-
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!
Eka Jiva Vada
- Thread starter DanielR
- Start date
Maya3
Well-Known Member
If I understand it right, it is similar to Tat tvam Asi, I Am That?
There is only one of US divided into many, many tiny parts forgetting that we are actually connected. So this question: "The question then is : Am I born into an already existing world or have I created the world along with myself, my I-consciousness."
I think we have been part of it all along. Not come into an already created world. The question is how did it come to exist in the first place?
I wish I knew.
Maya
There is only one of US divided into many, many tiny parts forgetting that we are actually connected. So this question: "The question then is : Am I born into an already existing world or have I created the world along with myself, my I-consciousness."
I think we have been part of it all along. Not come into an already created world. The question is how did it come to exist in the first place?
I wish I knew.
Maya
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Vannakkam,
I would like to make a small recommendation, Daniel-ji.
Instead of using wiki....see if you can search out scholarly articles or even Vedantic commentaries that expound on this topic. That's the best and most fruitful way.
The 'I' that Ramana spoke of is not your normal 'I'. Remove mind, ego, body, thoughts, and any other shells you can think of, and then there is 'essence'. That is the 'I' Ramana is referring to, and that 'I' is not different to that 'I' in all the rest of us. But this is extremely esoteric and inner.
Jaskaran Singh
Divosūnupriyaḥ
I'm not an advaitin (so I don't know if I should respond to this post, as my view of "one" jīva/soul theory likely differs from the Advaitic view), but I can still give you the view of the matter in regards to my sampradāya. In the Vedāntapārijātasaurabham and Vedāntakaustubham (specifically, in their commentary on Brahmasūtra 3.2.37) Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa take the view that we cannot exist with our antaryāmī, but that our antaryāmī most certainly exists independently of us; our śarīra may be illusionary, but our "separation" cannot be viewed as an illusion (unless one takes the view that the jīva-s that were always in saṃsāra were manifested forth by manifested forth by māyā-prakṛti, which would make one a śūnyatāvādī
. We can become similar to bhagavān, but we cannot attain mokṣa independent of his mercy for he is the cause of all causes, as is stated in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad (sa kāraṇaṁ karaṇādhipādhipō); furthermore, like prāṇa, the existence of brahman from our perception is subtle, hence why the Muṇḍakopaniṣad states: "nityaṃ vibhuṃ sarvagataṃ susūkṣmaṃ tadavyayaṃ yadbhūtayoniṃ paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ." Without him, we are eternally bound in saṃsāra, just as the the air becomes the sky, mist, cloud rain, etc. (ākāśam ākāśādvāyum vāyurbhūtvā dhūmo bhavanti dhūmo bhūtvābhraṃ bhavanti abhraṃ bhūtvā megho bhavanti megho bhūtvā pravarṣanti). One can reach the world of the moon through one's nitya karmāṇi/fruitive activities (sa hovāca ye vai ke cāsmāllokātprayanti candramasameva te sarve gacchanti), but only through kṛpā can mokṣa be achieved; merely "realizing" non-difference with brahman does not liberate an individual, just like how one's perception does not influence whether bhagavān's existence.
I wouldn't know why anyone would want bhagavān not to exist, though. How could you say no to little naṭkhaṭ Gopāl:
ya eṣa supteṣu jāgarti kāmaṃ kāmaṃ puruṣo nirmimāṇas|
tadeva śukraṃ tadbrahma tadevāmṛtamucyate|
tasmiṃllokāḥ śritāḥ sarve|
tadu nātyeti kaścana|
etad vai tat||2.2.8||
. We can become similar to bhagavān, but we cannot attain mokṣa independent of his mercy for he is the cause of all causes, as is stated in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad (sa kāraṇaṁ karaṇādhipādhipō); furthermore, like prāṇa, the existence of brahman from our perception is subtle, hence why the Muṇḍakopaniṣad states: "nityaṃ vibhuṃ sarvagataṃ susūkṣmaṃ tadavyayaṃ yadbhūtayoniṃ paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ." Without him, we are eternally bound in saṃsāra, just as the the air becomes the sky, mist, cloud rain, etc. (ākāśam ākāśādvāyum vāyurbhūtvā dhūmo bhavanti dhūmo bhūtvābhraṃ bhavanti abhraṃ bhūtvā megho bhavanti megho bhūtvā pravarṣanti). One can reach the world of the moon through one's nitya karmāṇi/fruitive activities (sa hovāca ye vai ke cāsmāllokātprayanti candramasameva te sarve gacchanti), but only through kṛpā can mokṣa be achieved; merely "realizing" non-difference with brahman does not liberate an individual, just like how one's perception does not influence whether bhagavān's existence. I wouldn't know why anyone would want bhagavān not to exist, though. How could you say no to little naṭkhaṭ Gopāl:
ya eṣa supteṣu jāgarti kāmaṃ kāmaṃ puruṣo nirmimāṇas|
tadeva śukraṃ tadbrahma tadevāmṛtamucyate|
tasmiṃllokāḥ śritāḥ sarve|
tadu nātyeti kaścana|
etad vai tat||2.2.8||
Actually, it means "that you are" (tvaṃ means you).
Last edited:
Rohit Adhikarla
Member
Same as absolute non-duality.Brahma-vada of Sri Sankara.Sri Ramana also gave expression to this philosophy.
Maya3
Well-Known Member
I'm not an advaitin (so I don't know if I should respond to this post, as my view of "one" jīva/soul theory likely differs from the Advaitic view), but I can still give you the view of the matter in regards to my sampradāya. In the Vedāntapārijātasaurabham and Vedāntakaustubham (specifically, in their commentary on Brahmasūtra 3.2.37) Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa take the view that we cannot exist with our antaryāmī, but that our antaryāmī most certainly exists independently of us; our śarīra may be illusionary, but our "separation" cannot be viewed as an illusion (unless one takes the view that the jīva-s that were always in saṃsāra were manifested forth by manifested forth by māyā-prakṛti, which would make one a śūnyatāvādī
I wouldn't know why anyone would want bhagavān not to exist, though. How could you say no to little naṭkhaṭ Gopāl:
ya eṣa supteṣu jāgarti kāmaṃ kāmaṃ puruṣo nirmimāṇas|
tadeva śukraṃ tadbrahma tadevāmṛtamucyate|
tasmiṃllokāḥ śritāḥ sarve|
tadu nātyeti kaścana|
etad vai tat||2.2.8||
Actually, it means "that you are" (tvaṃ means you).
Oh that is true, you are right!
Maya
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Even if one denies Gods/Goddesses, denying Natakhat Gopal or Rama who walks with bells on his ankles (ठुमक चलत रामचन्द्र
, is very difficult. They are beautiful evocative stories/songs of our culture.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"But the world is felt and seen not only by me, but by so many others. We cannot call such a world non-existent.' Literally, drishti-srishti means that the world only exists when it is perceived.
He summarized the difference between the jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is unreal if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in the Self.
Literally, drishti-srishti means that the world only exists when it is perceived whereas srishti-drishti means that the world existed prior to anyone's perception of it. Although the former theory sounds perverse, Sri Ramana insisted that serious seekers should be satisfied with it, partly because it is a close approximation to the truth and partly because it is the most beneficial attitude to adopt if one is seriously interested in realizing the Self."
Comments: That reminds me of a line in Nasadiya Sukta (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm):
"सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ||"
"Sato bandhumasati nirvindan hridi paratīshyākavayo manīshā ||
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
What is the difference between existence and non-existence. And what if the universe arose out of nothing as many scientists believe now? There must be a Self even in non-existence.
He summarized the difference between the jnani's and the ajnani's standpoint by saying that the world is unreal if it is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in the Self.
Literally, drishti-srishti means that the world only exists when it is perceived whereas srishti-drishti means that the world existed prior to anyone's perception of it. Although the former theory sounds perverse, Sri Ramana insisted that serious seekers should be satisfied with it, partly because it is a close approximation to the truth and partly because it is the most beneficial attitude to adopt if one is seriously interested in realizing the Self."
Comments: That reminds me of a line in Nasadiya Sukta (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm):
"सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ||"
"Sato bandhumasati nirvindan hridi paratīshyākavayo manīshā ||
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
What is the difference between existence and non-existence. And what if the universe arose out of nothing as many scientists believe now? There must be a Self even in non-existence.
Last edited:
Maya3
Well-Known Member
Even if one denies Gods/Goddesses, denying Natakhat Gopal or Rama who walks with bells on his ankles (ठुमक चलत रामचन्द्र
In my opinion there is no need to deny them. You can use them as tools for focus or to get into the right mood for meditation.
Maya
Dear Jaskaran,
Thank You for that Little Kānhū on this threaḍ . Yes, it is funny to think of non-existence of kṛṣṇa, the Very One who alone exists
Kanhaiyā is vāsudev, One Who has vās everywhere i.e. the all-pervading vishṇū.
To answer the question in OP: Yes, it is advaita, One Being, One Consciousness, and that is Vāsudev, Your True Self. The bhagvad gītā is evidence for that - kṛṣṇa' s own words .
vāsudevaparā vedā vāsudevaparā makhāh: |
vāsudevaparā yogā vāsudevaparāh: kriyāh: ||
vāsudevaparam jñānam vāsudevaparam tapah: |
vāsudevaparo dharmo vāsudevaparā gatih: ||
-- shrimad bhāgvat 1.2.28,29
om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
Thank You for that Little Kānhū on this threaḍ . Yes, it is funny to think of non-existence of kṛṣṇa, the Very One who alone exists
Kanhaiyā is vāsudev, One Who has vās everywhere i.e. the all-pervading vishṇū.
To answer the question in OP: Yes, it is advaita, One Being, One Consciousness, and that is Vāsudev, Your True Self. The bhagvad gītā is evidence for that - kṛṣṇa' s own words .
vāsudevaparā vedā vāsudevaparā makhāh: |
vāsudevaparā yogā vāsudevaparāh: kriyāh: ||
vāsudevaparam jñānam vāsudevaparam tapah: |
vāsudevaparo dharmo vāsudevaparā gatih: ||
-- shrimad bhāgvat 1.2.28,29
om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
Last edited:
bhootarajaru
Member
When one dies his perception of the world dies with him to.Does this mean the non-existence of the world.
Or is the non-existence of the world applicable to the dead person only.
Either of the options doesn't give the correct answer. I can't see north pole from here this statement (doesn't prove the non-existence of north pole,it just points out your or my inability to not see the north pole)doesn't mean that north poles doesn't exist at all!!!!!!!!
Nicely said.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The quote in your post was from Ramana Maharshi. My post was my view about it under comments.
No, it does not mean non-existence of the world. World existed even when humans were not there. Yes, when a person dies, his perception of the world also dies. Nothing can be applied to a person who has died, who has ceased to exist. What constituted the person will disintegrate and join millions of things, living and non-living.
Last edited:
That again is anirvachaniya. Who will confirm the existence of world to a non-existent person?
What we see as existent person, is view of a living being. All witnesses are also existent in the same view. In truth there is no third party witness to any one's observation.
One's observation of an event and a third witness certifying that event are both in single awareness of oneself. There is no objective third witness that can ever be proven.
(However that single awareness is not localised individual awareness.)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
But that does not stop people from writing volumes about death and rebirth, heaven and hell, reward and punishment.
But that does not stop people from writing volumes about death and rebirth, heaven and hell, reward and punishment.
Of course. Since you yet do not know the Seer. Else you would not equate the Seer/Seeing with measurable physical energy.
Aup., does it ever occur to you that you could be wrong on at least some accounts and does it not occur to you that you are clinging fast to your beliefs? I think that you probably find it difficult to simply say "OK. My view on Brahman does not match with the scriptural teaching."
I wish that you will re-evaluate your beliefs.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Atanu, I am constantly searching/watching both streams, science as well as spirituality. That is the reason I visit religious forums. The day I find that my views do not represent the truth, I will change them forthwith. As for scriptures, if they say various things, what am I to do? I, perforce, have to side with one view. At the moment I do not see any reason to change them.