A brāhmaṇa cannot in any circumstances become like a dog, accepting an ordinary master.(ŚB 11.17.47)
Srila Prabhupada writes "Śva-vṛttyā, or “a dog’s profession,” refers to the śūdras, who cannot live without accepting a master"
In this answer @rickross provided exemption for Sandhya Vandana during ashoucha period.
Sandhyopaasana needs to be performed both during ‘Jaataashoucha’or ‘Mritaashoucha’ or Ashuddhi on account of births or deaths, by maanaso cchaarana or recitation of mantras mentally without resorting to prana...
Srimad Bhagavatam, while describing the consorts of Lord Krishna, such as Srimati Rukmini and others, and the close associates of Lord Krishna such as the gopikas and the women in Mathura, frequently uses the motif of Kucha Kumkuma, i.e. kumkum or saffron powder smeared on the women's breasts.
So...
Shankara accepts that the world is unreal as dreams not as a horn of a hare because he believed that the world existed in the Brahman already. My question is, if the existence was already present in the Brahman, then how Brahman is Nirguna?
@Mr.Sigma. who is mr sigma. I was talking Based Shaiva
@Mr.Sigma. that's right, world is not false like horns of an hair. But the latter is wrong. The World doesn't exist in Brahman. You got to be very careful in wording it. Maya exists in Brahman. World is experienced because of Maya, the World doesn't exist. Maya is not a guna. So even if Maya is therein Brahman, Brahman is still Nirguna
You are using generic words like existence.. Please use specific words
@Mr.Sigma. if you are Based Shaiva, then
You have said this in your question
"Now, positing Guṇas appearing due to Māyā implies Guṇas were inherently present in Brahman, in latent form, which appears due to Avīdyā"
@MrGreenGold I will give. But before you give me reference of your claims that world doesn't exist in Brahman because you have clearly contradicted a clear view of Vedantists that Brahman is material cause of the world when it's according to Brahman sutra and all the authoritative commentaries.
Basic philosophy comes from a reference. Give me a reference that says, 1. Ishwara created the world, not the Brahman. 2. Ishwara isn't exactly Brahman.
According to Advaita Vedanta, there are three levels of reality:
Pāramārthika (परमार्थिक)
Vyāvahārika (व्यवहारिक)
Prāthibhāsika (प्रतिभासिक)
The wikipedia article on Advaita Vedanta says that:
Shankara uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological hierarchy of three levels
...
Besides Śaṃkara Vedānta, Kaśmīri Śaivism, which is another monist/advaita school of Hinduism too talks about Māyā. According to it, the basic definition of Māyā is -
मियते अनय इती माया।
Meaning: That power by which experience is experienced in a particular way is Māyā.
In other words, that pow...
Can you share reference of this claim? Keeping the reference of the claim aside, if I may respond philosophically, then, if Maya herself had veil then how there will be realization of Brahman without Maya? There should be realization of Maya alone.
If Maya had veil of its subset, then it would realize itself once the subset is purged off.
My problem is I come from studying Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda, Nisarga Dutta Maharaj, UG Krishnamurthi. So I dont know the classicals very well
Nowhere it's written that Pure sattwa is realization. ALL the scriptures unanimously declared realization to be beyond Gunas including sattwa. If talking philosophically without scriptures, then sattwa has no ground. then, I wonder how would you even describe sattwa without scriptures.
You are creating your own theories. Please confirm from scriptures if pure sattwa indicates enlightenment. Even an infant is pure sattwik yet unenlightened.
@TheLittleNaruto the confusion is about how realisation happebs. Is it through pure sattva or gunateet
Infant is not sattwik?? What are you talking about. They so much tamsic karma with them, if not they would not be born in the first place. Satthwik in all three bodies and five koshas will lead to enlightenment
An Infant has Karana shareer and Sookshma Shareer from its previous birth, which has all bad and good karma, so its not pure sattva
Why does Manu Smriti say killing Animals one should perform same penance for Sudra?
Manu 11.131 - Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl and a crow,—he shall perform the penance of the ‘Śūdra-killer.
Are Sudras so worse as Animals according to Smritis?
15. Prakriti (i.e. primordial substance) is that in which there is the reflection of Brahman, that is pure consciousness and bliss and is composed of sattva, rajas and tamas (in a state of homogeneity). It is of two kinds. .
16. When the element of sattva is pure, Prakriti is known as Maya; when impure (being mixed up with rajas and tamas) it is called Avidya. Brahman, reflected in Maya, is known as the omniscient Isvara, who controls Maya.
17. But the other (i.e. the Jiva, which is Brahman reflected in Avidya) is subjected to Avidya (impure sattva). The Jiva is of different grades due to (degrees of) admixture (of rajas and tamas with sattva). The Avidya (nescience) is the causal body. When the Jiva identifies himself with this causal body he is called Prajna
@Mr.Sigma. Now we both agree that Ishwara is realised?? Right?? So if a Jeevi becomes Pure Sattva he has to become realised. There's no escape
Again Sattva on all levels, not like an Infant only in the mind, but also in Karmic level.
This question is about translation of gita 3.17. The verse and some translations can be found here.
यस्त्वात्मरतिरेव स्यादात्मतृप्तश्च मानवः।
आत्मन्येव च सन्तुष्टस्तस्य कार्यं न विद्यते।।3.17।।
Most of the translators, translate Atman as Self in English or AtmA in Hindi. For example -
English ...