Hinduism

3:26 AM

0

Q: Does Lord Krishna indirectly Sudras are Dogs or its a misunderstanding of commentators?

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"

Hinduism bot

5:15 AM

0

Q: Sandhya Vandana during Ashoucha

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...

sandhyavandanam

Hinduism bot

7:55 AM

0

Q: What is the significance of smearing of Kumkuma on the chest by women in the scriptures?

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...

mahabharata bhagavata-purana women tradition customs

Mr Green Gold

11:14 AM

@BasedShaiva are your doubts cleared? Or is it still unconvincing??

TheLittleNaruto

@MrGreenGold They are not pingable here.

Because they never joined the chatroom

@Mr.Sigma. ^^

Mr Green Gold

11:36 AM

@TheLittleNaruto oh is that so, thanks for letting me know😊

Mr. Sigma.

12:09 PM

@MrGreenGold Hi, first you didn't provide any reference. In any case, you probably didn't get my question.

Mr. Sigma.

12:24 PM

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 Green Gold

12:49 PM

@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"

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold The World doesn't exist in Brahman. - It exists in Brahaman. Check commentary of Shankara on Chandogya Upanishad 6.1

Mr Green Gold

This is where you have gotten the entire question wrong, is there a source for this logic or is it your own logic

Mr. Sigma.

What logic? I have given you a reference.

Mr Green Gold

@Mr.Sigma. I dont have it, if you have it please do paste it here.

@Mr.Sigma. The world is imagined bcuz of Maya, Maya is there in Brahman, there is a difference between this and World being in Brahman.

Mr. Sigma.

@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.

Mr Green Gold

1:02 PM

@Mr.Sigma. Brahman is the material cause of this world. Who said no?

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold & So efficient cause also. Brahman alone created the world out of itself.

Now, how Brahman created the world out of itself if it's Nirguna.

!

Mr Green Gold

Ahhh

Here's the problem, Brahman is not Nimitta Karana

Ishwara is the Nimitta karana

There's a huge difference.

Mr. Sigma.

Ishwara is Brahman with its power called Maya.

Mr Green Gold

Brahman never creates this universe, he is akartha. He can't do anything

Mr. Sigma.

there is no difference.

Mr Green Gold

1:04 PM

Completely wrong

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold Share reference.

Don't share blogs.

Mr Green Gold

Reference for what, you yourself are admitting its Brahman + Maya

Jeeva is also Brahman, Jeeva = Brahman + Avidya

So its not fitting to say Brahman created universe. Ishwara created it. This is basic philosophy what ref can I give you

If we say Brahman created Universe, then even Jeeva can create universe. That's the problem.

Mr. Sigma.

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.

I will accept the answer.

Mr Green Gold

Wait you yourself are saying Brahman along with Maya.

Mr. Sigma.

13

Q: Which scriptures defines the three levels of reality?

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 ...

advaita adi-shankaracharya

Most of the explanation seems to import a concept of Relative & Absolute existence but I have yet to find a reference for the same.

Mr Green Gold

1:08 PM

Just answer this one question, can Jeeva create World. Its Brahlan, so why can't it create world?? Answer this

Mr. Sigma.

So, Brahman created the world & Ishwara is nothing but Brahman with its immanent aspects.

@MrGreenGold Because Jiva is Brahman in its transcendental aspects whereas Ishwara is immanent aspect of Brahman.

Mr Green Gold

No, Ishwara is not Brahman with its immanent aspects. Where gwtting immanent from?

Jeeva and Ishwara are both only Brahman in Transendental states. Ishwara is not immanent in Brahman.

Mr. Sigma.

Okay, in other words, Brahman with its power of creation is Ishwara.

Mr Green Gold

@Mr.Sigma. where are you getting immanent from?

Mr. Sigma.

9

Q: What is Māyā according to Śaṃkara Vedānta? What are its characteristics?

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...

vedanta maya kashmiri-shaivism

References are there.

Mr Green Gold

1:11 PM

Brahman with its ignorance is Jeeva, so Jeeva is imminent in Brahman?? So Brahman has ignorance?? No no. Nothing is immanent in anything

@Mr.Sigma.

@Mr.Sigma. I dont know where you are getting that Ishwara is immanent in Brahman?? If Ishwara is immanent then Jeeva is also immanent

Mr. Sigma.

Where did I claim Ishwara is immanent in Brahman?

I am saying, Ishwara is immanent aspect of Brahman.

Nirguna Brahman is transcendent aspect of Brahman.
Ishwara is immanent.

Mr Green Gold

@Mr.Sigma. oh my god, this question is so wrong on so many levels.

Mr. Sigma.

Did you start AV with 2 truth theories? — relative vs absolute reality?

Mr Green Gold

Kalā - Brahman starts feeling it² doesn't owe everything.
Vidyā - Brahman starts feeling it doesn't know everything. It forgets its omniscience.
Rāga - Brahman forgets it's all satisfactory nature & thus develops desires. In other words, Brahman forgets its completeness.
Kāla - Brahman forgets its timelessness or eternity & see eternity as past, present & future.
Niyatī - Brahman forgets the freedom of pervasiveness (vyApaktA)????? @Mr.Sigma.

Mr. Sigma.

Yeah, What's your point?

Mr Green Gold

1:15 PM

Ishwara is not immanent aspect of Brahman @Mr.Sigma.

That is why you are concluding Brahman will have gunas

@Mr.Sigma. look at this absolutely wrong claim "Brahman starts feeling it doesn't know everything. It forgets its omniscience"

Mr. Sigma.

`What is Ishwara then?

Mr Green Gold

Ishwara is also Mithya, he doesn't exist

Just like Jeeva

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold How wrong? It's KS, not AV.

Mr Green Gold

So whats ks and av?

*sorry

Brahman is not omniscient

In fact Brahman is incapable of knowledge. Brahman cant know

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold Ishwara is also Mithya, he doesn't exist — Reference for this claim?

Mr Green Gold

1:19 PM

Brahma sathya, and all else apart from Brahman in Mithya

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold Read the question properly, it's not talking w.r.t Advait Vedanta. It's KS.

Mr Green Gold

Why are u questioning the fundamentals of Advaitha?

Ok sorry, why do we bring KS here now??

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold No, give proper reference that Ishwara is Mithya, for I have not found so. Ishwara is Brahman with its power only, AFAIK.

Mr Green Gold

Ok wait, Is Jeeva mithya or Sathya??

@Mr.Sigma.

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold Jeeva is Mithya.

Mr Green Gold

1:21 PM

But Jeeva is Brahman with its Avidya

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold I was pointing towards references from the answer.

Mr Green Gold

Wait answer the question

If jeeva is Brahman with avidya how is Jeeva mithya??

@Mr.Sigma.

If Jeeva is mithya then Ishwara which is Brahma with maya is also mithya

Mr. Sigma.

Jeeva is Brahman with its Avidya.

— Nope. Brahman can't have Avidya. But I would ask you then who has Avidya|?

Mr Green Gold

@Mr.Sigma. infact Brahma with anything is mithya

Maya has Avidya

Maya has Gunas

Only Brahman, Pure Brahman is sathya

Any extra fitting is mithya

Mr. Sigma.

Yup. Maya is power of Brahman & the power has Gunas.

Mr Green Gold

1:24 PM

Maya is neither Sathya nor Mithya

Sadasad vilakshana

So all Gunas is immanent in Maya, not in Brahman

Yes but the power itself is neither real nor unreal @Mr.Sigma.

Mr. Sigma.

Power isn't separate from Brahman.

Mr Green Gold

No so Maya is Brahman??

Mr. Sigma.

In other words, Brahman created through its power called Maya.

Mr Green Gold

Infact Brahman doesn't have power of Maya

Mr. Sigma.

It has.

Mr Green Gold

1:26 PM

Ishwara has power of Maya

Mr. Sigma.

Okay. First

Mr Green Gold

Oh sorry my bad

Brahman has the power of Maya, not Ishwara

Mr. Sigma.

Yeah

Mr Green Gold

But then all the Gunas will be in Maya.

Mr. Sigma.

And Ishwara is nothing but distributive aspect of the same Brahman when seen through its own Maya.

Mr Green Gold

1:28 PM

Maya will be there in Brahma

@Mr.Sigma. Correct

Mr. Sigma.

That's exactly my answer gonna be. Brahman is Nirguna & Maya is the power of Brahman that created the world.

Mr Green Gold

Yess,

Mr. Sigma.

When Upanishad talks about Nirguna Brahman it implicitly means Brahman excepting its power. (immanent)

Mr Green Gold

But the problem with maya js

Maya is neither real nor unreal

Mr. Sigma.

You didn't answer my side question btw.

Mr Green Gold

1:29 PM

@Mr.Sigma.

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold That's another matter of discussion.

Mr Green Gold

Which question, plz state it once again

Mr. Sigma.

Brahman can't have Avidya. But I would ask you then who has Avidya|?

Mr Green Gold

Maya. I answered. Maya has Avidya

Mr. Sigma.

Nope. Maya and Avidya are synonymous. Or at most Avidya is product of Maya.

Vivekachudamani verse 108 clearly expressed Maya being synonymous to Avidya.

Mr Green Gold

1:33 PM

Yess, correct

Mr. Sigma.

Then, who has avidya?

Mr Green Gold

Not necessarily, Avidya is a subset of Maya

Vidya and Avidya both are in Maya

@Mr.Sigma.

Maya has both Vidya and Avidya

Mr. Sigma.

Whatever it be, question remains intact. Who has the veil & of what by which one considers oneself separate from Brahman?

Mr Green Gold

Maya herself has the veil

You are saying by which one considers. Who is this one, its a small part of Maya

There is no 'one' who considers. Its all Maya.

@Mr.Sigma.

Mr. Sigma.

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.

Mr Green Gold

1:41 PM

No no realization happens within Maya

It doesn't happen outside Maya

Realization is also an illusion

Mr. Sigma.

Mahakaal, it's another reference, I would require. :)

Mr Green Gold

Na mukti na bandaha. From Nirvana Shataka

Mr. Sigma.

It doesn't happen outside Maya — then what's use of realization? It seems all nihilistic. Even realization is unreal.

Mr Green Gold

Yes.

Mr. Sigma.

Even realization would be unreal.

Mr Green Gold

1:43 PM

Yes realization is unreal

Mr. Sigma.

Then, sufferings won't end even after realization, for the Jiva is still in maya.

Mr Green Gold

Jeeva becomes pure Sattva where there is no pain

Mr. Sigma.

Wrong.

Mr Green Gold

This is the only way Advaitins can answer Madhwacharya

Mr. Sigma.

Realization is beyond all the qualities and gunas unanimously by all scriptures.

Mr Green Gold

1:44 PM

In his Maya Vada Khandana he asks a question

Is Realization different or Same as Brahman

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold Okay, you mean you are answering on behalf of Advaitins, they themselves didn't explain this?

Mr Green Gold

Answer this question.. @Mr.Sigma.

Wait wait answer this

Is Realization different or Same as Brahman

Mr. Sigma.

In any case, pure sattwa doesn't imply realization. Wait... What do you mean by realization from Advait POV?

Mr Green Gold

If its Same Brahma must already be realized

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold Realization is of Brahman and by Brahman.

Mr Green Gold

1:46 PM

Is it same or different from Brahman

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold That's what I have been asking you.

Who has the veil?

Mr Green Gold

It has to be different from Brahman because if its not, then Brahman will already be realised

If it is different from Brahman it has to be false, because there's only one real thing

Mr. Sigma.

Let's not being cyclic. First accept that realization isn't realization of being Sattwa. You misunderstood Advaitic realization.

Jeeva becomes pure Sattva where there is no pain — It's not definition of realization from Advait POV.

Mr Green Gold

My problem is I come from studying Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda, Nisarga Dutta Maharaj, UG Krishnamurthi. So I dont know the classicals very well

Mr. Sigma.

These listings didn't knew as well.

Mr Green Gold

1:48 PM

Afaik, pure sattva is realization

They are realised

Mr. Sigma.

UG Krishnamurthy was even nihillist.

Mr Green Gold

Ug is the best that comes close to real Advaita

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold It's wrong. Realization is Gunaatit

@MrGreenGold You yourself have just admitted that you ain't acquainted with classics, so no point in claiming UGK is closer to Advaita.

Mr Green Gold

See its easy we Advaitins can easily talk this. But try reading Maya Vada Khandana and Upadhi Khandana.

Mr. Sigma.

Okay, in case you don't have answer, we can cease our discussion for now.

Mr Green Gold

1:50 PM

But that's my personal opinion of UG

See realisation makes you relaise you are gunatit. But it is possible only because of Sattva

Mr. Sigma.

I am not Advaitin.

Mr Green Gold

@Mr.Sigma.

What r u?

If I may ask

See realisation makes you relaise you are gunatit. But it is possible only because of Sattva

U r based Shaiva?

Ks??

Mr. Sigma.

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.

@MrGreenGold Yes. I am Kashmiri Shaiva.

Mr Green Gold

You have said first accept realization of being sattva. No no realozation of being gunateet through Sattva

Kashmiri Shaiva is Prathyabhigna right

Mr. Sigma.

I am into Pratyabhijna.

Mr Green Gold

1:53 PM

No no this I'm speaking scripturally, in Panchadashi of Vidyaranya

But I have to search it, I'm telling from Memory

Mr. Sigma.

@MrGreenGold Then, being Saatwik isn't realization.

Mr Green Gold

Realised is Gunateet, but realisation is through being Sathwik

Mr. Sigma.

You are the first one who postulated self realization to be of pure sattwa.

7 mins ago, by Mr Green Gold

Afaik, pure sattva is realization

Your claim was different earlier. :)

Mr Green Gold

Wait wait

When a jeevi is tamsik he never realises

When a jeevi is pure sathvik, he realises he is gunateet

Now do u what Im saying

@Mr.Sigma.

Sattva is like pure glass which lets you see outside

Rajas coloures

Tamas covers

Mr. Sigma.

Wrong. Gunateet literally means beyong all the gunas including sattwa.

Nobody gets enlightened with pure sattwa

that's against all the scriptures.

Okay, Answer this again. chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/57680523#57680523

16 mins ago, by Mr. Sigma.

Then, sufferings won't end even after realization, for the Jiva is still in maya.

Mr Green Gold

2:00 PM

No sufferings end, because pure sattva is bliss.

Rajas and tamas is pain

If a jeeva is in pure sattva, he experiences only bliss

@Mr.Sigma.

Mr. Sigma.

Pure sattwa isn't bliss. You have got understanding without any backup from scriptures. BLISS != SATTWA.

Mr Green Gold

What is Sattva then?? If not bliss??

I'm speaking from Panchadashi

Mr. Sigma.

You can check BG.

Mr Green Gold

See Ishwara is Maya(Sattva)

Mr. Sigma.

ttyl

Mr Green Gold

2:02 PM

Jeeva is Maya (Sattva +Rajas+ Tamas)

Sure

Mr. Sigma.

You are creating your own theories. Please confirm from scriptures if pure sattwa indicates enlightenment. Even an infant is pure sattwik yet unenlightened.

Cya. Bye

TheLittleNaruto

What is confusion here? @MrGreenGold

Mr Green Gold

@Mr.Sigma. just tell me this when you are free

You consider Panchadashi to be authentic right

Cuz I will search in it and quote

I remember reading it

@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

Mr Green Gold

2:20 PM

@Mr.Sigma. also can u suggest classical works of Advaita??

I'll try to read it

Hinduism bot

0

Q: How can killing a Human being and killing an Animal be on same level?

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?

smriti

Mr Green Gold

7:02 PM

@Mr.Sigma. here's the citation and proof

Panchadashi Chapter 1

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.

Hinduism bot

9:18 PM

0

Q: Question on Gita 3.17 translation

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 ...

atma gita

Transcript for