-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Brahman, God, and I
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
In what sense are you Brahman?
Not sure how this is relevent but okay.
It depends on who you are.
Some have no need. Others do. A place of worship is a tool, or as @Rival noted, a community. Some don't need this. Others do. We're all at different places in our spirituality.
What I mean is in what sense, theologically or philosophically speaking, are you Brahman? Two major theologians, Rāmānujā and Ādi Śaṅkara, interpret those Sanskrit statements differently.
turn inward and communion with self is the only way. change must come from within self for self to realize oneness.
being baptized into the four great utterances, or the name.
be still and know
matthew 23:13
nirguna brahman = pure consciousness = unconditional love
because my signature shows all the ancients used the idea. even the alchemist's realization of turning iron into gold is about self.
the smaragdine stone is the heart, the philosopher's stone
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The self at best is a small god. Seeking out an external temple, church, synagogue acknowledges this.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I don't see one better than the other. If I want to hug a loved one that doesn't devalue my love. If I want to meditate with beads that doesn't devalue it's intent. Food to many are considered sacraments so as things like scriptures and such.
Why separate external from internal? Let the sacrament within reflect the things and scenes of our environment and people without.
that personality is the form. i'm speaking of the self that created it, formed it, but itself has infinite forms and yet has no static form.
the verb from exodus 3:14. love has infinite forms and can be understood as a force that isn't exclusive to a form. self understands it as an action and not a form, or fixed form of matter
you first have to recognize it in self to recognize it in other as self.
you have the power to love other as self; even if other as self doesn't appear to love you. they can never take that from you.
so the journey inward must be taken for the journey outward to be realized as oneness, before the mirror reflects
you can not reach self actualization and love until all your needs of love are met in self.
Not all are ready for that. It might be the goal(for many), but one must walk before one runs, typically.
why doesn't running or walking have to do with sitting still and contemplating the name? the four utterances? why continue to uphold the dualistic idea that you are running to or from the all?
if it's all, the Absolute, how can self be separate from the universe?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
hmmmm
I don't disagree. But, I'm still confused about the first premise in the OP.
Why is god described as 'self'?
because it takes no fixed image. deuteronomy 4:15
i'm being specifically vague. kind of like the idea of ninguna brahman, or paramatman. all forms arise and collapse from its being. being is a verb first and a thing second, deverbal noun
In this oft repeated discussion, I'm often reminded of the late Indian saint, Ramana Maharshi. He was a strong advaitin who lived on the southern slope of Tiruvannamalai. In his later years he lived in the ashram devotees built for him. People forget that in his early years, he spent time meditating within the confines of the Siva sanctum sanctorum at the center of the ancient Arunaleswara temple at the foot of Tiruvannamalai.
Ramana had realized it there, in that sanctum, and it was no longer some intellectual concept. Only then did he move to be on his own. So he started in the temple, and ended at the hut.
In other words, we have to have a good look at where we are. If we're where Ramana is, we wouldn't be chatting about it. The only speaking Ramana did was to answer questions put to him by sincere devotees.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Right. But according to this it makes more sense to call it 'cloud' or 'voice', not 'self'.
'Being' makes sense, at least to me. Going from 'being' >>>> 'self' diminishes it. But besides that, I don't see what is gained by using the word 'self' to describe an infinite formless god. What's the connection between them, I'm still missing it?