« first day (2494 days earlier)      last day (65 days later) » 

3:26 AM
0
Q: Does Lord Krishna indirectly Sudras are Dogs or its a misunderstanding of commentators?

Sethu Srivatsa KoduruA 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"

 
 
2 hours later…
5:15 AM
0
Q: Sandhya Vandana during Ashoucha

SHebbarIn 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...

 
 
3 hours later…
7:55 AM
0
Q: What is the significance of smearing of Kumkuma on the chest by women in the scriptures?

SuryaSrimad 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...

 
 
3 hours later…
11:14 AM
@BasedShaiva are your doubts cleared? Or is it still unconvincing??
 
@MrGreenGold They are not pingable here.
Because they never joined the chatroom
@Mr.Sigma. ^^
 
11:36 AM
@TheLittleNaruto oh is that so, thanks for letting me know😊
 
12:09 PM
@MrGreenGold Hi, first you didn't provide any reference. In any case, you probably didn't get my question.
 
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?
 
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"
 
@MrGreenGold The World doesn't exist in Brahman. - It exists in Brahaman. Check commentary of Shankara on Chandogya Upanishad 6.1
 
This is where you have gotten the entire question wrong, is there a source for this logic or is it your own logic
 
What logic? I have given you a reference.
 
@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.
 
@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.
 
1:02 PM
@Mr.Sigma. Brahman is the material cause of this world. Who said no?
 
@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.
!
 
Ahhh
Here's the problem, Brahman is not Nimitta Karana
Ishwara is the Nimitta karana
There's a huge difference.
 
Ishwara is Brahman with its power called Maya.
 
Brahman never creates this universe, he is akartha. He can't do anything
 
there is no difference.
 
1:04 PM
Completely wrong
 
@MrGreenGold Share reference.
Don't share blogs.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Wait you yourself are saying Brahman along with Maya.
 
13
Q: Which scriptures defines the three levels of reality?

PandyaAccording 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 ...

Most of the explanation seems to import a concept of Relative & Absolute existence but I have yet to find a reference for the same.
 
1:08 PM
Just answer this one question, can Jeeva create World. Its Brahlan, so why can't it create world?? Answer this
 
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.
 
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.
 
Okay, in other words, Brahman with its power of creation is Ishwara.
 
@Mr.Sigma. where are you getting immanent from?
 
9
Q: What is Māyā according to Śaṃkara Vedānta? What are its characteristics?

BasedShaivaBesides 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...

References are there.
 
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
 
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.Sigma. oh my god, this question is so wrong on so many levels.
 
Did you start AV with 2 truth theories? — relative vs absolute reality?
 
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.
 
Yeah, What's your point?
 
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"
 
`What is Ishwara then?
 
Ishwara is also Mithya, he doesn't exist
Just like Jeeva
 
@MrGreenGold How wrong? It's KS, not AV.
 
So whats ks and av?
*sorry
Brahman is not omniscient
In fact Brahman is incapable of knowledge. Brahman cant know
 
@MrGreenGold Ishwara is also Mithya, he doesn't exist — Reference for this claim?
 
1:19 PM
Brahma sathya, and all else apart from Brahman in Mithya
 
@MrGreenGold Read the question properly, it's not talking w.r.t Advait Vedanta. It's KS.
 
Why are u questioning the fundamentals of Advaitha?
Ok sorry, why do we bring KS here now??
 
@MrGreenGold No, give proper reference that Ishwara is Mithya, for I have not found so. Ishwara is Brahman with its power only, AFAIK.
 
Ok wait, Is Jeeva mithya or Sathya??
@Mr.Sigma.
 
@MrGreenGold Jeeva is Mithya.
 
1:21 PM
But Jeeva is Brahman with its Avidya
 
@MrGreenGold I was pointing towards references from the answer.
 
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
 
Jeeva is Brahman with its Avidya.

— Nope. Brahman can't have Avidya. But I would ask you then who has Avidya|?
 
@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
 
Yup. Maya is power of Brahman & the power has Gunas.
 
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.
 
Power isn't separate from Brahman.
 
No so Maya is Brahman??
 
In other words, Brahman created through its power called Maya.
 
Infact Brahman doesn't have power of Maya
 
It has.
 
1:26 PM
Ishwara has power of Maya
 
Okay. First
 
Oh sorry my bad
Brahman has the power of Maya, not Ishwara
 
Yeah
 
But then all the Gunas will be in Maya.
 
And Ishwara is nothing but distributive aspect of the same Brahman when seen through its own Maya.
 
1:28 PM
Maya will be there in Brahma
@Mr.Sigma. Correct
 
That's exactly my answer gonna be. Brahman is Nirguna & Maya is the power of Brahman that created the world.
 
Yess,
 
When Upanishad talks about Nirguna Brahman it implicitly means Brahman excepting its power. (immanent)
 
But the problem with maya js
Maya is neither real nor unreal
 
You didn't answer my side question btw.
 
1:29 PM
@Mr.Sigma.
 
@MrGreenGold That's another matter of discussion.
 
Which question, plz state it once again
 
Brahman can't have Avidya. But I would ask you then who has Avidya|?
 
Maya. I answered. Maya has Avidya
 
Nope. Maya and Avidya are synonymous. Or at most Avidya is product of Maya.
Vivekachudamani verse 108 clearly expressed Maya being synonymous to Avidya.
 
1:33 PM
Yess, correct
 
Then, who has avidya?
 
Not necessarily, Avidya is a subset of Maya
Vidya and Avidya both are in Maya
@Mr.Sigma.
Maya has both Vidya and Avidya
 
Whatever it be, question remains intact. Who has the veil & of what by which one considers oneself separate from Brahman?
 
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.
 
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.
 
1:41 PM
No no realization happens within Maya
It doesn't happen outside Maya
Realization is also an illusion
 
Mahakaal, it's another reference, I would require. :)
 
Na mukti na bandaha. From Nirvana Shataka
 
It doesn't happen outside Maya — then what's use of realization? It seems all nihilistic. Even realization is unreal.
 
Even realization would be unreal.
 
1:43 PM
Yes realization is unreal
 
Then, sufferings won't end even after realization, for the Jiva is still in maya.
 
Jeeva becomes pure Sattva where there is no pain
 
Wrong.
 
This is the only way Advaitins can answer Madhwacharya
 
Realization is beyond all the qualities and gunas unanimously by all scriptures.
 
1:44 PM
In his Maya Vada Khandana he asks a question
Is Realization different or Same as Brahman
 
@MrGreenGold Okay, you mean you are answering on behalf of Advaitins, they themselves didn't explain this?
 
Answer this question.. @Mr.Sigma.
Wait wait answer this
Is Realization different or Same as Brahman
 
In any case, pure sattwa doesn't imply realization. Wait... What do you mean by realization from Advait POV?
 
If its Same Brahma must already be realized
 
@MrGreenGold Realization is of Brahman and by Brahman.
 
1:46 PM
Is it same or different from Brahman
 
@MrGreenGold That's what I have been asking you.
Who has the veil?
 
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
 
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.
 
My problem is I come from studying Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda, Nisarga Dutta Maharaj, UG Krishnamurthi. So I dont know the classicals very well
 
These listings didn't knew as well.
 
1:48 PM
Afaik, pure sattva is realization
They are realised
 
UG Krishnamurthy was even nihillist.
 
Ug is the best that comes close to real Advaita
 
@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.
 
See its easy we Advaitins can easily talk this. But try reading Maya Vada Khandana and Upadhi Khandana.
 
Okay, in case you don't have answer, we can cease our discussion for now.
 
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
 
I am not Advaitin.
 
@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??
 
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.
 
You have said first accept realization of being sattva. No no realozation of being gunateet through Sattva
Kashmiri Shaiva is Prathyabhigna right
 
I am into Pratyabhijna.
 
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
 
@MrGreenGold Then, being Saatwik isn't realization.
 
Realised is Gunateet, but realisation is through being Sathwik
 
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. :)
 
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
 
Wrong. Gunateet literally means beyong all the gunas including sattwa.
Nobody gets enlightened with pure sattwa
that's against all the scriptures.
16 mins ago, by Mr. Sigma.
Then, sufferings won't end even after realization, for the Jiva is still in maya.
 
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.
 
Pure sattwa isn't bliss. You have got understanding without any backup from scriptures. BLISS != SATTWA.
 
What is Sattva then?? If not bliss??
I'm speaking from Panchadashi
 
You can check BG.
 
See Ishwara is Maya(Sattva)
 
ttyl
 
2:02 PM
Jeeva is Maya (Sattva +Rajas+ Tamas)
Sure
 
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
 
What is confusion here? @MrGreenGold
 
@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
 
2:20 PM
@Mr.Sigma. also can u suggest classical works of Advaita??
I'll try to read it
 
0
Q: How can killing a Human being and killing an Animal be on same level?

Sethu Srivatsa KoduruWhy 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?

 
 
5 hours later…
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.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:18 PM
0
Q: Question on Gita 3.17 translation

also ranThis 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 ...

 

« first day (2494 days earlier)      last day (65 days later) »