakti makes us perceive the snake as the rope as written by Sundarji. This is just an effect of Maya Shakti. Of course Maya Shakti is just the shakti of Brahman. The snake is the analogy for Brahman and the rope is the jagat. In kevala Advaita scheme the ontological status of Jagat is MITHYA. Now Mithya ordinarily means falsehood. However, when Jagat is called Mithya it is not meant that Jagat does not exist. The phenomenological existence of jagat is assumed. What is meant is that the ontological status of Jagat is less than that of Brahman.
The most authoritative discussion on these issues is the Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Shankara. You can also go through various Upanishadic Bhasyas of Shankara. Then there are some popular books written by Shankara like, "Atma Jnana", Vivekchudamuni", Upadesha Sahashra" etc.
Gangajal,
The real problem, if at all, that I see in Shankara?s monism is the need for Gods, and our chanting ?Bhaja Govindam?, given the nature of Brahman and the individual human being.
I am trying hard to understand what you are saying here. Let me draw a diagram to see if this is what you mean:
<b>Brahman --(Maya Sakthi)--> Phenomenal Universe (Apparent Brahman)</b>
What you are saying is that Brahman cannot be unique as the Phenomenal Universe exists due to Brahman creating it. I find this argument untenable. There is no reason to believe that Universe came out of Brahman. Further, in my understanding Maya is our egotistical perception of what is essentially a single entity - Brahman. This transformation business is news to me. Could you point me to any good literature that talks about this transformation? Where does Shankara talk about this?
I must confess that I have come to ideas based on what I perceived on my own, and adopted those ideas expounded by the acharyas that were congruous with my own. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pulikeshi,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The real problem, if at all, that I see in Shankara?s monism is the need for Gods, and our chanting ?Bhaja Govindam?, given the nature of Brahman and the individual human being. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is the problem with the Gods? If Brahman can appear to be jiva and jagat then surely Brahman can also appear to be Gods.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am trying hard to understand what you are saying here. Let me draw a diagram to see if this is what you mean:
<b>Brahman --(Maya Sakthi)--> Phenomenal Universe (Apparent Brahman)</b>
What you are saying is that Brahman cannot be unique as the Phenomenal Universe exists due to Brahman creating it. I find this argument untenable. There is no reason to believe that Universe came out of Brahman. Further, in my understanding Maya is our egotistical perception of what is essentially a single entity - Brahman. This transformation business is news to me. Could you point me to any good literature that talks about this transformation? Where does Shankara talk about this?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If universe did not come out from Brahman then Brahman is not infinite and would also violate numerous Upanishadic shlokas. Upanishads say Brahman is one without a second and a universe that does not come out of Brahman would violate that statement.
Yes, Maya shakti makes us perceive the snake as the rope as written by Sundarji. This is just an effect of Maya Shakti. Of course Maya Shakti is just the shakti of Brahman. The snake is the analogy for Brahman and the rope is the jagat. In kevala Advaita scheme the ontological status of Jagat is MITHYA. Now Mithya ordinarily means falsehood. However, when Jagat is called Mithya it is not meant that Jagat does not exist. The phenomenological existence of jagat is assumed. What is meant is that the ontological status of Jagat is less than that of Brahman.
The most authoritative discussion on these issues is the Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Shankara. You can also go through various Upanishadic Bhasyas of Shankara. Then there are some popular books written by Shankara like, "Atma Jnana", Vivekchudamuni", Upadesha Sahashra" etc.