That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Atanu please define your terms and explain what you think all this about illusion has to do with the subject of the thread.
thanks,
Raghu
Namaste devotee,
The basic premise of your thinking is that life is an illusion. Such a position is not logically sound. If everything we experience is illusion, then this renders pointless any attempt to postulate anything about reality, since even these attempts are also illusion!
Furthermore, there is nothing about illusion that points to homogenous, unvariegated reality. Just as the illusion of water presupposes real water somewhere, the illusion of variety presupposes that variety may also be inherent in reality.
Vishnu and Shiva are not illusions. The scriptures treat them as real and distinct beings. Merely postulating without evidence that (1) they are both different forms of One Reality because (2) everything we experience is illusion - does not flow logically.
regards,
Raghu
Namaste Raghu,
I have gone at length to explain Illusion & how it clouds the reality. How is it related with this thread ? Seeing Lord Shiva as a finite entity with some shape , size & features is illusion. Seeing Lord Vishnu with some special features & finite enough to be comprehended by our mind & senses is illusion. seeing Lord Shiva & Lord Vishnu as two different entities is illusion.
Anyway, I don't think you want to listen anything which doesn't conform to your views. So, please forget my all posts in this thread.
OM
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
Namaste devotee,
Please note that I am merely examining the soundness of your views. I am not one to merely accept a position simply because someone else says so. If it bothers you that I wish to politely scrutinize your logic, you are certainly welcome to withdraw.
Now regarding your points...
And as I have explained, your concept of illusion is in error. Specifically, you are confusing incorrect deduction with illusion, and this is the main problem with your reasoning. I hope you will go back and reexamine your thinking with this in mind.
Again, as stated previously, the entities known as "Vishnu" and "Shiva" are not manifest to our senses as for example, the sky or the sun are. When something can be perceived by the gross senses, then we can experience it and make some deductions about it. For example, seeing that the sun is bright and its light gives warmth, one can conclude that the sun is very hot.How is it related with this thread ? Seeing Lord Shiva as a finite entity with some shape , size & features is illusion. Seeing Lord Vishnu with some special features & finite enough to be comprehended by our mind & senses is illusion. seeing Lord Shiva & Lord Vishnu as two different entities is illusion.
However, one cannot make any reasonable deductions about the nature of Vishnu or Shiva because these entities are not manifest to the gross senses for us. Therefore, we can only know about them from the shAstras. Accepting whatever description is given about them from apaurusheya-shAstras is not illusion, unless you wish to claim that the shAstras are affected by illusion (in that case why bother with them?).
Now as far as the shAstras are concerned, it is very clear that they depict Vishnu and Shiva as two different entities. If you say that this description of them as two different entities is illusory, then you are in effect saying that the shAstras tell falsehoods.
If shAstras tell falsehoods, then all question of religion becomes subjective. The entire discussion degenerates into meaningless moral relativism since no position can be established with certainty. Such a philosophy which has no grounding in an authoritative source of knowledge does not benefit anyone.
regards,
Raghu
Namaste Raghu,
You have used these terms :
1. "Internally inconsistent" ---> Please let me know what you find Internally inconsistent" in my views. I would like to hear your views here.
2. "Self-Contradictory" - What is self-contradictory in what I posted ?
But you must understand that your understanding of the terms "real"/"unreal" are within mental realms which cannot describe what Brahman is. That is why it is neither called "real" nor "unreal". Please refer B.G. where Lord Krishna says , "Nasat Naasaduchyate". So, if IT is Real it doesn't mean it is not-unreal. The same Brahman appears as real or unreal.Something is either real or it is it not real. It cannot be both real and not real.
That shows you are giving a new definition to the word, "Illusion". Can you explain what you understand by the term, "Illusion" & how this illusion finds its place in the Reality, "What Is" ?Misunderstanding the reality of something does not mean that our perceptions are illusion. However, our conclusions based on perception may or may not be correct. Now regarding your example:
THis is not a good example to illustrate your position, because the incorrect understanding of the cup has nothing to do with illusion nor with illusory perception.
I hope we should both rely on the same Shastras for deciding the final authority. If you take Vishnu Mahapuran then Vishnu is considered the Supreme Godhead, if you consider Shiv Purana then Shiva is the Supreme, if you consider Devi Bhagwat then Mother Goddess is considered superior to all gods. Which scripture shall you take as the "pramana" ?However, all of this is besides the point, because our knowledge of Vishnu and Shiva comes not from sensory perception nor from logical deduction but rather from shaastra. Shaastras are shabda-pramaana and different from pratyaksha or anumaan (perception and deduction). Thus if shaastras say that Vishnu and Shiva are different, then this is the testimony of shaastra and not based on our limited or supposedly illusory perception.
In Hinduism, the Shrutis are considered the highest authority & Shrutis are the Vedas including more than 200 Upanishads. Shruti unequivocally proclaim that : "Eko Brahman Dwitiyo nasti", "Brahman is what appears as everything in the four states - "Visva, Taijsa", "Pragyan" & "Turiya". It also states that the God-state of Brahman is the state of deep sleep without dream ( & you are free to call this state as "Vishnu", Shiva", "Mother Goddess" or whatever).
The Brahman is said to be the One Without a Second in the Shrutis.Where is any scope for two - Forget about two "Gods" !
OM
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
Not keen, since you do not acknowledge that I merely replied to your statement, which contains the definition you are seeking, as shown below:
BY atanu
My rejoinder was to your assertion: "Furthermore, there is nothing about illusion that points to homogenous, unvariegated reality".
If you forget your statement and claim: "I am still not clear on what any of this has to do with the subject", what can I do?
Thanks.
Last edited by atanu; 16 May 2009 at 04:09 PM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
It is inconsistent and self-contradictory to assert that something is both real and not real.
Your philosophy's problem (among others), is the tendency to needlessly confuse simple concepts which further confounds any attempt to explain things clearly. There is no need to assert that categories like "real" and "not real" cannot be understood. If you cannot accept that something is real, then you cannot make any statement about anything.But you must understand that your understanding of the terms "real"/"unreal" are within mental realms which cannot describe what Brahman is.
Please quote the BG verse numbers you are referring to.That is why it is neither called "real" nor "unreal". Please refer B.G. where Lord Krishna says , "Nasat Naasaduchyate". So, if IT is Real it doesn't mean it is not-unreal. The same Brahman appears as real or unreal.
Since we are talking about English words, how about quoting from a standard dictionary?That shows you are giving a new definition to the word, "Illusion". Can you explain what you understand by the term, "Illusion" & how this illusion finds its place in the Reality, "What Is" ?
il⋅lu⋅sion AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FI00%2FI0045000.mp3"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write(); /ɪˈluʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1.something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
By this definition, the world is not an illusion. The world is real.
I am glad to see that you are prepared to accept shruti as the highest authority. Now, let us discuss that. First, if Brahman is "one without a second" then that means no one else is on the same level as Brahman. It does not mean that there is no one else at all - just that no one else exists who is equal to Brahman. Obviously we all exist, as we are here talking about Brahman.In Hinduism, the Shrutis are considered the highest authority & Shrutis are the Vedas including more than 200 Upanishads. Shruti unequivocally proclaim that : "Eko Brahman Dwitiyo nasti", "Brahman is what appears as everything in the four states - "Visva, Taijsa", "Pragyan" & "Turiya". It also states that the God-state of Brahman is the state of deep sleep without dream ( & you are free to call this state as "Vishnu", Shiva", "Mother Goddess" or whatever).
The Brahman is said to be the One Without a Second in the Shrutis.Where is any scope for two - Forget about two "Gods" !
Therefore, Vishnu and Shiva are not two Supreme Gods. There can only be one Supreme God. Which one of these is the Supreme God/Brahman should be understood from shruti - as you yourself have just stated that shruti is the highest authority. Whoever is the Supreme Brahman is certainly "one without a second." This means any other deity, while certainly powerful or respectable in his own right, cannot be on the same level as that Supreme Brahman.
You cannot argue that all deities mentioned in the Vedas are the Supreme Brahman, because you have just admitted that Brahman is "One without a second." So no question of two Supreme Gods or many Supreme Gods. Nor can you argue that all deities mentioned in the Vedas are the same God, because we repeatedly see that these different deities are depicted as different individuals. For example, the statement:viṣṇoḥ karmāṇi paśyata yato vratāni paspaśe |indrasya yujyaḥ sakhā ||Look ye on Viṣṇu's works, whereby the Friend of Indra, close-allied,Hath let his holy ways be seen. (Rig Veda 1.22.19)...only makes sense if the "Vishnu" and "Indra" spoken of in this mantra are two different individuals. Obviously, it would make no sense to speak of Vishnu, the Friend of Himself, now would it?
Therefore, whether Vishnu is the Supreme God, or Shiva is the Supreme God, or someone else is the Supreme God - this has to be known from shruti. Illusion has nothing to do with it.
It is sad to see this kind of question being posed - for Hindus they are both one and the same. God cannot be found in books, she lives in our heart and minds. If there is a supreme being, one who created this huge limitless universe, how can there be more than one. There is only one God, we each call her by different names.
Those who insist on using just their name are idolators in my opinion. According to the pope God cannot be a woman, so if God shows up in the form of a woman before him, the pope would kick her out. They have this image of jesus, blond and blue-eyed. What if in reality he looked like an Arab, after all palestine is arabland. The christians would refuse to accept an arab looking christ as God. That is what idolatry is all about.
There is no higher or lower God, just different names. That is the essence of Hinduism.
Pamalochana was a devotee of Sri Ramakrishna.
Padmalochana shared an interesting incident with the master. Once he was approached by some people who claimed to know who was greater between the two deities, Shiva and Brahma. Padmalochana was asked whether he also knew or not? Padmalochana answered that he nor his ancestors dating back to the fourteenth century had ever seen Shiva or Brahma!
Om
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
In the Bhagavad Gita,Arjuna asks Lord Krishna what is his different manifestations,so he can remember him:
Chapter 10, Verse 16.
Please tell me in detail of Your divine powers by which You pervade all these worlds and abide in them.
Chapter 10, Verse 17.
How should I meditate on You? In what various forms are You to be contemplated, O Blessed Lord?
and one of Lord Krishna's answer is:
Chapter 10, Verse 23.
Of all the Rudras I am Lord Siva; of the Yaksas and Raksasas I am the Lord of wealth [Kuvera]; of the Vasus I am fire [Agni], and of mountains I am Meru.
So being a devotee to Lord Krishna and worshiping Lord Shiva is no problem,Lord Krishna manifested as Lord Shiva,so that Lord Shiva can be an example to us all on how to be a perfect devotee of Lord Krishna.Lord Shiva is the Adi Yogi,which means in Sanskrit,that he is the first Yogi,Lord Krishna/Vishnu manifested as Lord Shiva,so Lord Shiva can be an example and a guide to mankind,Who you think Lord Shiva is always meditating to?He is always meditating and chanting to Lord Krishna/Vishnu,Lord Shiva himself said this to Maha Pavitri.The so called Hare Krishnas(ISKCON) and the Shaivas will disagree with this view,but they are incorrect in not allowing worship to Lord Shiva or Lord Krishna,respectively.This battle between Vaishnavas and Shaivas on who is supreme, is nonsense.
As Rig Veda 1.164.46c says,"Truth is one, the wise call it by many names"
Lord Krishna's Vishvarupa form:
Last edited by Mantravid; 14 August 2009 at 04:58 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks