Ask me anything about Hinduism :)

[George-ananda]

Its incorrect to say that universe was created. The universe "rose up" or "emanated" from Brahman like flower does on the branch of a tree and will sublimate itself back into Brahman at the end of this "season". Next "spring" another universe flower will emerge and so on and on and on.

Purpose is creative and aesthetic drive.

Do you see Brahman as pure consciousness sat-cit-ananda (bring, awareness and bliss)?

 

[sayak83]

Do you see Brahman as pure consciousness sat-cit-ananda (bring, awareness and bliss)?

I think Brahman experience is well characterized by sat-cit-ananda, but I don't know if that is well translated by the term pure consciousness.

 

[Jumi]

Its incorrect to say that universe was created. The universe "rose up" or "emanated" from Brahman like flower does on the branch of a tree and will sublimate itself back into Brahman at the end of this "season". Next "spring" another universe flower will emerge and so on and on and on.

Purpose is creative and aesthetic drive.

So it's a little of both in a sense, and neither.

I think I understand. It's like a canvas set up for a painting, that sort of paints itself when the artists arrive. I think the ancient Europeans believed similarly, thinking of Plato's ideas.

 

[Valjean]

Does Krishna become darker blue if He spends a lot of time in the sun?

 

[sayak83]

Does Krishna become darker blue if He spends a lot of time in the sun?

Krishna means dark, not blue. Blue color is a symbolic representation. Most of the idols have lots of symbolism associated with them. A vaishnava will be able to tell you better.

 

[Jainarayan]

Does Krishna become darker blue if He spends a lot of time in the sun?

And he turns purple when he's sunburned (I am going to be reborn as an artichoke).

 

[George-ananda]

I think Brahman experience is well characterized by sat-cit-ananda, but I don't know if that is well translated by the term pure consciousness.

Well, I think the tricky thing is that our minds can't get behind the issue 'what is consciousness'. It might be like the eyeball trying to see itself directly. Also my best understanding is that all the matter/energy in all the planes of nature are not Brahman directly but His play/drama (maya). So then what is Brahman? 'Pure Consciousness' is the best term I have heard.

 

[sayak83]

Well, I think the tricky thing is that our minds can't get behind the issue 'what is consciousness'. It might be like the eyeball trying to see itself directly. Also my best understanding is that all the matter/energy in all the planes of nature are not Brahman directly but His play/drama (maya). So then what is Brahman? 'Pure Consciousness' is the best term I have heard.

We have to discuss scripture now. Could you point to texts that have shaped your understanding of Brahman?

 

[George-ananda]

We have to discuss scripture now. Could you point to texts that have shaped your understanding of Brahman?

This is from the Wikipedia article on Advaita Vedanta. It includes numbered footnotes to sources


Brahman[edit]

Main articles: Brahman and Satcitananda
According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality,[81][82][83] That which is unborn and unchanging,[82][84] and "not sublatable",[81] and cannot be superseded by a still higher reality.[85][note 4][note 5] Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore maya. Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth",[100] and

the true Self, pure consciousness ... the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable".[81]

In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes.[101][84] Brahman is considered to be the material cause[note 6] and the efficient cause[note 7] of all that exists.[83][102][103] Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe."[91] It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[104]

Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities[note 8] to be Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[105][106] It means "true being-consciousness-bliss," [107][108] or "Eternal Bliss Consciousness".[109] Adi Shankara held that satcitananda is identical with Brahman and Atman.[107] The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana Sarasvati explained Brahman as the Reality that is simultaneously an absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of sorrow/self-limitation (ananda).[107] According to Adi Shankara, the knowledge of Brahman that Shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other means besides self inquiry.[110]

 

[sayak83]

This is from the Wikipedia article on Advaita Vedanta. It includes numbered footnotes to sources


Brahman[edit]

Main articles: Brahman and Satcitananda
According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality,[81][82][83] That which is unborn and unchanging,[82][84] and "not sublatable",[81] and cannot be superseded by a still higher reality.[85][note 4][note 5] Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore maya. Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth",[100] and

the true Self, pure consciousness ... the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable".[81]

In Advaita, Brahman is the substrate and cause of all changes.[101][84] Brahman is considered to be the material cause[note 6] and the efficient cause[note 7] of all that exists.[83][102][103] Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe."[91] It is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[104]

Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities[note 8] to be Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[105][106] It means "true being-consciousness-bliss," [107][108] or "Eternal Bliss Consciousness".[109] Adi Shankara held that satcitananda is identical with Brahman and Atman.[107] The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana Sarasvati explained Brahman as the Reality that is simultaneously an absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of sorrow/self-limitation (ananda).[107] According to Adi Shankara, the knowledge of Brahman that Shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other means besides self inquiry.[110]

While the word pure consciousness is mentioned, it's not the main focus of the wiki subsection about Brahman. It's fine, but there is no reason to believe that it is the best or normative way Brahman ought to be described by all.

 

[George-ananda]

While the word pure consciousness is mentioned, it's not the main focus of the wiki subsection about Brahman. It's fine, but there is no reason to believe that it is the best or normative way Brahman ought to be described by all.

There is not a lot of need to quibble about that which is beyond our ability to grasp. I don't think these quibbles affect what is most important; that we are a spark of eternal Consciousness experiencing through our temporary souls, physical body and astral/mental bodies (after physical death) and incarnations gradually expanding to the Oneness.

Although I am not sure we share the same view on that last part either.

 

[sayak83]

There is not a lot of need to quibble about that which is beyond our ability to grasp. I don't think these quibbles affect what is most important; that we are a spark of eternal Consciousness experiencing through our temporary souls, physical body and astral/mental bodies (after physical death) and incarnations gradually expanding to the Oneness.

Although I am not sure we share the same view on that last part either.

We agree, more or less.

 

[George-ananda]

We agree, more or less.

OK, more or less.

 

[proudpagan]

New Do you believe that the Universe was created for a purpose or if it was coincidental?

Universe was never created . God Soul and Universe existed together .

Hindu practice includes the raising up of the kundalini, and if so do you generally aspire to gaining the full shakti and shiva energy forms as manifestations above the 1000 petal lotus? The only pictures of this beautiful manifestation that I can find are pictures from christian and pagans.

If you want to start working on with kundalini I can drop you from beginner to advanced meditation and yoga programs uwu

 

[Jesster]

I'm always far more interested in the why than the what. Could you sum up your personal reasons for your religious beliefs?

 

[Jainarayan]

Universe was never created . God Soul and Universe existed together .

Depends on what you mean by 'created'. We typically believe in a cycle of universes being created and destroyed. It's not unlike the Big Bounce theory.

 

[sayak83]

I'm always far more interested in the why than the what. Could you sum up your personal reasons for your religious beliefs?

See the Information section on my profile.

 

[proudpagan]

you mean by 'created'. We typically believe in a cycle of universes being created and destroyed. It's not unlike the Big Bounce theory.

In the beginning, there was neither nought nor aught. Then there was neither sky nor atmosphere above. What then enshrouded all this universe? In the receptacle of what was it contained? Then was there neither death nor immortality, then was neither day, nor night, nor light, nor darkness. Only the existent one breathed calmly, self-contained. (Rig : 10.121.1)

 

[Jainarayan]

In the beginning, there was neither nought nor aught. Then there was neither sky nor atmosphere above. What then enshrouded all this universe? In the receptacle of what was it contained? Then was there neither death nor immortality, then was neither day, nor night, nor light, nor darkness. Only the existent one breathed calmly, self-contained. (Rig : 10.121.1)

Neither that nor the Nāsadīya Sūkta (10.129, na[ā]asat, or "not the non-existent") support or deny an already existing universe, or describe the creation of the universe.

"Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?"
RV 10:129-6

 

[Astravalon]

Here’s a question – quick backstory first, though:

Krishna got my attention back in 2011 and I ended up creating a blog
centered on that.

Over the years, based on that blog’s traffic-stats, it seems that the
most popular topic there is a post I shared regarding Saint Mirabai.

So, my question is this: Why is it that with all the apparent fascination
with Mirabai, there seems to be so much objection to a modern-day
individual gifted with a bhava similar to hers (madhurya bhava)? I've
been burned in the past from sharing about my own similar bhava towards
God, as though no one else on earth could possibly have a similar gift,
so this leaves me scratching my head.