Time Dedicated to Worship/Prayer, Meditation, and/or Silent Contemplation

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Given your statement that you're a born Hindu, what influenced you to steer your experience in an Abahamic direction?

I am still Hindu. I like abrahamics
because they correctly say that God has a purpose which I understand as evolution. The original Upanishad say the same. But unfortunately the existing Hinduism says world is meaningless. That is not correct.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But unfortunately the existing Hinduism says world is meaningless.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

No, it doesn't.

ब्रह्म सत्यम जगत मिथ्या।

 

[SalixIncendium]

ब्रह्म सत्यम जगत मिथ्या।

Sanskrit translation for the reader:
Brahma satyam, jagat mithya
Brahman is true, the world is false.


Where are you getting "meaningless?"

When you are asleep and dreaming, from your dream character's perspective, is the dream world meaningless?

For one who is engaged in the world, the world is far from meaningless.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Sanskrit translation for the reader:
Brahma satyam, jagat mithya
Brahman is true, the world is false.


Where are you getting "meaningless?"

When you are asleep and dreaming, from your dream character's perspective, is the dream world meaningless?

For one who is engaged in the world, the world is far from meaningless.

Just as the dream world is false, for sankara, the waking world is false.
This is negation of brahman.s desires hence decline of hinduism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Just as the dream world is false, for sankara, the waking world is false.
This is negation of brahman.s desires hence decline of hinduism.

Brahman is nirguna...without desire. Desire leads to suffering...and bondage in samsara.

The "decline of Hinduism" is a product of ego...of avidya...of attachment to the world...and results bondage in samsara.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Brahman is without desire.

Please show where this is said in the vedas or Upanishads.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Please show where this is said in the vedas or Upanishads.

I speak from personal experience.

I'm not inclined to spoon-feed. Please read the Kena Upanishad.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I speak from personal experience.

I'm not inclined to spoon-feed. Please read the Kena Upanishad.

Don't run away. Give verse number.
Personal experience is GOOD. But it is yours against mine.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Don't run away. Give verse number.

Don't be lazy. Read the scripture.

 

[Vinayaka]

In verse 4, Kena Upanishad asserts that Brahman cannot be worshipped, because it has no attributes and is unthinkable, indescribable, eternal, all present reality. That what man worships is neither Atman-Brahman nor the path to Atman-Brahman. Rather, Brahman is that which cannot be perceived as empirical reality.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Don't be lazy. Read the scripture.

You are being lazy. You speak untruth and expect me to prove u are wrong. Come on. Let us be fruends. Let us get tobtruth. Please give me verse no.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In verse 4, Kena Upanishad asserts that Brahman cannot be worshipped, because it has no attributes and is unthinkable, indescribable, eternal, all present reality. That what man worships is neither Atman-Brahman nor the path to Atman-Brahman. Rather, Brahman is that which cannot be perceived as empirical reality.

Thank you for sharing this. I was hoping @Bharat Jhunjhunwala would discover this on his own. Unfortunately, I doubt what either one of us presents would be helpful at this point, though.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You are being lazy. You speak untruth and expect me to prove u are wrong. Come on. Let us be fruends. Let us get tobtruth. Please give me verse no.

I was hoping if I provided the scripture, you would read it and realize your error. @Vinayaka was kind enough to share the exact verse. Hopefully his work won't fall upon deaf ears.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Don't be lazy. Read the scripture.

You are being lazy. You speak untruth and expect me to prove u are wrong. Come on. Let us be fruends. Let us get tobtruth. Please give me verse no.

In verse 4, Kena Upanishad asserts that Brahman cannot be worshipped, because it has no attributes and is unthinkable, indescribable, eternal, all present reality. That what man worships is neither Atman-Brahman nor the path to Atman-Brahman. Rather, Brahman is that which cannot be perceived as empirical reality.

That does not mean it has no desires. For example, why would one become many without desires? Chhandogya says Brahman has pure desires.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thank you for sharing this. I was hoping @Bharat Jhunjhunwala would discover this on his own. Unfortunately, I doubt what either one of us presents would be helpful at this point, though.

I have low expectations as well. The very idea of Brahman having desires is outside my thinking, but when you equate Brahman with the God of Abraham, as many anti-Hindu Christian translators did, it seems sadly possible. But it also shows how ridiculously out of touch they were.

 

[Vinayaka]

I was hoping if I provided the scripture, you would read it and realize your error. @Vinayaka was kind enough to share the exact verse. Hopefully his work won't fall upon deaf ears.

Oh it will, and it did.

 

[Spice]

 

[River Sea]

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala @Vinayaka @SalixIncendium

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala is not lazy.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala shared his personal experience, while you @SalixIncendium claim him to be lazy. Why do you claim @Bharat Jhunjhunwala is lazy?

So basically, @Bharat Jhunjhunwala has a different perspective, and yet you, @SalixIncendium call @Bharat Jhunjhunwala lazy.

 

[River Sea]

In verse 4, Kena Upanishad asserts that Brahman cannot be worshipped, because it has no attributes and is unthinkable, indescribable, eternal, all present reality. That what man worships is neither Atman-Brahman nor the path to Atman-Brahman. Rather, Brahman is that which cannot be perceived as empirical reality.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala You're not lazy. You have different perspective when reading verses. How is that lazy?

Here's verse 4, kena Upanishad

In verse 4, Kena Upanishad asserts that Brahman cannot be worshipped, because it has no attributes and is unthinkable, indescribable, eternal, all present reality. That what man worships is neither Atman-Brahman nor the path to Atman-Brahman. Rather, Brahman is that which cannot be perceived as empirical reality.

Here's what @dybmh explains about white light

Right, not God, but a vessel.

Judaism asserts that all of existence is a direct consequence of the partnership of ever-flowing-vitality and vessels.

The shechina is nothing more than a vessel. From the shechina is flowing vitality in the form of divine-will. All of existence is a direct consequence of ever-flowing-vitality through the shechina. Existence = ever-flowing-vitality + shechina. From the finite perspective, both the ever-flowing-vitality and the shechina are perceived as a unity, but, in truth, they are not. The divine-will which is forming the shechina is the same divine-will which is producing the flow of vitality. This simultaneous, synchronous, and mutually sympathetic partnership of the vessel+flow is the reason that the shechina is misunderstood as the One and Only God, a god, or perhaps an angel with a will of its own. It does not have its own will. It is being formed by the One and Only God for the purpose of directing the ever-flowing-vitality ( what you often describe as "light" ) into a material existence.

Because the shechina is the most "proximal" vessel to the material realm, it is the easiest form to use when contemplating divine entities. "Proximal" is in quotes because time and space do not exist beyond the material realm. From the infinite perspective, all is omnipresent and concurrent.

I was able to have a discussion with @dybmh in more detail about white light

That is a discussion so far.

Learning from each other about white light.

So now there's this verse:
Here's verse 4, kena Upanishad which = calling @Bharat Jhunjhunwala lazy, how come?

In verse 4, Kena Upanishad asserts that Brahman cannot be worshipped, because it has no attributes and is unthinkable, indescribable, eternal, all present reality. That what man worships is neither Atman-Brahman nor the path to Atman-Brahman. Rather, Brahman is that which cannot be perceived as empirical reality.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala is called lazy by @SalixIncendium how come? Why from different perspectives is equal to lazy? What is lazy?

Given your statement that you're a born Hindu, what influenced you to steer your experience in an Abahamic direction?

Just as the dream world is false, for sankara, the waking world is false.
This is negation of brahman.s desires hence decline of hinduism.

Brahman is nirguna...without desire. Desire leads to suffering...and bondage in samsara.

The "decline of Hinduism" is a product of ego...of avidya...of attachment to the world...and results bondage in samsara.

Please show where this is said in the vedas or Upanishads.

Don't be lazy. Read the scripture.